Well, here’s an unexpected update to https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/…/dissentingclergy-mig…/
Many of the “blocked” have found themselves “unblocked” by Fr. James Martin, SJ. I kind of thought I’d see the “haters” comment deleted but it’s still there.
Did find this clarification though:
I suppose ad hominem, hate and spite are pretty subjective. That said, I’m not really sure how “haters” doesn’t fall into one of those categories. His internal forum maybe? #colorthathypocritical
Well, here’s an unexpected update to https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/…/dissentingclergy-mig…/
Holy moley! I am a Facebook gal through and through, but Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB, Fr. James Martin, SJ, and their buddies are having a complete meltdown over on Twitter. They’re blocking people from their Twitter pages left and right, and I cannot help but be entertained by the comebacks from the faithful. It’s absolutely hysterical! I’m sure, at some point, these priests wished for a plethora of followers on Twitter. I’m thinking “not so much” now.
It’s like these priests aren’t quite used to social media yet. As a matter of fact, I think they’re darn shocked by it. All of these years they’ve been able to free range, but now the laity aren’t taking it anymore. They’re proudly sporting hashtags like #JamesMartinSJBlockParty and #RosicaBlockParty. It’s not just the laity either; it’s diocesan priests and priests of various orders, too. If you are on Twitter, it really doesn’t take much to join the block party. With one tweet you can likely qualify to use the same hashtags, and you’d be in some darn interesting company. Just to make it a little easier to join the club: @JamesMartinSJ, @FatherRosica, and let’s throw in @ArchbishopBlase for good measure (No surname there. Isn’t he cool? I’ll get to him in a minute. )
What sparked Fr. Martin banning everyone under the sun? He wasn’t too happy about the response to this tweet:
Haters? Are you 15, Fr. Martin? Anyone notice the irony of calling faithful Catholics “haters”, talking about mercy, and then turning around and blocking all those “haters?” Where’s the mercy for them? Oh, yeah, they don’t deserve mercy, since they aren’t cheerleaders for sacrilege against the Eucharist and making people comfy with their sins. Now, I really don’t care if someone wants to give me a derogatory label, although it might be nice if it was something appropriate for their advanced years. For instance, I would say he’s a hypocrite. What annoys me is the actual hypocrisy of blocking people who disagree with one’s definition of “mercy.”
Then there’s Fr. Rosica. I find it hard to believe he’s taking a “block everyone” posture after the debacle earlier this year when he threatened to sue a blogger (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholics-shouldnt-sue-one-another-cardinal-burke-comments-on-fr.-rosicas-l). The beauty of this day and age is that nobody gets to hide in their ivory towers anymore. If you’re going to throw down on Twitter, you’d better be ready to deal with the consequences of Facebook people posting, tweeters tweeting, and bloggers blogging about it. Blocking people isn’t going to do diddley. Threatening to sue a blogger with whom you didn’t agree is going to do even less, as Fr. Rosica found out. It just screams for about 3,000 more blog posts and tweets to follow. Quite frankly, blocking is akin to throwing a huge temper tantrum and I have zero hesitation telling you so. The only time someone gets blocked on my social media outlets is for profane or pornographic posts. I actually welcome conversation from people who may disagree, even if they strongly disagree.
Now, I don’t know if Archbishop Cupich has been blocking people, but late last week, he got quite the lesson in asking silly little questions on Twitter:
Exactly what did he think the response to that question would be? Actually, I’m reasonably sure that he didn’t think before tweeting that. Let me tell you, it wasn’t pretty! My response would have been “A world where our cardinals, bishops, and priests make it their goal to help everyone attain heaven!” How about, “A world where our bishops stop trying to put abortion and euthanasia on the same plane as poverty and war?” Or “A world where our bishops don’t encourage same-sex marriage with ambiguous teachings?” Yeah, you see where that thread probably went. People answered that one pretty honestly, I’d have to say. I’m pretty sure he thought it rhetorical.
Oh, one last thing for Fr. Martin (and Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ, who decided to retweet the divisive tweet below). Take your pandering to women elsewhere. It’s a load of hooey. (Twitter strikes again. Should have blocked us all from America Magazine, too.)
I’m pretty sure you figured out I can defend myself, father. I don’t need you urging us to misandry (aka hatred of men) when it comes to our clergy. You can scream sexism and misogyny all you want, but you’re the one who just blocked a whole lot of women from your Twitter page. What? We were overlooked by the synod, but our voices can’t possibly be heard by you and your posse on Twitter? Peddle it somewhere else. I’m pretty sure you were the one who labeled those women you blocked as “haters.” We won’t be used as your pawn for the division you like to sow.
Listen, we’re never going to have a chat on the phone. We won’t get together for coffee. You will, however, hear from me and thousands of others like me. Why? Because your tweets, Facebook pages, articles, and publications have encroached on the world where my husband and I live with our kids. You don’t get to muddy their path to Heaven with your, to be blunt, garbage. We already have to protect them from the murkiness your kindred spirits sowed before and after Humanae Vitae. You’re not going to get away with this quite so easily anymore.
So gentlemen, if you’re going to decide to come down here with us common folk on social media, you’d better put on your big boy pants and realize there’s these things called “screen shots.” Throwing temper tantrums while using hipster lingo is doing nothing to make us take you seriously. What’s the phrase? It’s like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Clearly blocking people is doing nothing. Instead, bring on the dialogue and transparency that you tout only when it suits you, oh, hypocritical ones! As I’ve said before, #meetthelaity!
Here’s an important little lesson that apparently was rarely taught in the Catholic schools around these San Francisco Bay Area (or maybe it was taught in a purposely twisted manner): https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/video-cardinal-arinze-rejects-effort-at-synod-to-excuse-objectively-evil-ac
Well, this a tad bit awkward for the San Francisco liberals. Somebody just told them they were way off base with that new “primacy of conscience” argument they’ve been trying to float this past year. Heck, it was a complete smack down of their feeble attempt.
Most recently, it was Archbishop Cupich trying this argument, but San Francisco is always ahead of the curve in the dissent game. Here we find Father Jack McClure floating the same argument almost a whole month earlier:
“I feel bad about this. I feel bad for the parish. I feel bad about this silencing,” said McClure. “But I want to make it known I appreciate the generosity Archbishop Cordileone has shown me and my religious community for allowing us to serve in his archdiocese. However, in conscience I needed to break my silence.” https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/martyrdom-doesnt-become-you-or-you-aint-a-martyr/
Some of the “Concerned Parents” also gave it a stab way back in May. I really don’t hold them totally responsible, because I suspect there are some good old (and I do mean old) Jesuits from USF trying to coach them.
Parents and teachers noted that the Archbishop has many platforms from which to educate faculty, students, parents and other members of the school community regarding his interpretations of Church theology, other than an employee handbook. Serra High School parent Lynn Schuette said, “While the Archbishop’s ‘short compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church’ may be appropriate for a religious treatise, it is not acceptable for a faculty handbook. His selective list of Catholic catechism fails to reflect a fuller understanding of the Catholic tradition, let alone the centrality of the primacy of conscience and the “sense of the faithful.” https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/the-archbishop-vs-the-red-herrings/
Yeah, Lynn, it’s the Archbishop who doesn’t understand “Primacy of Conscience”. I guess Cardinal Arinze doesn’t either. (Insert your favorite eye-rolling emoticon here.)
On the contrary, ladies and gents, the term “good conscience” kind of means you need to actually have a good conscience! There’s a shocker! What it doesn’t mean is “because my poorly formed conscience says it’s fine and dandy!”
Dear liberals, please note Cardinal Arinze’s correction of your misconception or falsehood. I’m not exactly sure which it is.
“Conscience, according to Catholic teaching, is the dictate — immediate — of what is to be done or not to be done. Conscience directs the individual. Nevertheless, conscience has to be educated to see the ways of God, the Commandments of God, as authentically interpreted by the Church, which means conscience has to be educated, has to be trained,” he said.
Arinze went on to quote portions from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that deals with conscience and to provide commentary on what the passages mean.
CCC Paragraph 1790: “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”
Arinze: “Which means, conscience does not make objective right and wrong, but only directs the person in what the person should do or not do. That conscience has to be educated, trained, if you wish,” he said.
CCC Paragraph 1791: “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.’ In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.”
Arinze: “That means it isn’t enough that conscience says, ‘I can do this’ if that conscience has been made blind by repeated acts that are evil. Then the person is responsible for that erroneous conscience. That is also clear,” he said.
CCC Paragraph 1792: “Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”
Arinze: “You can see then, if a person is always stealing, if a person is always telling lies, if a person is always committing acts against chastity, the person may begin to get accustomed to such acts and no longer call them by their names. But a priest or bishop has to help them, to call good ‘good’ and evil ‘evil.’ Which means, although conscience should be followed, conscience should be educated,” he said.
Arinze said that there are “objective norms of right and wrong,” no matter what the personal conscience may dictate to an individual.”
Wait, what?! I’m sure liberals all over the Bay Area and the U.S. are smacking themselves in the forehead right now! There’s lots of good stuff in this interview, and I hope you all keep it bookmarked for future reference, because the dissenting folks are hardly going to stop using their highly delusional argument. I’m also reasonably sure everyone from Archbishop Cupich down to the misled high school students railing against Archbishop Cordileone are going to cling to it regardless of the fact it’s been shot down with a Patriot missile.
Speaking of Patriot missiles, this is hardly rocket science. It’s written very plainly in the Catechism. It’s Catholic 101. Please, just crack the cover every once in a while. You don’t even have to buy it! http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Too bad many in the clergy don’t recognize Cardinal Arinze’s explanation of true mercy. This is really the remedy for most problems that plague us:
“Now, the best way we can help a person is with truth. So, it will be necessary in some charitable way, nice way, to help such people to realize their condition. It is not enough to leave them with their conscience,” he said.
The cardinal used the analogy of a medical doctor aiding a wounded patient to make his point.
“A good doctor who receives a patient with a big wound, a sore, knows what is to be done. Maybe clean some parts. Maybe some injections. Maybe medicines are to be administered.”
“But if the doctor says, ‘the patient says he doesn’t like these measures, he’s happier with a bandage’ and gets a nice bandage and bandages the wound, is he a good doctor? Does the wound get healed because the patient’s conscience tells him that this is the nicest way to approach it?
“You see, reality does not respect what [a person and his conscience] thinks. So the doctor should treat that wound with the best medical science.”
“That’s the way the doctor will show mercy to the patient,” he said.
Amen and thank you Cardinal Arinze!
Twitter. I’m on Facebook and WordPress, and don’t take Google Plus seriously, but Twitter has always been a bit difficult for me. I mean, it’s really hard to be sarcastic in 140 characters or less. It, normally, just doesn’t do it justice. Trying to emulate all the blogging greats, however, I sucked it up and started a Twitter account. Since WordPress and Facebook have taken off on their own, I turned my attention to Twitter and found a bunch of great folks who manage to combine sarcasm and truth in a nice, concise 140 characters. Here’s hoping to learn from them!
I’m pretty sure everyone knows that there’s this little thing called a synod going on right now and that we’re in the final week (thank heavens!). Anyone who has read this blog knows I’m mildly annoyed with Cardinal Kasper, the Germans, and America’s own Archbishop Cupich, mainly over the chaos they’ve created about Communion for the divorced and “remarried.” Rather than spending page upon page to sum up why they’ll never get their way, no matter how much confusion they try to sow, this tweet does it nicely, and in fewer than 140 characters!
Bam! Thank you, Ryan! How is that for succinct??? Allowing the supposed super narrow admittance of those committing adultery to receive Holy Communion (what the liberals say they are peddling) or the wholesale reception of Communion for these adulterers (what the liberals are actually trying to get in the end), it all really comes down to this tweet. The idea is an affront to the Eucharist, an affront to the Sacrament of Confession, and an affront to mercy.
Why are these misguided clergy looking for a loophole and not looking for a better way to teach people about God’s true mercy? That is what’s really missing. Doubling down on sin isn’t going to help. They can’t just keep telling the child, “Go ahead! Touch the hot burner. You won’t get hurt!”, although I’m sure some will try. Bottom line, it is eventually going to cause permanent damage.
Where would Kasper and his ilk like to go next? Making sure everyone’s marriage can easily be invalidated? Forget “adjusting” the Sacrament of Confession! The marriage rite could go something like this:
Let’s just skip the intentions part so nobody knows you had any!
I, N., take you, N. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life unless you break your vow, abuse me, get sick or it’s not just not working for me anymore.
Heck, this would really streamline the annulment process. No more pesky valid, indissoluble marriages. In fact, let’s just eliminate any Church teaching that makes life hard. Forget that whole cross thing. Redemptive suffering? Meh. Yeah, there’s some mercy for you!
For all those who tweet, thanks to @RyanFitz1111 for letting me share. Follow him or follow the less Twitter skilled me at @OneMadMomBlog.
You knew we were going to hear from Archbishop Cupich sooner or later. Silence from him would just a little too good to be true. To the rest of the countries out there seething right now, please note the Archbishop’s quote that the Church in America didn’t pick him to go. It’s not our fault. We tried to send a really great guy but he got left off the list.
I’m not going to say too much on this because, well, it’s too depressing. Lifesite did a great job presenting accurate Church teaching. I would like to address this quote though.
I think that gay people are human beings too and they have a conscience. And my role as a pastor is to help them to discern what the will of God is by looking at the objective moral teaching of the Church and yet, at the same time, helping them through a period of discernment to understand what God is calling them to at that point,” he said. “It’s for everybody. I think that we have to make sure that we don’t pigeonhole one group as though they are not part of the human family, as though there’s a different set of rules for them. That would be a big mistake.
There is really no “yet” Archbishop Cupich. God is calling them to follow the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. Simple as that. That is what’s for everybody.
I will shock and amaze my readers and say that I agree that we shouldn’t pigeonhole one group. THIS IS WHY COMMUNION FOR ACTIVE HOMOSEXUALS AND THE DIVORCED AND “REMARRIED” SHOULD HAVE NEVER ENTERED INTO THE SYNOD IN THE FIRST PLACE! We were going along merrily using the time-honored teaching of not approaching the Most Holy Eucharist with mortal sin just fine. Kaspar and crew (including America’s own Blaise Cupich) are the ones who decided to pigeonhole these two groups as “special sinners” who should be given a pass. Heck, why aren’t we just giving everyone Communion. Murderers? Fine. Ooh, and how about people who kill people with mean old guns? I mean, really, how could you deny that Archbishop Cupich? I mean, after all, their consciences are inviolable too.
Time to face it. While the faithful are quite happy to keep the teaching that, if any of us commit a moral sin, we must go to confession with right intention to receive Our Lord’s Body and Blood again. The liberals? They just want a special pass for those with their pet sins. I’m reasonably sure that the same suggestions for “Freedom of Communion” are not going to be applied to crony capitalists bilking the little guy or someone who kills someone with a gun. For them, a contrite confession with the resolve to sin no more will be required. No ifs, ands, or buts. For anyone committing a socially liberal sin, well, those people are special. The catholic politician advocating for abortion? They have “primacy of conscience” don’t you know! Gag!
Do Kaspar, Cupich and their ilk think they’re helping these people and their immortal souls? All they are doing is trying to make people feel comfy with their sins. “Go and sin no more!” is not going fall off of their tongues. It’s more like “Go and sin if your poorly formed conscience makes you feel good!”
Again, people, it’s the Year of Mercy. Can we stop telling Catholics that sinning is peachy and get them to really avail themselves of God’s true mercy instead of this “I’m OK, you’re OK” fantasy some of you are peddling? We need to hear that we are sinners. We need to hear that our earthly life is short and we need to really be contrite so we can gain everlasting life with Our Lord.
This whole chapter seems applicable but especially this:
13 Make your way in by the narrow gate. It is a broad gate and a wide road that leads on to perdition, and those who go in that way are many indeed; 14 but how small is the gate, how narrow the road that leads on to life, and how few there are that find it! http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat007.htm
Please show some true mercy and point people to the small gate, gentlemen!
The Synod. So much swirling around it. There’s no way I’m really ever going to compete with the on-the-ground coverage and leaks coming out of it, but I’d like to offer my own very simple thoughts.
We’ve heard endless commentary of divorce, homosexuality, etc. but it really seems like something simple has been completely ignored. It would be a sacrilege for a divorced person now cohabitating with someone who is not really their spouse to receive Communion. It would be yet another sacrilege for a homosexual engaging in homosexual practices to receive Our Lord in Communion. Easy. Why this is seemingly being complicated to the hilt is beyond me. Well, I guess not so beyond me. It’s Satan.
Here’s the ABC…
A)Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM
1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
B) 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.177 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P87.HTM
C) 1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us – that is, charity – necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
So, you knew “Easy as 1, 2, 3” was coming, right?
1) People in mortal sin should not receive Communion.
2) People who “remarry” after divorce are committing adultery
3) Adultery is a mortal sin.
Inevitably somebody is going to say you have to know it’s a sin so I’ll just get that part out of the way now.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#IV
Now, as I’ve pointed out before, there’s a new little movement that’s trying to claim “primacy of conscience” without knowing what the heck that means. Primacy of Conscience is based on a rightly formed conscience. That’s part of the deal. It doesn’t mean “Well, the Church tells me it’s a sin, but my conscience doesn’t really make me feel like it is.” Uh-uh. Nice try.
I. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
– One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
– the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”56
– charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”57 Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”58
(Having someone commit adultery with you might be making your brother (or sister) stumble – big time! Then there’s the scandal…)
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
In short, it really doesn’t matter how you feel or if you feel that the Church is wrong in her doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. If you are divorced and remarried (and not living under a rock), you are aware of what the Church teaches about divorce, “remarriage”, and the Eucharist. You may not like it. It may make you sad, but it is adultery no matter how you spin it. I’m really not trying to ruin anyone’s day here. I love people enough to want them to stop sinning — or to feel comfortable in sinning — because, hey, I’d really like it if we could all meet up in heaven someday.
Sacrilege against the Eucharist is another mortal sin of the worst kind. “What is a sacrilege?” my former classmates may ask?
Sacrilege is in general the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege.
Theologians are substantially agreed in regarding as sacred that and that only which by a public rite and by Divine or ecclesiastical institution has been dedicated to the worship of God. The point is that the public authority must intervene; private initiative, no matter how ardent in devotion or praiseworthy in motive, does not suffice. Attributing a sacred character to a thing is a juridical act, and as such is a function of the governing power of the Church.
Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed the worst of all sacrileges. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm
I would propose that suggesting Communion for divorced and “remarried” folks so they feel more included and will suddenly stop committing adultery is the wrong focus (sorry Cardinal Kasper). There’s zero chance of it working because then you are removing the one penalty still in place and they’ll then be COMPLETELY comfortable continuing on in adultery.
The focus should have always been on the Eucharist first. You know, the source and summit of our Catholic faith? There is no “mercy” (buzz word of the year!) in suggesting that it would be wise to allow a person to commit a sacrilege. I don’t really worry about the Church rubberstamping that. She really can’t. What she can do, however, is cause mass confusion which is abounding as of late.
I saw a petition circulating for a “Synod Walk Out.” I’m kind of torn on that one, I have to say. The prolonged scuttlebutt surrounding this Synod is really not healthy for the Church. To have it end on a sharp note of “We’re not going to lead the faithful astray with all this speculation being floated!” sounds heavenly. However, I think I would be happy if some clear, simple teaching of why Communion for the divorced and “remarried” is impossible came out of this synod. It’s already too late for confusion so a document correcting the confusion is going to have to come out fast to nip this in the bud. We’re already leaning toward what happened with Humanae Vitae. The speculation was so huge that artificial birth-control would be allowed that people were defiant when it wasn’t. Now it’s happening with adultery via “remarriage.”
Here’s hoping we’re put out of this misery as quickly as possible!
P.S. This one was a formatting nightmare so please excuse ugliness!
P.S. Again – For those not familiar with the Faith, I’ve used quotes around all version of “remarriage” because it doesn’t exist in the Catholic Church in the manner used here. It only exists after the death of a spouse.
Hey, hey! Catechist Kev’s book (see in the margin of the blog) was given the thumbs up over at Catholic Answers for his work “The Language of Dissent”! You can hear the interview with Catechist Kev on Catholic Answers Live here: http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/the-language-of-dissent-32651
I like Kevin’s book because it’s a great reference book on how to answer the same old misconceptions dissenters like to throw out. It gives nice linear responses with Church documents, the Catechism, Canon Law, and the Fathers – low on commentary and high on facts! Easy for us regular folks.
Way to go Kevin Lents!
Please, do not read this while drinking, or your electronic device is toast! My husband sent it to me, but I hadn’t had time to read it before he got home. He started filling me in and I almost lost my laptop.
You can really skip everything but the last quote, as most of it is really just the blathering from, clearly, a disturbed individual. The last quote, well, don’t miss it!
Charamsa, who was fired from his post at the Vatican, says he has stayed faithful to his vow of celibacy because he has “never touched a woman”.
How do you say “I did not have sexual relations with a woman!” in Polish?!?! I’m reasonably sure all the other practicing homosexual priests just let out a collective groan and asked how this guy became the poster child for their cause.
So tomorrow, when you see a National catholic Reporter article saying, “Charasma’s been nothing but faithful to his vows!”, and your liberal friends are all saying, “Hey, they must be right, because they have “Catholic” in their name!”, have some ammo ready.
First, let’s take a gander at the Catholic Encyclopedia. This one little item should leave you wondering how the guy made it all the way to the CDF without people noticing his schooling was a tad bit lacking (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm):
Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The character of this renunciation, as we shall see, is differently understood in the Eastern and in the Western Church. Speaking, for the moment, only of Western Christendom, the candidates for orders are solemnly warned by the bishop at the beginning of the ceremony regarding the gravity of the obligation which they are incurring. He tells them:
You ought anxiously to consider again and again what sort of a burden this is which you are taking upon you of your own accord. Up to this you are free. You may still, if you choose, turn to the aims and desires of the world (licet vobis pro artitrio ad caecularia vota transire). But if you receive this order (of the subdiaconate) it will no longer be lawful to turn back from your purpose. You will be required to continue in the service of God, and with His assistance to observe chastity and to be bound for ever in the ministrations of the Altar, to serve who is to reign.
By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.
Msgr. Charasma also seems to miss a few documents from before 2005. As I pointed out before (https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/there-was-a-church-who-had-a-priest-and-ego-was-his-name-o/), he claimed there were no Vatican documents before 2005 restricting homosexuals from the priesthood. It appears he’s missed another important document on his promises in the priesthood and chastity which confirms the chaste celibacy of the priesthood (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html):
The Fathers of the Church
6. The close relationship that the Fathers of the Church and ecclesiastical writers established over the centuries between the ministering priesthood and celibacy has its origin partly in a mentality and partly in historical circumstances far different from ours. In patristic texts we more frequently find exhortations to the clergy to abstain from marital relations rather than to observe celibacy; and the reasons justifying the perfect chastity of the Church’s ministers seem often to be based on an overly pessimistic view of man’s earthly condition or on a certain notion of the purity necessary for contact with sacred things. In addition, it is said that the old arguments no longer are in harmony with the different social and cultural milieus in which the Church today, through her priests, is called upon to work.
Vocation and Celibacy
7. Many see a difficulty in the fact that in the present discipline concerning celibacy the gift of a vocation to the priesthood is identified with that of perfect chastity as a state of life for God’s ministers. And so people ask whether it is right to exclude from the priesthood those who, it is claimed, have been called to the ministry without having been called to lead a celibate life.
II. PRIESTLY FORMATION
- Our reflection on the beauty, importance and intimate fittingness of holy virginity for the ministers of Christ and His Church makes it incumbent on those who hold the office of teacher and pastor of that Church to take steps to assure and promote its positive observance, from the first moment of preparation to receive such a precious gift.
In fact, the difficulties and problems which make the observance of chastity very painful or quite impossible for some, spring, not infrequently, from a type of priestly formation which, given the great changes of these last years, is no longer completely adequate for the formation of a personality worthy of a “man of God.” (114)
Let’s just throw in Canon Law for good measure (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM).
Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.
2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.
Somebody should have informed Msgr. Charasma of these documents during his formation. That’s kind of what they were for. He should have been clued in that celibacy is simply a perfect form of chastity, but chastity is required by ALL nonetheless. We are all bound to practice chastity according to our station in life.
So, let’s go back to some of the other statements made by Msgr. Charasma in this article.
Krzysztof Charamsa told a private Italian television channel that he has “never met a gay lobby in the Vatican”, referring to rumours of a network of homosexual priests.
Really, Monsignor? Then how in the world did you get so far into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with such little formation, or, at best, selective formation? This Clintonesque parsing of “what is is” is ridiculous and not becoming of someone who was in the Curia.
I’d advise giving this a quick read:
Anyone else tired of on-line petitions? If this one was a true “thing,” they’d ask for a whole lot more than 15,000 signatures. And who will be those signatories? Will Pastor “I’m Gay and Divorced” Robinson (so much for homosexuals doing fidelity better) be one of them? Maybe Margie Winters (https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/she-did-not-just-say-this-i-felt-like-i-was-doing-ministry-really-well/)? What about that super devout Catholic, George Soros? Will it be what’s left of the National catholic Reporter’s readership? Inquiring minds want to know how many non-Catholics or dissenting Catholic will let the Holy Father know how mean that old Archbishop Vigano is. Please. Stop.
Anyone who knows him, or even knows of him, would understand he is a very humble and faithful man who has done nothing but serve us well. In reality, though, he’s an easy target for the dissenting Catholics, because they know darn well that he’s hit the magic 75 and is required to submit his letter of resignation (as all bishops are supposed to do, with the exception of the Bishop of Rome). Actually, Archbishop Vigano is probably dying to leave the dismal position of dealing with obnoxious American dissenters. The Kim Davis kerfuffle just caps off his tenure here with more of that reality. He probably arrange the meeting so he could show the Holy Father how people in America are suffering religious persecution. I mean, that’s kind of the reason the Pope comes to visit a country, isn’t it? It’s a way for him to get to know the lay of the land. I wonder why none of the members of Club Dissent aren’t starting a petition objecting to the Pope meeting with the Little Sisters of the Poor? My guess is that the sisters evoke more sympathy than Kim Davis.
Anyway, these moronic petition hacks, backed by an atheist, are trying to say that Archbishop Vigano was trying to undermine the Pope’s message by inviting Kim Davis to meet with the Pope. How so? Did the Pope somehow say gay marriage was the bomb and we all missed it? Nope. Did they hear the Holy Father’s remarks on the plane? Let me refresh your memories: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/28/pope-francis-conscientious-objection-is-a-human-right-even-for-government-workers/
So, let’s see. The Holy Father said, “Thank you for your courage,” so clearly he knew a bit of the situation. We also know the Holy Father believes and teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. To top it off, we just heard the Holy Father say, “I can’t have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection, but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.” So why in heaven’s name would Archbishop Vigano be in any sort of trouble again? Oh, that’s right. It’s because we suffer from squeaky wheel syndrome here, where the billion dollar squeakers squeak so much that people will do anything to shut them up. I certainly hope this isn’t the case with Archbishop Vigano. It would be rather ironic for the Holy Father to fire him in the Year of Mercy. The most merciful thing he could do for the Church in America is to relegate the dissenting children to the corner and let them think about things for a while. A merciful parent doesn’t placate the spoiled brat. That would only serve to further stunt their growth.
On the bright side, here’s one refreshing piece about the visit to show that there are some of the liberal bent who are intellectually honest about the situation. I’m going to link directly to this one, because I’d really love the author to get credit for her honesty. Clearly, she and I would agree on little, but I can respect her for doing what so many in the media refuse to do: write honestly: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/pope-probably-agrees-with-davis-on-marriage.html I would, however, like to suggest the “backlash” that has come didn’t really materialize until the Vatican downplayed the meeting. It happened. Own it. There was nothing wrong with it. For goodness sake, he’s the Holy Father. He can meet with anyone. Does anyone remember a little island called Cuba?
Austin Ruse has called for the Church to apologize to Kim Davis (https://stream.org/church-owes-kim-davis-apology/). I think he should have been a bit more specific. The Church is too broad a term. Instead, it is Fr. Lombardi and club who should apologize to her, as well as to Archbishop Vigano. They are making the Vatican look, frankly, like the U.S. Republican party whose need to backtrack has had them in reverse for quite a while.
Please send Archbishop Vigano a note thanking him for all that he does. firstname.lastname@example.org
Keep a bag handy, because this one is going to make you just a little nauseated. The priest coming out as gay, you ask? Nope, it’s his staggering narcissism. His ego is really quite ginormous!
Vatican Theologian Confesses: “I’m Happy to Be Gay and I Have a Partner”
“I know I will pay the consequences, but it’s time the Church opened its eyes”
Really, Monsignor? You coming out as “gay” is somehow going to open the eyes of the Church? Can you say “ego”? This might be the reason humility and obedience has escaped you.
“I want the Church and my community to know who I am: a gay priest who is happy, and proud of his identity. I’m prepared to pay the consequences, but it’s time the Church opened its eyes, and realised that offering gay believers total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman”. Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa, 43 and Polish, who has been living in Rome for 17 years, speaks with a calm smile on his face.
Smile? I’m picturing more of a smirk. Anyone else? “…total abstinence from a life of love is inhuman?” Wow, Monsignor “Charisma”! Maybe you should try telling that to the thousands of saints who have gone before you. How can you possibly be so shortsighted? How have you failed to see the trade-off of a short time (our earthly lives) of abstinence for eternal life with Our Savior? Do you not believe in having a cross to bear? Is that beneath you or something? Do you think you could possibly be confusing sex with love? I’m kind of done with this attitude. Of course, you know the answer to all of these questions, but you want what you want, so we all must dance circles around you.
He is not just any priest, but has been a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 2003, is assistant secretary of the International Theological Commission of the Vatican, and teaches theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome. Never before has a priest with such a high-profile role in the Vatican made a similar statement. Today, on the eve of the Synod on the family, Monsignor Charamsa will be in Rome at the LGBT Catholic International Meeting organized by the Global Network of Rainbow Catholics, to support the discussion on gay Catholics.
Actually, he IS just any priest. I have to say that I’m kind of rather glad he “came out” with all of this, although my guess is a lot of people already knew it. It might be a huge red flag for the Holy Father, though. This is what we deal with, day in and day out, in our little world. The bishops around the United States (and many other places) are dealing with priests like this on a daily basis, priests who are constantly trying to box them into corners. This happens all the time in the San Francisco Bay Area. Archbishop Cordileone, for one, has dealt with the same types of maneuvering from ego-driven, narcissistic priests. “I’m not doing this for me. I have to follow my conscience or what kind of Catholic would I be? Honesty, blah, blah, blah!” Any dissenting subject goes, and the opposition always seem to be able to find someone who wants to play the martyr card.
Why did you decide to come out?
“There comes a day when something inside you snaps, and you can’t go on. If I had been alone I would have lived the nightmare of a denied homosexuality, but God never leaves us alone. And I think He has helped me take this important existential step. It’s important because of its consequences, but it’s also the premise for living honestly, which should be natural for every homosexual. The Church is already behind in tackling the issue, and we can’t wait another 50 years, which is why I’ve decided to tell the Church who I am. I’m doing it for myself, for my community, and for the Church. It is also my duty towards the community of sexual minorities”.
Oh, you’ve snapped, alright. Remember the time when priests wanted to be known as Catholic? Now they want to be known as a “homosexual priest”, and “priest” is almost an afterthought. Sigh! The “living honestly” quote here is rather telling, though. What were you doing before, Monsignor? Yep, I actually agree with you. That said, honesty doesn’t always equal right. I mean, there have been many “honest” people who have been immoral, right?
What do you think you will achieve?
“It seems to me that in the Church we are ignorant about homosexuality because we don’t really know any homosexuals. We have them all around us, of course, but we never look them in the eye, because they seldom say who they are. I hope that my personal experience will help stir the Church’s consciousness in some way. I will personally reveal my identity to the Holy Father in a letter. And I will tell the universities in Rome where I teach who I am; to my great sorrow I will probably no longer be allowed to work in Catholic education”.
Oh yeah, Monsignor. None of us knows homosexuals, but if we did, we would never look them in the eye. In fact, the first thing we do is to cross to the other side of the street and hold our purses tighter. Are you kidding me?! Who are you, Obama?
You are making this announcement on the eve of the Synod on the Family, which begins tomorrow at the Vatican.
“Yes, I would like to tell the Synod that homosexual love is a kind of family love, a love that needs the family. Everyone – gays, lesbians and transsexuals included – foster in their hearts a desire for love and family. Everyone has the right to love, and that love must be protected by society and law. But above all it must be nourished by the Church. Christianity is the religion of love, and love is central to the figure of Jesus we bring to the world. A lesbian or gay couple should be able to openly say to their Church: ‘we love each other according to our nature, and offer this gift of our love to others, because it is a public matter, not just a private one; we are not merely engaged in some extreme pursuit of pleasure’”.
Uh, you DON’T love according to your nature. That’s kind of the issue. Also, what you do in your bedroom most certainly should be a private matter – for ALL people. However, you are confusing sex and love, and yes, you are engaged in an “extreme pursuit of pleasure.” To be blunt and honest – because I know how much you love that honesty – it’s called sodomy. There is no procreative aspect to the act, so its only purpose is pursuit of pleasure. Wonder if he heard Pope Francis, who opened the Synod that the monsignor is hoping to influence, quoted the then Cardinal Ratzinger:
“..forbidden pleasures lost their attraction at the very moment they stopped being forbidden.”
“Even if they are pushed to the extreme and endlessly renewed, they prove dull, for they are finite realities, whereas we thirst for the infinite.”
But this is not how the Church sees things.
“No, this is not the position of current Church doctrine, but similar views have been aired in theological scholarship. Above all in Protestant scholarship, but we also have excellent Catholic theologians who have given important contributions in the field”.
“Current Church doctrine.” Is this the part where we hear that doctrine can change? How in the heck does a guy get this far up in the Vatican and spew this stuff? You know what would be amazing? It would be amazing if the Holy Father used the Year of Mercy to be merciful to the faithful by interviewing every member of the Curia and cleaning house of anyone who simply doesn’t understand that doctrine doesn’t change!
Catholic Catechism based on the Bible defines homosexuality as an “intrinsically disordered” tendency…
“The Bible says nothing on the subject of homosexuality. It instead speaks of acts that I would call “homogenital”. Even heterosexual people may perform such acts, as happens in many prisons, but in that case they are acting against their nature and therefore committing a sin. When a gay person engages in those same acts, they are instead expressing their nature. The biblical sodomite has nothing to do with two gays that love each other in modern-day Italy and want to marry. I am unable to find a single passage, even in St Paul, that may be seen as referring to homosexual persons asking to be respected as such, since at the time the concept was unknown”.
If a clear document doesn’t come out after this, somebody is missing an opportunity. Time for “Sexual Veritas” (don’t ding me for my Latin!). The door needs to be shut to this crud once and for all. For all those who believe the poppycock stated by Monsignor Charasma, Catholic Answers has a nice little tract for you (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality). Media – especially NcR – please read it before you write, because it’ll save me a lot of time chastising you for being idiotic. I might also point out that “Monsignor Charisma” isn’t actually the authority of bible interpretation (or, apparently, much of anything else).
Catholic doctrine excludes gays from the priesthood: how did you manage to become a priest?
“The rule was introduced in 2005 when I was already a priest, and only applies to new ordinations. For me it was a shock. It didn’t use to be like this, and I think this is a mistake that needs to be corrected”. Have you always known you are gay? “Yes, but at first I didn’t accept the fact; I submitted zealously to the teaching of the Church and to the life it forced upon me, according to the principle that ‘homosexuality does not exist (and if it does, it needs to be destroyed)’”.
”The rule was introduced in 2005” and“Homosexuality does not exist”? Hmmm…wrong on both counts. It existed so much that “the rule was stated 44 years earlier in 1961 in Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm). It was left to the local bishops to enforce which did or did not happen. I can tell you it didn’t happen in the San Francisco Bay Area. You and I are close in age, Monsignor. Really, when exactly did the Church teach that homosexuality did not exist? When exactly do you think nobody was aware of it? This is ridiculous! I’m reasonably sure nobody forced that life upon you. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you be Catholic or made you become a priest. Free will is a central part of our Faith. You weren’t martyred. You made a choice inconsistent with your chosen vocation.
How did you go from denial to being happy about being gay?
“Through study, prayer and reflection. A dialogue with God and the study of theology, philosophy and science were crucial. Moreover, I now have a partner who has helped me transform my fears into the power of love”.
Translation of the answer: When I decided I could no longer exercise self-control and didn’t want to feel guilty about it.
A partner? Is that not even more irreconcilable with being a Catholic priest?
“I know that the Church will see me as someone who has failed to keep a promise, who has lost his way, and what’s worse, not with a woman, but a man! I also know that I will have to give up the ministry, even though it is my whole life. But I’m not doing this so that I can live with my partner. The reasons are much wider-ranging and based on a reflection on Church doctrine”.
Um, yeah, you ARE doing this so you can live with your “partner.” Of course, you’re also doing it because you’re a self-deluded narcissist.
Could you explain?
“If I failed to be open, if I didn’t accept myself, I couldn’t be a good priest in any case, because I couldn’t act as an intermediary for the joy of God. Humanity has made great progress in its understanding of these issues, but the Church is lagging behind. This is not the first time, of course, but when you are slow to understand astronomy the consequences are not as serious as when the delay regards people’s most intimate being. The Church needs to realise that it is failing to rise to the challenge of our times”.
Yet another translation: I was never that good at the priesthood thing. I prefer to live like a spoiled child who thinks the whole world revolves around me. I’m going to go with “humanity is better than the Church Christ founded” and I’m going to mention Gallileo to illustrate how right I am and how wrong the Church is. (You can tell he’s not American, because, if he had been American, he would have refererred to “native Americans.”)
Yada, yada, yada! Another day, another self-serving dissenter railing against Truth.
(Just a mom’s note…My 18 year-old was reading through this post tonight. Here are some of the comments: “What?! He has a partner??? LGTB Catholics Meeting in Rome????” The new adult is far from naïve but, I’ve got to say, I’m so happy we’ve been able we’ve been able to keep so much of this crud out of our children’s lives. Homeschooling is a beautiful thing.)