From American Spectator, the pederast legacy of Wright, Wuerl and Dinardo - see here.
For some 28 years, I have been saying that homosexual men do not belong in a seminary and that such persons should not be ordained. In fact, in a piece written for The Wanderer back in the 1990s entitled "A possibility wrought with dire implications," I wrote: "On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an Instruction entitled 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
I was ridiculed for saying this. In fact, I have been referred to as "mentally ill" and as being somehow "unstable" for saying this.
Now, under pressure from a laity sick and tired of the rampant homosexual abuse culture, look at what Francis is finally saying here.
Morning sunshine!
Showing posts with label Priesthood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Priesthood. Show all posts
Monday, December 03, 2018
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts: Ingratitude on Veteran's Day
The French preacher Lacordaire once said that the vocation of a soldier is next in dignity to the priesthood, not only because it commissioned him to defend justice on the field of battle and order on the field of peace, but also because it called him to the spirit and intention of sacrifice.
It is the soldier's high calling to the defense of justice and freedom which makes him (or should) so loved. It was a soldier who first spoke the words recalled by the Church during every Mass at Holy Communion: "Lord, I am not worthy to have Thee come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed." (Mt 8:8).
The Breviary, which priests pray daily, praises Judas Machabeus, who refused to surrender to superior enemy forces and died saying: "Far be it from us to do such a thing as to flee from them. If our time has come, let us die bravely for our brethren, and leave no cause to question our honor." (1 Macc 9: 10).
A soldier who does his or her duty honorably contributes to the common good and to authentic peace.
Many do not appreciate this. At Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, Veteran's Day apparently means next to nothing. Veterans were not included in the Mass intentions or the prayer intentions during Mass. And this is an old story.
In the Church, those of us who served in the military are often treated as second-class citizens. As Wintery Knight says, "All of the outward facing disciplines within Christianity, such as apologetics, theology, ethics, etc. are de-emphasized, censored or resisted in feminized churches. There is no place for rationality, moral judgments and boundaries, debates and disagreement, confrontations and persuasion, or other manly Christian practices."
I've personally encountered such resistance toward apologetics and spiritualities which are decidely masculine (such as the Ignatian model). I'm convinced that the effeminization which has take place within the Catholic Church in this country is one reason I am not welcome at my own parish and have been, like so many other healthy young men who are not homosexual or crippled by effeminacy, relegated to the trash bin.
What a shame!
Not all Catholic Churches treat veterans with contempt or ignore them altogether. This Catholic Church is but one of many which does not suffer from ingratitude.
It is the soldier's high calling to the defense of justice and freedom which makes him (or should) so loved. It was a soldier who first spoke the words recalled by the Church during every Mass at Holy Communion: "Lord, I am not worthy to have Thee come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed." (Mt 8:8).
The Breviary, which priests pray daily, praises Judas Machabeus, who refused to surrender to superior enemy forces and died saying: "Far be it from us to do such a thing as to flee from them. If our time has come, let us die bravely for our brethren, and leave no cause to question our honor." (1 Macc 9: 10).
A soldier who does his or her duty honorably contributes to the common good and to authentic peace.
Many do not appreciate this. At Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts, Veteran's Day apparently means next to nothing. Veterans were not included in the Mass intentions or the prayer intentions during Mass. And this is an old story.
In the Church, those of us who served in the military are often treated as second-class citizens. As Wintery Knight says, "All of the outward facing disciplines within Christianity, such as apologetics, theology, ethics, etc. are de-emphasized, censored or resisted in feminized churches. There is no place for rationality, moral judgments and boundaries, debates and disagreement, confrontations and persuasion, or other manly Christian practices."
I've personally encountered such resistance toward apologetics and spiritualities which are decidely masculine (such as the Ignatian model). I'm convinced that the effeminization which has take place within the Catholic Church in this country is one reason I am not welcome at my own parish and have been, like so many other healthy young men who are not homosexual or crippled by effeminacy, relegated to the trash bin.
What a shame!
Not all Catholic Churches treat veterans with contempt or ignore them altogether. This Catholic Church is but one of many which does not suffer from ingratitude.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Anthony Esolen: Leave the Lord's Prayer alone...
Anthony Esolen, over at First Things, writes:
"Pope Francis has caused another round of cheering and dismay by calling for a “better translation” of the words of the Lord’s Prayer. Specifically, he says that the line familiar to us English speakers as “lead us not into temptation” should be rendered as “let us not fall into temptation,” because a loving Father does not subject His children to evil. We may cite here, in apparent support of that statement, the words of St. James: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (Jas. 1:13–14). It was not God who tempted Job, but Satan. It was not God who tempted David with the sight of Bathsheba bathing in her garden, but David himself, whose desire gave birth to the sins of adultery and murder. All Christians, I suppose, will agree.
And yet, and yet: The words of Jesus are clear. The original Greek is not ambiguous. There is no variant hiding in the shelves. We cannot go from an active verb, subjunctive mood, aorist tense, second person singular, with a clear direct object, to a wholly different verb—“do not allow”—completed by an infinitive that is nowhere in the text—“to fall”—without shifting from translation to theological exegesis. The task of the translator, though he should be informed by the theological, cultural, and linguistic context of the time, is to render what the words mean, literally, even (perhaps especially) when those words sound foreign to our ears.
Here someone will shout, “But sometimes the meanings are not literal.” I agree. Sometimes the primary meaning is figurative; but that is still a linguistic judgment, and not theological exegesis. Even so, we are far more likely to paint for our readers a broad range of figurative meaning by keeping close to the literal field wherein that meaning takes root and flourishes, than by dispensing with the literal, and losing it and much of the figurative to boot. Hence translations that suppress the word “seed” (as in “Abraham's seed”), or “fruit” (as in “be fruitful, and multiply,” or Jesus’s parable of the vineyard owner who sent his servants to gather the “fruit” of his land), replacing these words with “offspring” and “produce,” are not only pallid English. They make it impossible for us to hear the figurative resonances of these words as Jesus and his fellow Jews heard them, across all of Scripture. They distance us—who are already farther off than is healthy—from what Chesterton has called “the warmth and wonder of created things,” of fruit, and seed, and the marital act that sows the seed.
Someone else will say that language changes over time, and that is why we need revisions. Perhaps; but the ancient Greek has not changed, and English in this regard has not changed. “Lead us not into temptation” means “do not lead us into temptation,” and that is that. We might revise and render “temptation” as “testing” or “trial”: “Do not lead us to the test,” but that would still fall under the pope’s disapproval.
No, I believe that the Greek means what it means, and what it means is accurately rendered as “lead us not into temptation,” exactly the same in Matthew as it is in Luke.
Then someone objects, and says that the Greek is just a translation of the Lord’s Aramaic, so that we, by guesswork, can efface the Greek and replace it with a supposititious original. There are three problems here. First, the Greek is the text we have, and it is canonical. Second, there is no reason to suppose that Greek-speaking Jews did not pray the prayer exactly as the Greek-speaking Saint Luke records it, which in this line is identical to Matthew’s. Third, if we consider a Semitic substrate it becomes more likely, not less, that the Greek me eisenenkeis hemas eis peirasmon is an exact rendering of what would be a verse of psalmic poetry, as I believe all of the Lord’s Prayer is. We would have A + B + C, where A is the negative, B is a causative verb (in Hebrew, “lead” = “to cause to go,” as in Psalm 23) with affixes for second-person singular subject and third-person plural object, and C is “into-temptation.” Such a verse or half-verse would be familiar to every one of Jesus's listeners, and they would have expected it to be completed by a second half. And so it is, in another A + B + C: “but + free-us + from-evil,” each element in correspondence with its partner in the previous half. No, I’m afraid that all attempts to justify an alteration on linguistic grounds fail. But what about the theology?
Let us be careful here. Jesus himself, in Gethsemane, instructed his apostles to pray “lest they be put to the test,” echoing his own words in the Lord’s Prayer. It is not a prayer that they should not fall into temptation, much less that they should not yield to temptation. It is parallel instead with Jesus’s prayer in the garden, that he might be spared the cup that he was about to drink. Jesus knows our weakness, and knows that trials will come. He knows that, as James says, “blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him” (1:12). But we are weak. We are not yet heroes. We are hardly soldiers at all. So we confess our weakness.
We pray, then, that God will spare us that test—even as we know that tests will come. Jesus himself says it. Satan has demanded Peter, to sift him like wheat, says Jesus, “but I have prayed for you, that your faith might not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31). We are not heroes, we are poor and unprofitable servants, yet we are called to say, with St. Paul, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 3:7). And a Father might very well allow His grown sons and daughters to stand the test, that they might show their strength—His strength in them!—and triumph over the Slanderer.
The words of Jesus, as words, are clear. Their implications are profound. They are hard for us to fathom. They strike us as strange. That is as it should be. Let them stand."
As I said in a previous post, "Rather than engaging in some sort of Quixotic battle against imaginary dragons, perhaps Francis could make better use of his time by clearing up doctrinal confusion which he has sown through Amoris Laetitia or by addressing the homosexual problem in the priesthood?"
In any case, Francis is simply wrong*. And no amount of smoke and mirrors rhetoric will ever change that fact.
* See here
Related reading here.
Note: I tried twice to post these scholarly reputations of the alleged need to revise the Lord's Prayer on Spirit Daily's Facebook Page. Twice that were removed.
"Pope Francis has caused another round of cheering and dismay by calling for a “better translation” of the words of the Lord’s Prayer. Specifically, he says that the line familiar to us English speakers as “lead us not into temptation” should be rendered as “let us not fall into temptation,” because a loving Father does not subject His children to evil. We may cite here, in apparent support of that statement, the words of St. James: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (Jas. 1:13–14). It was not God who tempted Job, but Satan. It was not God who tempted David with the sight of Bathsheba bathing in her garden, but David himself, whose desire gave birth to the sins of adultery and murder. All Christians, I suppose, will agree.
And yet, and yet: The words of Jesus are clear. The original Greek is not ambiguous. There is no variant hiding in the shelves. We cannot go from an active verb, subjunctive mood, aorist tense, second person singular, with a clear direct object, to a wholly different verb—“do not allow”—completed by an infinitive that is nowhere in the text—“to fall”—without shifting from translation to theological exegesis. The task of the translator, though he should be informed by the theological, cultural, and linguistic context of the time, is to render what the words mean, literally, even (perhaps especially) when those words sound foreign to our ears.
Here someone will shout, “But sometimes the meanings are not literal.” I agree. Sometimes the primary meaning is figurative; but that is still a linguistic judgment, and not theological exegesis. Even so, we are far more likely to paint for our readers a broad range of figurative meaning by keeping close to the literal field wherein that meaning takes root and flourishes, than by dispensing with the literal, and losing it and much of the figurative to boot. Hence translations that suppress the word “seed” (as in “Abraham's seed”), or “fruit” (as in “be fruitful, and multiply,” or Jesus’s parable of the vineyard owner who sent his servants to gather the “fruit” of his land), replacing these words with “offspring” and “produce,” are not only pallid English. They make it impossible for us to hear the figurative resonances of these words as Jesus and his fellow Jews heard them, across all of Scripture. They distance us—who are already farther off than is healthy—from what Chesterton has called “the warmth and wonder of created things,” of fruit, and seed, and the marital act that sows the seed.
Someone else will say that language changes over time, and that is why we need revisions. Perhaps; but the ancient Greek has not changed, and English in this regard has not changed. “Lead us not into temptation” means “do not lead us into temptation,” and that is that. We might revise and render “temptation” as “testing” or “trial”: “Do not lead us to the test,” but that would still fall under the pope’s disapproval.
No, I believe that the Greek means what it means, and what it means is accurately rendered as “lead us not into temptation,” exactly the same in Matthew as it is in Luke.
Then someone objects, and says that the Greek is just a translation of the Lord’s Aramaic, so that we, by guesswork, can efface the Greek and replace it with a supposititious original. There are three problems here. First, the Greek is the text we have, and it is canonical. Second, there is no reason to suppose that Greek-speaking Jews did not pray the prayer exactly as the Greek-speaking Saint Luke records it, which in this line is identical to Matthew’s. Third, if we consider a Semitic substrate it becomes more likely, not less, that the Greek me eisenenkeis hemas eis peirasmon is an exact rendering of what would be a verse of psalmic poetry, as I believe all of the Lord’s Prayer is. We would have A + B + C, where A is the negative, B is a causative verb (in Hebrew, “lead” = “to cause to go,” as in Psalm 23) with affixes for second-person singular subject and third-person plural object, and C is “into-temptation.” Such a verse or half-verse would be familiar to every one of Jesus's listeners, and they would have expected it to be completed by a second half. And so it is, in another A + B + C: “but + free-us + from-evil,” each element in correspondence with its partner in the previous half. No, I’m afraid that all attempts to justify an alteration on linguistic grounds fail. But what about the theology?
Let us be careful here. Jesus himself, in Gethsemane, instructed his apostles to pray “lest they be put to the test,” echoing his own words in the Lord’s Prayer. It is not a prayer that they should not fall into temptation, much less that they should not yield to temptation. It is parallel instead with Jesus’s prayer in the garden, that he might be spared the cup that he was about to drink. Jesus knows our weakness, and knows that trials will come. He knows that, as James says, “blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him” (1:12). But we are weak. We are not yet heroes. We are hardly soldiers at all. So we confess our weakness.
We pray, then, that God will spare us that test—even as we know that tests will come. Jesus himself says it. Satan has demanded Peter, to sift him like wheat, says Jesus, “but I have prayed for you, that your faith might not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31). We are not heroes, we are poor and unprofitable servants, yet we are called to say, with St. Paul, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 3:7). And a Father might very well allow His grown sons and daughters to stand the test, that they might show their strength—His strength in them!—and triumph over the Slanderer.
The words of Jesus, as words, are clear. Their implications are profound. They are hard for us to fathom. They strike us as strange. That is as it should be. Let them stand."
As I said in a previous post, "Rather than engaging in some sort of Quixotic battle against imaginary dragons, perhaps Francis could make better use of his time by clearing up doctrinal confusion which he has sown through Amoris Laetitia or by addressing the homosexual problem in the priesthood?"
In any case, Francis is simply wrong*. And no amount of smoke and mirrors rhetoric will ever change that fact.
* See here
Related reading here.
Note: I tried twice to post these scholarly reputations of the alleged need to revise the Lord's Prayer on Spirit Daily's Facebook Page. Twice that were removed.
Saturday, June 03, 2017
Will the USCCB finally wake up and smell the coffee?
A new report of the USCCB shows conclusively that that the clerical sex abuse scandal is a crisis not of pedophilia but of homosexuality.
Readers of this Blog know that I've been saying just that for 15 years. See here and here for example.
Before entering into any state of life, a divine vocation is necessary. This because without such a vocation, it is difficult if not impossible to fulfil the obligations which pertain to that state and to obtain salvation. This is particularly true for the ministerial priesthood or any other ecclesiastical state. After all, it was Our Lord Who said: "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1).
Consequently, the man who takes holy orders without a call from God is convicted of theft in taking by force a dignity which God has not called him to and does not desire to bestow upon him. This is the teaching of Saint Paul:
"Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify Himself that He might be made a high priest; but he that said unto Him: Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee." (Hebrews 5:4,5).
It matters not then how learned or prudent or holy a man may be. No man may place himself into the holy sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced to the same by Almighty God. Jesus Our Lord was certainly the most learned and holy among all men, full of grace and truth (John 1:14), the Son of Man in Whom were (and are) hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). And yet, Jesus required a divine call to assume the dignity of the priesthood.
This is the teaching of the Council of Trent. That the Church regards the man who assumes the priesthood without a vocation not as a minister but as a robber:
"Decernit sancta Synodus eos qui ea (ministeria) propria temeritate sibi sumunt, omnes, non Ecclesiae ministros, sed fures et latrones per ostium non ingressos habendos esse" (Session 23, cap. 4).
Those who seize the priesthood without a vocation may labor and toil exhaustively. But their labors will profit them very little before God. In fact, the very works which would be considered of much merit when performed by others will deserve chastisement for such souls. Because such men are not in conformity with the divine will, not having a vocation to the state of life which they have usurped, the Lord Jesus will not accept their toils:
"I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand" (Malachi 1:10).
Not only will God refuse the gifts of their hand, He will punish the works of the minister who has entered the sanctuary without being called; without a vocation:
"What stranger soever cometh to it (the Tabernacle) shall be slain." (Numbers 1:51).
Bearing all of this in mind, please read the following which first appeared in The Wanderer and may be found at the Faithfulvoice.com website:
On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II.
In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered." (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: "Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders." Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, "Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
Readers of this Blog know that I've been saying just that for 15 years. See here and here for example.
Before entering into any state of life, a divine vocation is necessary. This because without such a vocation, it is difficult if not impossible to fulfil the obligations which pertain to that state and to obtain salvation. This is particularly true for the ministerial priesthood or any other ecclesiastical state. After all, it was Our Lord Who said: "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1).
Consequently, the man who takes holy orders without a call from God is convicted of theft in taking by force a dignity which God has not called him to and does not desire to bestow upon him. This is the teaching of Saint Paul:
"Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify Himself that He might be made a high priest; but he that said unto Him: Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee." (Hebrews 5:4,5).
It matters not then how learned or prudent or holy a man may be. No man may place himself into the holy sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced to the same by Almighty God. Jesus Our Lord was certainly the most learned and holy among all men, full of grace and truth (John 1:14), the Son of Man in Whom were (and are) hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). And yet, Jesus required a divine call to assume the dignity of the priesthood.
This is the teaching of the Council of Trent. That the Church regards the man who assumes the priesthood without a vocation not as a minister but as a robber:
"Decernit sancta Synodus eos qui ea (ministeria) propria temeritate sibi sumunt, omnes, non Ecclesiae ministros, sed fures et latrones per ostium non ingressos habendos esse" (Session 23, cap. 4).
Those who seize the priesthood without a vocation may labor and toil exhaustively. But their labors will profit them very little before God. In fact, the very works which would be considered of much merit when performed by others will deserve chastisement for such souls. Because such men are not in conformity with the divine will, not having a vocation to the state of life which they have usurped, the Lord Jesus will not accept their toils:
"I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand" (Malachi 1:10).
Not only will God refuse the gifts of their hand, He will punish the works of the minister who has entered the sanctuary without being called; without a vocation:
"What stranger soever cometh to it (the Tabernacle) shall be slain." (Numbers 1:51).
Bearing all of this in mind, please read the following which first appeared in The Wanderer and may be found at the Faithfulvoice.com website:
On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II.
In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, "It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered." (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: "Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders." Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as "objectively disordered," constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, "Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
It's so encouraging that the USCCB is now playing catchup with this Blog. The question is: Will they finally act on the evidence and address the homosexual problem?
I've got another pot of coffee brewing. Morning Sunshine!
Monday, May 01, 2017
The collapse of the priesthood in and around the Boston Archdiocese...
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Cardinal Dolan celebrates homosexuals
Cardinal Dolan is celebrating homosexuals marching in the Saint Patrick's Day Parade. This comes as no surprise. Church Militant notes how, "Sources from within the New York archdiocese are revealing that a corrupt homosexual network reaches into the top ranks of the New York archdiocese, involving the priest personnel office, the communications director, the vicar general, and even the former archbishop of Baltimore, Cdl. Edwin O'Brien — and that Cdl. Timothy Dolan is aware of much of this and does little to stop it."
Saint Peter Damian, in his Book of Gomorrah, decries the audacity of men who are "habituated to the filth of this festering disease," and who still dare to present themselves for holy orders, or if already ordained, remain in office.
Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed on the ground? he asks. And then he cites St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:5): "... if an unclean man has no inheritance at all in Heaven, how can he be so arrogant as to presume a position of honor in the Church, which is surely the kingdom of God?" See here.
Saint Catherine of Siena, a great mystic and Doctor of the Church, fought for reform at a time when many clergy had succumbed to the vice of homosexuality. In her Dialogues, St. Catherine said that, "...these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility [of a weak nature], but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind as fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are."
Saint Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, a Cardinal and great reformer of the clergy, wrote an entire treatise entitled the Book of Gomorrah against the inroads made by homosexuality among the clergy. In his important work, St. Damian describes the iniquity of homosexuality as well as its psychological and, more importantly, its moral consequences:
"Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices...It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth....The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]....In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured. It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself. This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence. And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out."
Because the soul en route to Hell has lost faith and is utterly miserable, it seeks company on its journey to final impenitence and, ultimately, eternal damnation.
Such a soul welcomes a parade of filth.
Saint Peter Damian, in his Book of Gomorrah, decries the audacity of men who are "habituated to the filth of this festering disease," and who still dare to present themselves for holy orders, or if already ordained, remain in office.
Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed on the ground? he asks. And then he cites St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:5): "... if an unclean man has no inheritance at all in Heaven, how can he be so arrogant as to presume a position of honor in the Church, which is surely the kingdom of God?" See here.
Saint Catherine of Siena, a great mystic and Doctor of the Church, fought for reform at a time when many clergy had succumbed to the vice of homosexuality. In her Dialogues, St. Catherine said that, "...these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility [of a weak nature], but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind as fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are."
Saint Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, a Cardinal and great reformer of the clergy, wrote an entire treatise entitled the Book of Gomorrah against the inroads made by homosexuality among the clergy. In his important work, St. Damian describes the iniquity of homosexuality as well as its psychological and, more importantly, its moral consequences:
"Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices...It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth....The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]....In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured. It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself. This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence. And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out."
Because the soul en route to Hell has lost faith and is utterly miserable, it seeks company on its journey to final impenitence and, ultimately, eternal damnation.
Such a soul welcomes a parade of filth.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Aaron Jay Ledesma and presumption: Behold Francis Church
Aaron Jay Ledesma, the open and active homosexual who will be meeting with Pope Francis, writes:
"Some Catholics believe that there are only two choices when being gay:
Live a life of celibacy OR Live in sin & go to hell.
I realize that some Catholics urging the LGBTQ community to be celibate are doing it out of love and concern, and then there are others who hide behind their religion as a justification for their bigotry.
For the ones who are truly concerned with my soul and my relationship with God, this is how I try to explain it:
There are heterosexual, married, Catholic couples who use contraception. They don’t plan on stopping the use of contraception, and don’t really believe they are sinning. How do they reconcile that choice with God and their faith?
There are heterosexual Catholics who have gotten a divorce and remarried legally without getting an annulment from the Church. They still receive communion. They don’t plan on pursuing an annulment and don’t really believe what they’re doing is wrong. How do they reconcile that choice with God and their faith?
There are heterosexual couples, even married ones, who have sex for pleasure only. Some watch porn and give little thought to the gift of intimacy. How do they reconcile those choices with God and their faith?
My point is — being gay and in a same sex relationship has the same struggles as the ones I’ve listed above.
So, what do we all do?
We do the best we can.
We seek the beautiful Sacrament of Reconciliation.
We try our best to live our lives as closely to what God wants as we can.
We try to resist temptations and sins, but when we fall short, we seek God’s forgiveness, mercy and grace.
Please, when you see a gay couple, try not to focus on their acts of sex so that you ONLY see their sins.
Pray for me, but don’t pray for me because I’m gay.
My name is Aaron Jay Ledesma.
I’m from Houston, Texas.
I’m Catholic.
I’m gay.
I’m me."
Got that? That, my friends, is presumption in a nutshell. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2092).
Dr. Grisez explains that, "Remaining interested in God's promises and counting on him to keep them, those who sin by presumption continue to hope and even, to some extent, to shape their lives by hope. But, not consistently putting hope into practice, they abuse it, expecting pardon without repentance and the reward for following Jesus without the cost of discipleship. This unrealistic expectation is the essence of presumption. An element of pride underlies this sin. Rejecting God's terms for obtaining what he promises, the presumptuous expect to obtain it on their own. They suppose that God, like a blustery parent, threatens punishments which he will be too softhearted to carry out, and, like a permissive parent, accompanies his gift of freedom with a virtual guarantee to fend off the consequences of its irresponsible use. Such suppositions are inconsistent with faith, which not only depends on God's absolute truthfulness but also, assuring believers that God will do his part, calls them to do theirs, as grace empowers them to do.
However, the sin of presumption can be committed without denying any truth of faith. People determined not to fulfill the responsibilities of Christian life in some essential respect, yet, unwilling to face the prospective consequences, can resolve the tension by persuading themselves that somehow God will manage to save them despite themselves. This self-deception need not be logical enough to withstand critical reflection, since that is something the presumptuous manage to avoid...It also weakens hope. Rather than serving as the intention of all the choices which should make up Christian life, presumptuous hope renders many of them unnecessary and clears the way for a life-style apart from, and even sinfully at odds with, hope for the kingdom. Not being exercised, hope weakens as other interests grow strong. Eventually heaven, now taken for granted and regarded as irrelevant to present concerns, becomes a dim prospect, a mere fairyland which one used to yearn for but no longer finds exciting."
Mr. Ledesma wants us to believe that as long as heterosexual persons commit sexual sins, it's "okay" if homosexual persons do the same. He would have us believe that gravely sinful acts may be reconciled with faith without any real attempt at conversion and that the Sacrament of Reconciliation (I prefer Penance) is still valid without a firm purpose of amendment.
This man gets to greet the Pope and I cannot, as an orthodox cradle Catholic faithful to the Magisterium who actually lives a celibate life, obtain even a response from this pope regarding my desire to discern a priestly vocation within my diocese.
Is there really a question as to where Francis is heading? As to where he wants to take us?
Pray. The Man of Sin nears.
"Some Catholics believe that there are only two choices when being gay:
Live a life of celibacy OR Live in sin & go to hell.
I realize that some Catholics urging the LGBTQ community to be celibate are doing it out of love and concern, and then there are others who hide behind their religion as a justification for their bigotry.
For the ones who are truly concerned with my soul and my relationship with God, this is how I try to explain it:
There are heterosexual, married, Catholic couples who use contraception. They don’t plan on stopping the use of contraception, and don’t really believe they are sinning. How do they reconcile that choice with God and their faith?
There are heterosexual Catholics who have gotten a divorce and remarried legally without getting an annulment from the Church. They still receive communion. They don’t plan on pursuing an annulment and don’t really believe what they’re doing is wrong. How do they reconcile that choice with God and their faith?
There are heterosexual couples, even married ones, who have sex for pleasure only. Some watch porn and give little thought to the gift of intimacy. How do they reconcile those choices with God and their faith?
My point is — being gay and in a same sex relationship has the same struggles as the ones I’ve listed above.
So, what do we all do?
We do the best we can.
We seek the beautiful Sacrament of Reconciliation.
We try our best to live our lives as closely to what God wants as we can.
We try to resist temptations and sins, but when we fall short, we seek God’s forgiveness, mercy and grace.
Please, when you see a gay couple, try not to focus on their acts of sex so that you ONLY see their sins.
Pray for me, but don’t pray for me because I’m gay.
My name is Aaron Jay Ledesma.
I’m from Houston, Texas.
I’m Catholic.
I’m gay.
I’m me."
Got that? That, my friends, is presumption in a nutshell. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us that, "There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2092).
Dr. Grisez explains that, "Remaining interested in God's promises and counting on him to keep them, those who sin by presumption continue to hope and even, to some extent, to shape their lives by hope. But, not consistently putting hope into practice, they abuse it, expecting pardon without repentance and the reward for following Jesus without the cost of discipleship. This unrealistic expectation is the essence of presumption. An element of pride underlies this sin. Rejecting God's terms for obtaining what he promises, the presumptuous expect to obtain it on their own. They suppose that God, like a blustery parent, threatens punishments which he will be too softhearted to carry out, and, like a permissive parent, accompanies his gift of freedom with a virtual guarantee to fend off the consequences of its irresponsible use. Such suppositions are inconsistent with faith, which not only depends on God's absolute truthfulness but also, assuring believers that God will do his part, calls them to do theirs, as grace empowers them to do.
However, the sin of presumption can be committed without denying any truth of faith. People determined not to fulfill the responsibilities of Christian life in some essential respect, yet, unwilling to face the prospective consequences, can resolve the tension by persuading themselves that somehow God will manage to save them despite themselves. This self-deception need not be logical enough to withstand critical reflection, since that is something the presumptuous manage to avoid...It also weakens hope. Rather than serving as the intention of all the choices which should make up Christian life, presumptuous hope renders many of them unnecessary and clears the way for a life-style apart from, and even sinfully at odds with, hope for the kingdom. Not being exercised, hope weakens as other interests grow strong. Eventually heaven, now taken for granted and regarded as irrelevant to present concerns, becomes a dim prospect, a mere fairyland which one used to yearn for but no longer finds exciting."
Mr. Ledesma wants us to believe that as long as heterosexual persons commit sexual sins, it's "okay" if homosexual persons do the same. He would have us believe that gravely sinful acts may be reconciled with faith without any real attempt at conversion and that the Sacrament of Reconciliation (I prefer Penance) is still valid without a firm purpose of amendment.
This man gets to greet the Pope and I cannot, as an orthodox cradle Catholic faithful to the Magisterium who actually lives a celibate life, obtain even a response from this pope regarding my desire to discern a priestly vocation within my diocese.
Is there really a question as to where Francis is heading? As to where he wants to take us?
Pray. The Man of Sin nears.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
The Diocese of Worcester and vocations: Are orthodox candidates to the priesthood welcome?
Once again, the Diocese of Worcester is putting out the word that it is looking for men who have "thought of a vocation to the priesthood"
But is this call open to everyone?
Apparently not. See here.
As Archbishop Elden Curtis explained in an article entitled "Crisis in Vocations? What Crisis?": "There is much media hype these days about the present and projected shortage of priests and its effect on the sacramental life of the Church. It is time to pay close attention to the dioceses and religious communities reporting increasing numbers of candidates. There have to be reasons for these increases that bear objective analysis from which some conclusions can be drawn.
I personally think the vocation "crisis" in this country is more artificial and contrived than many people realize. When dioceses and religious communities are unambiguous about ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these calls; when there is strong support for vocations, and a minimum of dissent about the male celibate priesthood and religious life loyal to the magisterium; when bishop, priests, Religious and lay people are united in vocation ministry—then there are documented increases in the numbers of candidates who respond to the call.
It seems to me that the vocation "crisis" is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the Pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines the ministries.
I am personally aware of certain vocation directors, vocation teams and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions, such as the Rosary.
When there is a determined effort to discourage orthodox candidates from priesthood and religious life, then the vocation shortage which results is caused not by a lack of vocations but by deliberate attitudes and policies that deter certain viable candidates.
And the same people who precipitate a decline in vocations by their negative actions call for the ordination of married men and women to replace the vocations they have discouraged. They have a death wish for ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines them. They undermine the vocation ministry they are supposed to champion." (Full article here).
Although I have had extensive psychological testing and screening for the United States military (as part of my security clearance for military intelligence) and have received glowing reports which indicate that I am free of any pathologies - including a homosexual inclination, when I contacted the Worcester Diocese (twice) to express my interest in discerning a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the Diocese of Worcester has ordained homosexual men to the priesthood. For example, a psychological evaluation in 1977 prior to the ordination of Fr. Jean Paul Gagnon indicated that the candidate had possible "sex role identification" problems. See here.
Related reading: Expert on Islam prevented from speaking at the Diocese of Worcester's "Catholic" Men's Conference.
But is this call open to everyone?
Apparently not. See here.
As Archbishop Elden Curtis explained in an article entitled "Crisis in Vocations? What Crisis?": "There is much media hype these days about the present and projected shortage of priests and its effect on the sacramental life of the Church. It is time to pay close attention to the dioceses and religious communities reporting increasing numbers of candidates. There have to be reasons for these increases that bear objective analysis from which some conclusions can be drawn.
I personally think the vocation "crisis" in this country is more artificial and contrived than many people realize. When dioceses and religious communities are unambiguous about ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these calls; when there is strong support for vocations, and a minimum of dissent about the male celibate priesthood and religious life loyal to the magisterium; when bishop, priests, Religious and lay people are united in vocation ministry—then there are documented increases in the numbers of candidates who respond to the call.
It seems to me that the vocation "crisis" is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the Pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines the ministries.
I am personally aware of certain vocation directors, vocation teams and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions, such as the Rosary.
When there is a determined effort to discourage orthodox candidates from priesthood and religious life, then the vocation shortage which results is caused not by a lack of vocations but by deliberate attitudes and policies that deter certain viable candidates.
And the same people who precipitate a decline in vocations by their negative actions call for the ordination of married men and women to replace the vocations they have discouraged. They have a death wish for ordained priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines them. They undermine the vocation ministry they are supposed to champion." (Full article here).
Although I have had extensive psychological testing and screening for the United States military (as part of my security clearance for military intelligence) and have received glowing reports which indicate that I am free of any pathologies - including a homosexual inclination, when I contacted the Worcester Diocese (twice) to express my interest in discerning a priestly vocation, I received no response whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the Diocese of Worcester has ordained homosexual men to the priesthood. For example, a psychological evaluation in 1977 prior to the ordination of Fr. Jean Paul Gagnon indicated that the candidate had possible "sex role identification" problems. See here.
Related reading: Expert on Islam prevented from speaking at the Diocese of Worcester's "Catholic" Men's Conference.
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
Deacon Ryan Duns: Archbishop Nienstedt comes across as homophobic
In a Blog post addressing a letter written by Archbishop John Nienstedt to a mother explaining the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and the reception of the Holy Eucharist, Deacon Ryan Duns, the Jesuit seminarian who believes that "gay marriage" might be a movement of the Holy Spirit, said that the Archbishop's letter, "..serves only to reinforce the belief that the Catholic Church is a homophobic institution more concerned with obedience than human flourishing." See here.
In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).
Jesus gave us this new Law of Love. He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15). And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.
Those Catholics who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom." For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex. And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."
Clearly Deacon Duns has set himself in opposition to the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and has little interest in the truth that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (CCC, 1395).
Should this confused individual, who has shown contempt for Church teaching and a faithful Bishop of Christ's Church, be ordained to the priesthood?
Is this What passes for a sound candidate today?
In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).
Jesus gave us this new Law of Love. He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15). And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.
Those Catholics who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom." For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex. And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."
Clearly Deacon Duns has set himself in opposition to the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and has little interest in the truth that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (CCC, 1395).
Should this confused individual, who has shown contempt for Church teaching and a faithful Bishop of Christ's Church, be ordained to the priesthood?
Is this What passes for a sound candidate today?
Sunday, March 01, 2015
Here is what the Archdiocese of Boston wants for the priesthood...
In a Blog post which may be found here, Deacon Ryan Duns argues that same-sex "marriage" could actually be beneficial to society.
Deacon Duns quotes from Louis Dupre, who said that, "The quality of a civilization may be measured both by the complexity of its ingredients and by the harmony of their order. The more diverse elements it succeeds in integrating within a harmonious and unified balance, the greater its potential and, usually, its achievements are." (Louis Dupré, Passage to Modernity, 29).
Then this confused soul writes, "...the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has yielded simultaneously great rejoicing from some, much hand-wringing from others. From Twitter to Facebook, blogs to news sites, the Court's actions were debated and discussed, celebrated and denounced. Mike Huckabee tweeted that 'Jesus Wept' and the USCCB called it a 'tragic day for marriage and our nation.' The New Ways Ministry website likens the experience to 'justice rolling down like a river,' washing away what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to in March as 'skim-milk marriage.'
I find the above quote from Louis Dupré particularly helpful this morning as I reflect on yesterday's events. For, to my mind, a new question begins to emerge and demand response: if gay marriages are considered equal and of the same standing as heterosexual marriages, will this contribute to or detract from the harmony of society? Can this so-called marriage equality contribute to unification or will it result in further fracturing?
In their press release, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops rightly stresses 'the common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.'
Yesterday's SCOTUS decision is hardly the final word on the issue of marriage. As the USCCB asserts, it is 'part of a public debate of great consequence.' Indeed, it may be better to see these decisions less as offering the definitive word on marriage than on opening up a space for new words to spoken. The words to be spoken can come only through the lived witness of same-sex couples living lives of love and commitment that contribute to, rather than detract from, the common good of our nation.
Pope Francis has managed in three months to capture the attention of a skeptical world and an increasingly jaded flock. The credibility of his words arises from his actions and it's hard to deny that the Holy Father is active. His is a faith that works, his works are born of faith.
In the months and years ahead, a great burden will continue to be shouldered by those same-sex couples in the United States willing to commit themselves to one another. Great attention will be focused upon them and many Christian communities will remain skeptical of their relationships' ability to witness to the values of God's Kingdom. Gay and Lesbian Christians must now accept the shadow of the Cross falling long upon them. Many will deny that God's Spirit can be active in their commitments. It is only through the testimony of their lives, the witness of fidelity and love, that they have any chance in changing the hearts and minds of others.
In the Acts of the Apostles, the Pharisee Gamaliel offered the following counsel concerning the nascent movement growing around the claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead:
"...in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them - in that case you may even be found fighting against God." (Acts 5:38-39).
I accept that, whether we like it or not as a faith community, a new path has been opened up to citizens of our nation. My prayer is that marriage will continue to be the glue that holds the fundamental unit of our society together: the family. Whether same-sex couples can contribute to the common good in and through their witness of socially sanction and legally protected fidelity, we must wait and see. We must, all of us, keep our hearts and eyes and ears open so that if we begin to see the movement of God's Spirit, we can respond with joy and gratitude. Should the trace of God's life not be found, should only greater disharmony and rancor reign, we will find confirmation of our received Tradition's wisdom."
Got that? According to this Deacon of the Boston Archdiocese, waiting to be ordained while my own vocation to the priesthood is thrown into the garbage heap because I accept, defend and promote the Church's perennial teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality, God has allowed "a new path" to be opened up - one that permits homosexual and lesbian sex and even sacramental marriage - and we should all keep our hearts and minds open in order to discern "the movement of God's Spirit."
Isn't it amazing how people will strain to rationalize sin (especially those sins they are engaging in themselves)? But homosexual acts may never be approved of. They are intrinsically evil acts. They cry to Heaven for vengeance.
These intrinsically evil acts are not the result of the movement of the Holy Spirit but the movement of the Evil spirit. They are the fruit of the demonic spirit.
Because I accept and promote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches authoritatively that, "...In the sanctorum communio, 'None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.' 'If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.' 'Charity does not insist on its own way.' In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion." (CCC, 953), my vocation is relegated to file 13.
Paragraph 817 of the Catechism assures us that "ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body...do not occur without human sin."
Granted that when an evil act, such as a homosexual act, is done in public, the resulting scandal compounds its intrinsic evil. But an intrinsically evil act does not become good or neutral simply because it is performed in private. The evil nature of the act remains unchanged. Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, explains that, "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person." (No. 81).
Pope John Paul II insists that, "No damage must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 5: 9-13). The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it (cf. 1 John 2: 3-6). And ever since Apostolic times the Church's Pastors have unambiguously condemned the behavior of those who fostered division by their teaching or by their actions." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 26).
Deacon Dun's vocation is accepted, nurtured and encouraged. Mine is rejected.
The difference: I stand with Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. I'm not a spiritual whore. I won't promote sodomy for the sake of being accepted. I refuse to sell my soul for a bowl of porridge.
For what does it profit a man to gain the entire world...you know the rest!
Related reading here.
Deacon Duns quotes from Louis Dupre, who said that, "The quality of a civilization may be measured both by the complexity of its ingredients and by the harmony of their order. The more diverse elements it succeeds in integrating within a harmonious and unified balance, the greater its potential and, usually, its achievements are." (Louis Dupré, Passage to Modernity, 29).
Then this confused soul writes, "...the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has yielded simultaneously great rejoicing from some, much hand-wringing from others. From Twitter to Facebook, blogs to news sites, the Court's actions were debated and discussed, celebrated and denounced. Mike Huckabee tweeted that 'Jesus Wept' and the USCCB called it a 'tragic day for marriage and our nation.' The New Ways Ministry website likens the experience to 'justice rolling down like a river,' washing away what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to in March as 'skim-milk marriage.'
I find the above quote from Louis Dupré particularly helpful this morning as I reflect on yesterday's events. For, to my mind, a new question begins to emerge and demand response: if gay marriages are considered equal and of the same standing as heterosexual marriages, will this contribute to or detract from the harmony of society? Can this so-called marriage equality contribute to unification or will it result in further fracturing?
In their press release, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops rightly stresses 'the common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.'
Yesterday's SCOTUS decision is hardly the final word on the issue of marriage. As the USCCB asserts, it is 'part of a public debate of great consequence.' Indeed, it may be better to see these decisions less as offering the definitive word on marriage than on opening up a space for new words to spoken. The words to be spoken can come only through the lived witness of same-sex couples living lives of love and commitment that contribute to, rather than detract from, the common good of our nation.
Pope Francis has managed in three months to capture the attention of a skeptical world and an increasingly jaded flock. The credibility of his words arises from his actions and it's hard to deny that the Holy Father is active. His is a faith that works, his works are born of faith.
In the months and years ahead, a great burden will continue to be shouldered by those same-sex couples in the United States willing to commit themselves to one another. Great attention will be focused upon them and many Christian communities will remain skeptical of their relationships' ability to witness to the values of God's Kingdom. Gay and Lesbian Christians must now accept the shadow of the Cross falling long upon them. Many will deny that God's Spirit can be active in their commitments. It is only through the testimony of their lives, the witness of fidelity and love, that they have any chance in changing the hearts and minds of others.
In the Acts of the Apostles, the Pharisee Gamaliel offered the following counsel concerning the nascent movement growing around the claim that Jesus had been raised from the dead:
"...in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them - in that case you may even be found fighting against God." (Acts 5:38-39).
I accept that, whether we like it or not as a faith community, a new path has been opened up to citizens of our nation. My prayer is that marriage will continue to be the glue that holds the fundamental unit of our society together: the family. Whether same-sex couples can contribute to the common good in and through their witness of socially sanction and legally protected fidelity, we must wait and see. We must, all of us, keep our hearts and eyes and ears open so that if we begin to see the movement of God's Spirit, we can respond with joy and gratitude. Should the trace of God's life not be found, should only greater disharmony and rancor reign, we will find confirmation of our received Tradition's wisdom."
Got that? According to this Deacon of the Boston Archdiocese, waiting to be ordained while my own vocation to the priesthood is thrown into the garbage heap because I accept, defend and promote the Church's perennial teaching, especially in the area of sexual morality, God has allowed "a new path" to be opened up - one that permits homosexual and lesbian sex and even sacramental marriage - and we should all keep our hearts and minds open in order to discern "the movement of God's Spirit."
Isn't it amazing how people will strain to rationalize sin (especially those sins they are engaging in themselves)? But homosexual acts may never be approved of. They are intrinsically evil acts. They cry to Heaven for vengeance.
These intrinsically evil acts are not the result of the movement of the Holy Spirit but the movement of the Evil spirit. They are the fruit of the demonic spirit.
Because I accept and promote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches authoritatively that, "...In the sanctorum communio, 'None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.' 'If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.' 'Charity does not insist on its own way.' In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion." (CCC, 953), my vocation is relegated to file 13.
Paragraph 817 of the Catechism assures us that "ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body...do not occur without human sin."
Granted that when an evil act, such as a homosexual act, is done in public, the resulting scandal compounds its intrinsic evil. But an intrinsically evil act does not become good or neutral simply because it is performed in private. The evil nature of the act remains unchanged. Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, explains that, "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person." (No. 81).
Pope John Paul II insists that, "No damage must be done to the harmony between faith and life: the unity of the Church is damaged not only by Christians who reject or distort the truths of faith but also by those who disregard the moral obligations to which they are called by the Gospel (cf. 1 Cor 5: 9-13). The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it (cf. 1 John 2: 3-6). And ever since Apostolic times the Church's Pastors have unambiguously condemned the behavior of those who fostered division by their teaching or by their actions." (Veritatis Splendor, No. 26).
Deacon Dun's vocation is accepted, nurtured and encouraged. Mine is rejected.
The difference: I stand with Jesus Christ and the Church He founded. I'm not a spiritual whore. I won't promote sodomy for the sake of being accepted. I refuse to sell my soul for a bowl of porridge.
For what does it profit a man to gain the entire world...you know the rest!
Related reading here.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
For the Church charity is everything; For the Worcester Diocese, some aren't deserving
According to a concluding statement at the end of last month's Synod, “Christ wanted his Church to be a house with doors always open to welcome everyone,” without leaving anyone out. Hence bishops are called to “accompany couples and families and care for their personal and social wounds.” See here.
The Worcester Diocese apparently disagrees. For I have expressed my interest in discerning a vocation to the priesthood but have been excluded from such a discernment process. See here.
And when I tried to volunteer at the parish level or have a Mass said for my father, I was put off. This is not charity. This is hatred and violence.
In his Encyclical Letter Caritas In Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, “God is love” (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope."
The Worcester Diocese is not thriving. In fact, it is gradually disintegrating. Parishes are closing. Many are deserting the Church. They sense the lack of commitment toward authentic charity. Many just don't feel welcome.
The Diocese of Worcester is betraying love. It operates as more of a private clique where a few individuals determine who is welcome at the table and who is not. Who gets the sacraments and who does not. Who gets to apply for the priesthood and who doesn't. Who may participate in the life of a parish and who may not.
Saint Gregory the Great said that, "The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist."
Too bad Bishop McManus doesn't reflect on that.
The Worcester Diocese apparently disagrees. For I have expressed my interest in discerning a vocation to the priesthood but have been excluded from such a discernment process. See here.
And when I tried to volunteer at the parish level or have a Mass said for my father, I was put off. This is not charity. This is hatred and violence.
In his Encyclical Letter Caritas In Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI wrote, Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, “God is love” (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope."
The Worcester Diocese is not thriving. In fact, it is gradually disintegrating. Parishes are closing. Many are deserting the Church. They sense the lack of commitment toward authentic charity. Many just don't feel welcome.
The Diocese of Worcester is betraying love. It operates as more of a private clique where a few individuals determine who is welcome at the table and who is not. Who gets the sacraments and who does not. Who gets to apply for the priesthood and who doesn't. Who may participate in the life of a parish and who may not.
Saint Gregory the Great said that, "The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist."
Too bad Bishop McManus doesn't reflect on that.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Michael Brown on authentic reform within the Church....
Michael Brown over at Spirit Daily has an excllent article on authentic reform within the Church. He writes, "As our Church gets a new bearing, we have two strong directives in recent days. One was given by Pope Francis during his remarkable visit to Brazil, where in an impromptu meeting at the Cathedral of San Sebastian, and then elsewhere, he said, 'What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses! . . . I want to see the Church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools, or structures. Because these need to get out! We cannot keep ourselves shut up in parishes, in our communities, when so many people are waiting for the Gospel! It's not enough simply to open the door in welcome, but we must go out through that door to seek and meet the people.'
It was a fascinating, sobering, and at the same time electrifying call to change the way dioceses function at their most basic level -- calling them to dismantle the bureaucratic barriers, the focus on secular structure and social stature. Clericalism is used to denote the divisions between ordained clergy and laymen in a closed-in world. Here is his true message to our bishops, to our pastors, to us all: don't become entwined with the worldly. Live the Gospel message (not the Gospel of the local eleven o'clock news). It was a very necessary admonition in a Church where aloofness in the clergy has caused it to be seen as distant, ceremonial, and in need of less starch. (A diocese does itself no favor when it resembles a school board.) The Pope called on the flock to make its concerns known, 'even at the expense of confrontation with their bishops and priests.' It was a call to shake things up -- but in a right, respectful way, to let local hierarchy know of the needs, to send the Church into every 'nook and cranny.' But always: there must be respect. There must be obedience. Bishops and pastors must be approached with new persistence and vigor but with no less respect, for their hands are consecrated; their mission is anointed. We are not to focus on their personalities, which are human ones. Instead, a direct but prayerful approach to any diocese where clericalism prevails is what the Pope requests -- a prayerful and yet energetic one, that we may all be involved in the process of reform."
In her own day, St. Catherine of Sienna found much corruption within the Holy Church. Homosexuality and many other deeply rooted problems were found among the clergy and Our Lord spoke to this Doctor of the Church about these problems (pride, loss of sacred identity, loss of faith, worldliness, and sensuality). These conversations were laid out in St. Catherine's book entitled "Dialogue," and most especially in that portion of the book labelled "The Mystical Body of Holy Church."
While St. Catherine cautions her readers not to engage in blanket condemnations aimed at the clergy in general (using scandals as an excuse to denigrate priests in general), and refers to such people as "irreverent persecutors" of the clergy, still, she was told by Our Lord that those who will not receive correction and those who will not give it are like the limbs of a body beginning to rot.
How quickly some forget this. In the Diocese of Worcester, constructive criticism is rejected outright. So much so that I am not even allowed to APPLY for the diocesan priesthood because I refuse to place community above truth. See here:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-dont-have-vocation-in-worcester.html
Very often haughtiness is a factor in the rejection of constructive criticism. The haughty person (or the group which believes itself to be "above any criticism" - sometimes even a local church) will, in the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, "find it intolerable to feel dependent on other persons, to serve others, to subordinate himself to an alien will, and above all, to suffer ever so slight a humiliation. He is unable to admit before others of having been in the wrong, even if he knows it in his heart; much less could he prevail on himself to ask anybody's forgiveness. He is stricken with a crabbed anxiousness about preserving his dignity..."
Haughtiness gets in the way of authentic reform. This is true for individuals, organizations and even nations.
It was a fascinating, sobering, and at the same time electrifying call to change the way dioceses function at their most basic level -- calling them to dismantle the bureaucratic barriers, the focus on secular structure and social stature. Clericalism is used to denote the divisions between ordained clergy and laymen in a closed-in world. Here is his true message to our bishops, to our pastors, to us all: don't become entwined with the worldly. Live the Gospel message (not the Gospel of the local eleven o'clock news). It was a very necessary admonition in a Church where aloofness in the clergy has caused it to be seen as distant, ceremonial, and in need of less starch. (A diocese does itself no favor when it resembles a school board.) The Pope called on the flock to make its concerns known, 'even at the expense of confrontation with their bishops and priests.' It was a call to shake things up -- but in a right, respectful way, to let local hierarchy know of the needs, to send the Church into every 'nook and cranny.' But always: there must be respect. There must be obedience. Bishops and pastors must be approached with new persistence and vigor but with no less respect, for their hands are consecrated; their mission is anointed. We are not to focus on their personalities, which are human ones. Instead, a direct but prayerful approach to any diocese where clericalism prevails is what the Pope requests -- a prayerful and yet energetic one, that we may all be involved in the process of reform."
In her own day, St. Catherine of Sienna found much corruption within the Holy Church. Homosexuality and many other deeply rooted problems were found among the clergy and Our Lord spoke to this Doctor of the Church about these problems (pride, loss of sacred identity, loss of faith, worldliness, and sensuality). These conversations were laid out in St. Catherine's book entitled "Dialogue," and most especially in that portion of the book labelled "The Mystical Body of Holy Church."
While St. Catherine cautions her readers not to engage in blanket condemnations aimed at the clergy in general (using scandals as an excuse to denigrate priests in general), and refers to such people as "irreverent persecutors" of the clergy, still, she was told by Our Lord that those who will not receive correction and those who will not give it are like the limbs of a body beginning to rot.
How quickly some forget this. In the Diocese of Worcester, constructive criticism is rejected outright. So much so that I am not even allowed to APPLY for the diocesan priesthood because I refuse to place community above truth. See here:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-dont-have-vocation-in-worcester.html
Very often haughtiness is a factor in the rejection of constructive criticism. The haughty person (or the group which believes itself to be "above any criticism" - sometimes even a local church) will, in the words of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, "find it intolerable to feel dependent on other persons, to serve others, to subordinate himself to an alien will, and above all, to suffer ever so slight a humiliation. He is unable to admit before others of having been in the wrong, even if he knows it in his heart; much less could he prevail on himself to ask anybody's forgiveness. He is stricken with a crabbed anxiousness about preserving his dignity..."
Haughtiness gets in the way of authentic reform. This is true for individuals, organizations and even nations.
Monday, June 03, 2013
The New Moloch State will not tolerate orthodox Christianity
In the April 2001 edition of Catholic World Report, Paul Sinsigalli, a former Air Force officer who graduated from the Archdiocese of Boston's Saint John's Seminary in 1999, told his story about being excluded from ordination because of his orthodoxy. He was informed that he would never be allowed to serve as a priest anywhere because he would not accept the view that seminarians acting out homosexually is morally acceptable.
Sinsigalli reported, "I was studying at St. John's seminary in Boston and was told that I did not have the qualities required to be a priest. They said that I lacked leadership, intellectual ability, and emotional maturity, among other things. When I asked them to explain where these traits were exhibited they merely repeated the oft heard mantra: 'It's the consensus of the faculty,' and then would not defend or cite examples of said behavior. They had decided that I did not fit into their mold of what a priest should be...What were my crimes, you may ask? I stood up for what the Church teaches every time there was a question about it. I stood against the homosexual atmosphere which pervaded the college at that time and had the temerity to suggest that homosexuality is a disorder. I also did not engage in their pro-masturbation conversations which were commonplace in the halls and the dinner table. I was the target of a homosexual classmate who is known to have a violent history and required a restraining order to be taken out against him by another student..."
The sexual morality popular in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah brought them to complete and utter destruction. Today we are building a New Sodom, a Moloch State which offers not law and justice but an oppressive demonic order which claims total jurisdiction over man and defies God and His plan for humanity. So it is no surprise that many within the priesthood (as throughout society in general) have succumbed to homosexual ideology as they deny the true God and His Commandments. Rousas Rushdoony exposes the nature of the demonic Moloch State which so many of the clergy now willingly serve:
"The Moloch state simply represents the supreme effort of man to command the future, to predestine the world, and to be as God. Lesser efforts, divination, spirit-questing, magic and witchcraft are equally anathema to God. All represent efforts to have the future on other than God's terms, to have a future apart from and in defiance of God. They are assertions that the world is not of God but of brute factuality, and that men can somehow master the world and the future by going directly to the raw materials thereof."
The Devil seduces men through the deceitful tactics of pseudo-saviors. And ours is a perverse age in which many pseudo-saviors pretend to offer liberation through sex without love, violence and drug abuse as well as the occult. As Fr. Miceli, S.J., warned: "In the name of its new secular gods, Progress and Liberty, titles that are false fronts for Rebellion and Licentiousness, many formerly Christian nations are driving their sons and daughters through the demonic fires of sacrificial murder. Thus..so-called Christian nations, having legalized abortion and while preparing to to legalize euthanasia, have become Moloch states."
A new class of priests is necessary to serve the emerging Moloch State. Such priests will never speak of sin, the need for repentance and conversion, the reality of Hell and the possibility of finding your soul there after death, etc. When is the last time you heard a homily from your priest discussing these items or citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Of course, there are still good priests who still preach sound Catholic doctrine - but these are now in a minority. In the New Order, priests who preach traditional Catholic doctrine will be replaced by priests who traffick in souls by substituting the doctrines of demons for the Word of God and Holy Tradition and the City of Progress for the City of God.
A new city is arising which is based upon Satan's blueprints. Many cannot see this. Others choose not to. But all around us things are changing. Just the other day, the Boy Scouts of America decided to allow "gay" - homosexual scouts. Soon even Boy Scout leaders who are homosexual will be allowed. This is all the more chilling as a significant part of the homosexual "culture" revolves around fascination with boys.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Pope Francis and the restoration of the moral credibility of the hierarchy and the priesthood
In an article which may be found here, Father Roger Landry of the Fall River (Massachusetts) Diocese notes, "One of the most urgent reforms facing him [Pope Francis] is the restoration of the moral credibility of the hierarchy, and especially of the priesthood...The scandals of clerical sex abuse and tales of Vatican corruption have not only severely undermined the Church’s moral authority, but given the impression that living by the Church’s teachings forms freaks and moral monsters rather than saints. In his first couple of weeks as Pope, as well as his fourteen years in Buenos Aires, Francis has been charting out the trajectory of priestly reshaping. We can focus on seven aspects of this needed renewal. The first is with regard to priestly simplicity. Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty, but commit themselves to a simple lifestyle. In many places, this principle is given lip service, as members of the clergy drive fancy cars, frequent the finest restaurants and live in exquisite digs. Cardinal Bergoglio’s example of living in a small apartment rather than an episcopal palace, taking public transportation rather than a car with a driver and cooking for himself cannot help but lead priests to a sincere examination about the sincerity of their own spiritual poverty."
Well said.
Jesus disciples are called to carry their cross and follow Him (Mt 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23). Above all, Christians are called to love as Jesus does (Jn 13: 34-35). But the cross is not popular with those who are advancing the "new religion" which will serve the New Order. The cross has never been popular with those who belong to the company of the world or the Devil. Today, countless young people (and old) have given themselves over to promiscuous sexual unions. In the mad pursuit of wealth, power, fame, and various hedonistic pleasures (euphemistically referred to as "choice" or "alternative lifestyles"), many poor souls have given themselves over to the Devil. Many who call themselves "Christian" are really living pagan lives. And their "pastors," often living disordered lives themselves, say nothing. Many of these have succumbed to materialism and hedonism. and find themselves unable to condemn sins which they have embraced.
This is, of course, nothing new. But the sexual degeneration in so-called Christian nations today is the most abominable in history. So much so that a young girl in the Ukraine is reported to have been told by Our Lady that: "The present times are worse than at the time of Noah. Then the world was scourged by a deluge of water: now the world is going to be scourge by a deluge of fire." (First apparition to Anna at Seredne, December 20, 1954). St. Louis de Montfort explains that:
"'My dear brothers and sisters, there are two companies that appear before you each day: the followers of Christ and the followers of the world.
Our dear Saviour's company is on the right, climbing up a narrow road, made all the narrower by the world's immorality. Our Master leads the way, barefooted, crowned with thorns, covered with blood, and laden with a heavy cross. Those who follow him, though most valiant, are only a handful, either because his quiet voice is not heard amid the tumult of the world, or because people lack the courage to follow him in his poverty, sufferings, humiliations and other crosses which his servants must carry all the days of their life.
On the left hand is the company of the world or of the devil. This is far more numerous, more imposing and more illustrious, at least in appearance. Most of the fashionable people run to join it, all crowded together, although the road is wide and is continually being made wider than ever by the crowds that pour along it like a torrent. It is strewn with flowers, bordered with all kinds of amusements and attractions, and paved with gold and silver.
On the right, the little groups which follow Jesus speak about sorrow and penance, prayer and indifference to worldly things. They continually encourage one another saying, "Now is the time to suffer and to mourn, to pray and do penance, to live in retirement and poverty, to humble and mortify ourselves; for those who do not possess the spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of the cross, do not belong to him. Those who belong to Christ have crucified all self-indulgent passions and desires. We must be true images of Christ or be eternally lost."
"Have confidence," they say to each other. If God is on our side, within us and before us, who can be against us? He who is within us is stronger than the one who is in the world. The servant is not greater than his master. This slight and temporary distress we suffer will bring us a tremendous and everlasting glory. The number of those who will be saved is not as great as some people imagine. It is only the brave and the daring who take heaven by storm, where only those are crowned who strive to live according to the law of the Gospel and not according to the maxims of the world. Let us fight with all our strength, let us run with all speed, that we may attain our goal and win the crown.
Such are some of the heavenly counsels with which the Friends of the Cross inspire each other.
Those who follow the world, on the contrary, urge each other to continue in their evil ways without scruple, calling to one another day after day, "Let us eat and drink, sing and dance, and enjoy ourselves. God is good; he has not made us to damn us. He does not forbid us to amuse ourselves. We shall not be damned for so little. We are not to be scrupulous. 'No, you will not die'."
Dear brothers and sisters, remember that our loving Saviour has his eyes on you at this moment, and he says to each one of you individually, "See how almost everyone deserts me on the royal road of the Cross. Pagans in their blindness ridicule my Cross as foolishness; obstinate Jews are repelled by it as by an object of horror; heretics pull it down and break it to pieces as something contemptible.
"Even my own people - and I say this with tears in my eyes and grief in my heart - my own children whom I have brought up and instructed in my ways, my members whom I have quickened with my own Spirit, have turned their backs on me and forsaken me by becoming enemies of my Cross. 'Will you also go away?' Will you also desert me by running away from my Cross like the worldlings, who thus become so many antichrists? Will you also follow the world; despise the poverty of my Cross in order to seek after wealth; shun the sufferings of my Cross to look for enjoyment; avoid the humiliations of my Cross in order to chase after the honours of the world? 'There are many who pretend they are friends of mine and protest that they love me, but in their hearts they hate me. I have many friends of my table, but very few of my Cross.' (Imit. II, 11, 1)."
At this loving appeal of Jesus, let us rise above our human nature; let us not be seduced by our senses, as Eve was; but keep our eyes fixed on Jesus crucified, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection (Heb 12.2). Let us keep ourselves apart from the evil practices of the world; let us show our love for Jesus in the best way, that is, through all kinds of crosses. Reflect well on these remarkable words of our Saviour, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself, and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16.24; Lk 9.23)." (St. Louis de Montfort, Letter to the Friends of the Cross, 7-12).
Are we truly friends of the Cross and therefore friends of Christ? Or is ours a counterfeit love?
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia believes that Pope Benedict XVI is wrong about homosexuality being incompatible with the priesthood
Pope Benedict XVI has stated it clearly: homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood. But Elizabeth Scalia, a writer/blogger for First Things and The Anchoress on Patheos, disagrees. In a blog post which may be found here, Ms. Scalia cites Joshua Gonnerman, "If Christians have any interest in reaching out to the gay community, if we have any hope to speak a message which can touch their hearts as well, we absolutely must be willing to live as their family. Behind his blundering obscenity, behind his facile attempts to explain Scripture away, behind the blatant hypocrisy of his behavior toward those who disagree with him, what Dan Savage means to tell us is, 'The church has far too often, and for the most wrong-headed reasons, failed to be family to gay people." And then she writes:
I completely agree. And I really believe that the way to begin to do that is for our bishops and the curia to stop turning a blind eye to a simple truth, that numbered among our priests are faithful, celibate, joyful priests who are homosexual. As I wrote [previously]...
I wonder if [the Church's] bishops and religious leaders will, for example, have to acknowledge with loving support the numerous celibate homosexual priests who, throughout history and still today, serve her faithfully, courageously, and with great joy. Such an acknowledgment could go a long way repairing that disconnect that keeps everyone talking about tolerance while walking away from it.
It would speak to the value of the human person as he is created; it would reinforce the church’s own teaching that the homosexual inclination is not in-and-of-itself sinful; in a sex-saturated culture where 'gay' has become in some minds synonymous with 'promiscuous' [gee, I wonder where that notion came from?] and both heterosexual and homosexual couples see no particular value in chastity, it would present the radical counter-narrative.
Most importantly, such an acknowledgment would be call of olly-olly-oxen free for the church herself. Battered by the revelations of the past decade, poorly served by past psychological studies suggesting that child abusers could be 'cured' and therefore distrustful of more recent findings that homosexuals are no more inclined to pedophilia than heterosexuals*, the church has reflexively pulled the curtains over a number of her priests, and in doing so, she has hidden the idea of 'acceptable otherness' from a flock that is sorely in need to see some of it.
I love our priests, and honor them, but it’s hard to argue that an unfaithful straight priest is better than a faithful gay one. I would rather see a homosexually-inclined happy, celibate priest be able to live in honesty about who he is, than learn about a hetero priest living a lie. A faithful priest is a faithful priest. A happy, joy-filled priest serves the body of Christ in a powerful way.
Allow me to anticipate the argument that the priesthood cannot be open to people the Eastern religions call 'imbalanced' and our church calls 'disordered.' Find me a priest who doesn’t have some sort of disorder, whether it’s an eating disorder, or an attention-seeking disorder, or a disorder of social ineptness, a hearing disorder, or even a learning disorder. Our priests are human, imperfect, faulty and sometimes broken, just like the rest of us.."
What Ms. Scalia refuses to acknowledge is that before entering into any state of life, a divine vocation is necessary. This because without such a vocation, it is difficult if not impossible to fulfil the obligations which pertain to that state and to obtain salvation. This is particularly true for the ministerial priesthood or any other ecclesiastical state. After all, it was Our Lord Who said: "He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1).
Consequently, the man who takes holy orders without a call from God is convicted of theft in taking by force a dignity which God has not called him to and does not desire to bestow upon him. This is the teaching of Saint Paul: "Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify Himself that He might be made a high priest; but he that said unto Him: Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee." (Hebrews 5:4,5).
It matters not then how learned or prudent or holy a man may be. No man may place himself into the holy sanctuary unless he is first called and introduced to the same by Almighty God. Jesus Our Lord was certainly the most learned and holy among all men, full of grace and truth (John 1:14), the Son of Man in Whom were (and are) hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). And yet, Jesus required a divine call to assume the dignity of the priesthood. This is the teaching of the Council of Trent; that the Church regards the man who assumes the priesthood without a vocation not as a minister but as a robber: "Decernit sancta Synodus eos qui ea (ministeria) propria temeritate sibi sumunt, omnes, non Ecclesiae ministros, sed fures et latrones per ostium non ingressos habendos esse" (Session 23, cap. 4).
Those who seize the priesthood without a vocation may labor and toil exhaustively. But their labors will profit them very little before God. In fact, the very works which would be considered of much merit when performed by others will deserve chastisement for such souls. Because such men are not in conformity with the divine will, not having a vocation to the state of life which they have usurped, the Lord Jesus will not accept their toils: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand" (Malachi 1:10).
Not only will God refuse the gifts of their hand, He will punish the works of the minister who has entered the sanctuary without being called; without a vocation: "What stranger soever cometh to it (the Tabernacle) shall be slain." (Numbers 1:51). Bearing all of this in mind, please read the following which first appeared in The Wanderer [I submitted it back in 2001] and may be found at the Faithfulvoice.com website:
"On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as 'objectively disordered,' constitutes an irregularity ex defectu.
In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.'"
* See here.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Saint John of Avila: Doctor of the Church and Model for Priests Suffering from an Identity Crisis
There is news that the Church will soon pronounce John of Avila Doctor of the Church.
During John of Avila's Canonization Mass, Pope Paul VI called him a model for modern priests suffering from an identity crisis. The Holy Father said:
"San Juan de Avila is a priest, who in many respects we call modern, especially by the plurality of the nuances that life offers for our consideration and, therefore, our imitation. Not surprisingly he has already been proposed to the Spanish clergy as their role model and mentor in heaven. We think he may be honored as a versatile model of all priests of our time, which says that the priesthood itself is in deep crisis, an 'identity crisis' and that both the nature and mission of the priest are not now sufficient grounds to justify their presence in a society like ours, desecrated and secularized. Every priest who feels doubt about his own vocation can...get a reassuring answer. And every scholar, bent on reducing the figure of the priest in a profane and utilitarian sociology, looking at the Juan de Avila, must change their narrow and negative judgments about the role of priest in the modern world." (Original Spanish text here).
Several years ago, in a piece entitled "Priestly Identity: Crisis and Renewal," Annamarie Adkins interviewed Father David Toups, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference. Annamarie Adkins wrote, "A general crisis of authentic masculinity in society has also affected the priesthood as only 'real men' can adequately fulfill the role of priest and pastor, says Father David Toups. Father Toups, the associate director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference, is the author of 'Reclaiming Our Priestly Character.'
In this interview with...Father Toups comments on the identity and character of the priesthood, and the various challenges it faces today.
Q: Your book focuses on recovering what you call the 'doctrine of the priestly character.' Can you describe this 'doctrine' in a nutshell?
Father Toups: The 'doctrine of the priestly character' is about the permanent relationship the priest enters into with Christ the High Priest on the day of his ordination. The priest is always a priest; he is not a simple functionary who performs ritual actions, but rather he is configured to Christ in the depths of his being by what is called an ontological change.
Christ is working through him at the altar, 'This is my Body,' and in the confessional, 'I absolve you of your sins,' but also in his daily actions outside the sanctuary.
The character that the priest receives is a comfort to the faithful inasmuch as they realize that their faith is not based in the personality of the priest, but rather the Person of Christ working through the priest. On the other hand, the priest is called, like all of the faithful, to a life of holiness. The character received at ordination is actually a dynamism for priestly holiness. The more he can assimilate his life to Christ and submit to the gift he received at ordination, the more he will be a credible witness to the faithful and edify the Body of Christ.
Q: Is it your view that the nature of the priesthood is unknown or misunderstood by many priests? Is mandatory 'continuing priestly education' the answer?
Father Toups: Studies show that there has been confusion regarding the exact nature of the priesthood among priests themselves depending on the timing of their seminary training.
Immediately following the Second Vatican Council, there was confusion among priests and laity alike about the difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood.
Vatican II’s intention was not to suppress one in order to highlight the other, but rather to recognize the universal call to holiness and the dignity of both.
The ministerial priesthood is a specific vocation within the Church in which a man is called by Christ in the apostolic line to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are different by virtue of ordination, as confirmed by the council itself in paragraph 10 of 'Lumen Gentium,' which emphasized that the baptized and the ordained share in the one and the same priesthood of Christ, but in a way that differs 'in essence and not only in degree.'
This difference certainly does not mean better or even holier -- that would be a major error -- but it does mean that there is a distinction.
Cardinal Avery Dulles points out that, if anything, the priesthood of the faithful is more exalted because the ministerial priesthood is ordered to its service. Hence, a recovery from the confusion lies in the need to understand the balance a priest is to find; he is both a servant and one who has been set aside by Christ and the Church to stand 'in persona Christi' -- not as a personal honor, but as 'one who has come to serve and not be served.'
The priest need not be embarrassed about this high calling, but should boldly live it out in the midst of the world. Pope John Paul the Great regularly reminded priests: 'Do not be afraid to be who you are!'
This brings us to the second part of your question, namely, is mandatory 'continuing priestly education' the answer?
In the book, I use the term 'formation,' not education -- though learning is an important, component part.
Ongoing formation is essential for every Christian vocation. In the midst of full liturgical schedules, parish councils, leaking roofs and hospital visits, the priest must continually open his heart and mind to Christ in prayer and study, annual retreats and seminars, as well as times of recreation and vacation, if he is to thrive as an individual and as a man of faith.
Ongoing formation is about deepening one’s interiority and fostering a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is about an ongoing conversion that reminds the priest who he is as a minister of the Gospel and whose he is as a son of God."
During John of Avila's Canonization Mass, Pope Paul VI called him a model for modern priests suffering from an identity crisis. The Holy Father said:
"San Juan de Avila is a priest, who in many respects we call modern, especially by the plurality of the nuances that life offers for our consideration and, therefore, our imitation. Not surprisingly he has already been proposed to the Spanish clergy as their role model and mentor in heaven. We think he may be honored as a versatile model of all priests of our time, which says that the priesthood itself is in deep crisis, an 'identity crisis' and that both the nature and mission of the priest are not now sufficient grounds to justify their presence in a society like ours, desecrated and secularized. Every priest who feels doubt about his own vocation can...get a reassuring answer. And every scholar, bent on reducing the figure of the priest in a profane and utilitarian sociology, looking at the Juan de Avila, must change their narrow and negative judgments about the role of priest in the modern world." (Original Spanish text here).
Several years ago, in a piece entitled "Priestly Identity: Crisis and Renewal," Annamarie Adkins interviewed Father David Toups, Associate Director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference. Annamarie Adkins wrote, "A general crisis of authentic masculinity in society has also affected the priesthood as only 'real men' can adequately fulfill the role of priest and pastor, says Father David Toups. Father Toups, the associate director of the Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations of the U.S. episcopal conference, is the author of 'Reclaiming Our Priestly Character.'
In this interview with...Father Toups comments on the identity and character of the priesthood, and the various challenges it faces today.
Q: Your book focuses on recovering what you call the 'doctrine of the priestly character.' Can you describe this 'doctrine' in a nutshell?
Father Toups: The 'doctrine of the priestly character' is about the permanent relationship the priest enters into with Christ the High Priest on the day of his ordination. The priest is always a priest; he is not a simple functionary who performs ritual actions, but rather he is configured to Christ in the depths of his being by what is called an ontological change.
Christ is working through him at the altar, 'This is my Body,' and in the confessional, 'I absolve you of your sins,' but also in his daily actions outside the sanctuary.
The character that the priest receives is a comfort to the faithful inasmuch as they realize that their faith is not based in the personality of the priest, but rather the Person of Christ working through the priest. On the other hand, the priest is called, like all of the faithful, to a life of holiness. The character received at ordination is actually a dynamism for priestly holiness. The more he can assimilate his life to Christ and submit to the gift he received at ordination, the more he will be a credible witness to the faithful and edify the Body of Christ.
Q: Is it your view that the nature of the priesthood is unknown or misunderstood by many priests? Is mandatory 'continuing priestly education' the answer?
Father Toups: Studies show that there has been confusion regarding the exact nature of the priesthood among priests themselves depending on the timing of their seminary training.
Immediately following the Second Vatican Council, there was confusion among priests and laity alike about the difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood.
Vatican II’s intention was not to suppress one in order to highlight the other, but rather to recognize the universal call to holiness and the dignity of both.
The ministerial priesthood is a specific vocation within the Church in which a man is called by Christ in the apostolic line to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are different by virtue of ordination, as confirmed by the council itself in paragraph 10 of 'Lumen Gentium,' which emphasized that the baptized and the ordained share in the one and the same priesthood of Christ, but in a way that differs 'in essence and not only in degree.'
This difference certainly does not mean better or even holier -- that would be a major error -- but it does mean that there is a distinction.
Cardinal Avery Dulles points out that, if anything, the priesthood of the faithful is more exalted because the ministerial priesthood is ordered to its service. Hence, a recovery from the confusion lies in the need to understand the balance a priest is to find; he is both a servant and one who has been set aside by Christ and the Church to stand 'in persona Christi' -- not as a personal honor, but as 'one who has come to serve and not be served.'
The priest need not be embarrassed about this high calling, but should boldly live it out in the midst of the world. Pope John Paul the Great regularly reminded priests: 'Do not be afraid to be who you are!'
This brings us to the second part of your question, namely, is mandatory 'continuing priestly education' the answer?
In the book, I use the term 'formation,' not education -- though learning is an important, component part.
Ongoing formation is essential for every Christian vocation. In the midst of full liturgical schedules, parish councils, leaking roofs and hospital visits, the priest must continually open his heart and mind to Christ in prayer and study, annual retreats and seminars, as well as times of recreation and vacation, if he is to thrive as an individual and as a man of faith.
Ongoing formation is about deepening one’s interiority and fostering a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is about an ongoing conversion that reminds the priest who he is as a minister of the Gospel and whose he is as a son of God."
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Cardinal Sean O'Malley on why the priesthood is so important...
In his Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores gregis, No. 28, Pope John Paul II, recalling the Rite of Ordination of a Bishop and most especially the imposition of the Book of the Gospels on the head of the Bishop-elect during the Prayer of Consecration, has this to say, "This gesture indicates, on the one hand, that the Word embraces and watches over the Bishop's ministry and, on the other, that the Bishop's life is to be completely submitted to the Word of God in his daily commitment of preaching the Gospel in all patience and sound doctrine (cf. 2 Timothy 4)."
Being "completely submitted" to the Word of God, whether Sacred Scripture or Tradition, the Bishop must be firmly committed to sound preaching and to the right of the faithful to Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity.
When a Bishop fails to uphold this right of the faithful to sound doctrine, he is responsible for what amounts to an act of violence against the faithful. Which is what we are witnessing in the Boston Archdiocese.
At his Blog, His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley writes, "I am so grateful for priestly vocation. It is not something we deserve or merit, it is something that God in His goodness calls us to do. It calls us to be part of something bigger than ourselves. It is not our priesthood, it is the ministry of Jesus Christ. In the Church, the priesthood is so important because we are a Eucharistic people. It is through the priesthood that Christ has chosen to give us the sacraments."
A word of congratulation is in order. As well as a word of thanks to His Eminence for responding to God's call to serve the Church. Indeed, His Eminence is correct in saying that the priesthood calls men to be part of "something bigger" than themselves. That something is the Word of God, which the priest is called to proclaim with fidelity to those who are entrusted with its true interpretation (Dei Verbum, No. 10). In other words, the Church's Magisterium. "The task of priests," as Vatican II teaches in Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 4, "is not to teach their own wisdom but God's Word."
This task belongs to the priest no less than his task of offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It is significant, for me, that Cardinal O'Malley neglects this point in his summary of why the priesthood is important. Because both tasks are inseparably linked. Origen wrote, "You know, you who are accustomed to assist at the divine mysteries, with what religious care, when you receive the Lord's body, you watch to see that not the smallest particle may fall...You would feel guilty, and rightly so, if that were to happen by your neglect. Then,...how should it be a less grave fault to neglect the word of God than to neglect his body?" (In Exod., hom. 13.3).
The task of safeguarding the Word of God is very important. And when dissent arises in the Church, "the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission" and to insist "that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must always be respected." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, No. 113). Knowing this, one must ask: Your Eminence, why have you not addressed dissent within the Archdiocese of Boston?
Related reading: Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisterium seen as the threat.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Authentic reform: An aspiration to moral perfection
Authentic reform.
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the members of the Congregation for the Clergy on the occasion of their Plenary Assembly, March 16, 2009:
Heartfelt and Total Adherence to a New Form of Life
The missionary dimension of the priesthood is born from the priest's sacramental configuration to Christ. As a consequence it brings with it a heartfelt and total adherence to what the ecclesial tradition has identified as apostolica vivendi forma. This consists in participation in a "new life", spiritually speaking, in that "new way of life" which the Lord Jesus inaugurated and which the Apostles made their own.
In Every Authentically Priestly Heart: the Aspiration to Moral Perfection
Through the imposition of the Bishop's hands and the consecratory prayer of the Church, the candidates become new men, they become "presbyters". In this light it is clear that the tria munera are first a gift and only consequently an office, first a participation in a life, and hence a potestas. Of course, the great ecclesial tradition has rightly separated sacramental efficacy from the concrete existential situation of the individual priest and so the legitimate expectations of the faithful are appropriately safeguarded. However, this correct doctrinal explanation takes nothing from the necessary, indeed indispensable, aspiration to moral perfection that must dwell in every authentically priestly heart.
Year for Priests 2009-2010
Precisely to encourage priests in this striving for spiritual perfection on which, above all, the effectiveness of their ministry depends, I have decided to establish a special "Year for Priests" that will begin on 19 June and last until 19 June 2010. In fact, it is the 150th anniversary of the death of the Holy Curé d'Ars, John Mary Vianney, a true example of a pastor at the service of Christ's flock. It will be the task of your Congregation, in agreement with the diocesan Ordinaries and with the superiors of religious institutes to promote and to coordinate the various spiritual and pastoral initiatives that seem useful for making the importance of the priest's role and mission in the Church and in contemporary society ever more clearly perceived.
God: the Only Treasure People Desire to Find in a Priest
The priest's mission, as the theme of the Plenary Assembly emphasizes, is carried out "in the Church". This ecclesial, communal, hierarchical and doctrinal dimension is absolutely indispensable to every authentic mission and, alone guarantees its spiritual effectiveness. The four aspects mentioned must always be recognized as intimately connected: the mission is "ecclesial" because no one proclaims himself in the first person, but within and through his own humanity every priest must be well aware that he is bringing to the world Another, God himself. God is the only treasure which ultimately people desire to find in a priest.
The Priest: An Expert in Divine Intimacy
The mission is "communional" because it is carried out in a unity and communion that only secondly has also important aspects of social visibility. Moreover, these derive essentially from that divine intimacy in which the priest is called to be expert, so that he may be able to lead the souls entrusted to him humbly and trustingly to the same encounter with the Lord. Lastly, the "hierarchical" and "doctrinal" dimensions suggest reaffirming the importance of the ecclesiastical discipline (the term has a connection with "disciple") and doctrinal training and not only theological, initial and continuing formation.
Uninterrupted Ecclesial Tradition
Awareness of the radical social changes that have occurred in recent decades must motivate the best ecclesial forces to supervise the formation of candidates for the ministry. In particular, it must foster the constant concern of Pastors for their principal collaborators, both by cultivating truly fatherly human relations and by taking an interest in their continuing formation, especially from the doctrinal and spiritual viewpoints. The mission is rooted in a special way in a good formation, developed in communion with uninterrupted ecclesial Tradition, without breaks or temptations of irregularity. In this sense, it is important to encourage in priests, especially in the young generations, a correct reception of the texts of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, interpreted in the light of the Church's entire fund of doctrine. It seems urgent to recover that awareness that has always been at the heart of the Church's mission, which impels priests to be present, identifiable and recognizable both for their judgement of faith, for their personal virtues as well as for the habit, in the contexts of culture and of charity.
The Deepest Expectations of the Human Heart
As Church and as priests, we proclaim Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ, Crucified and Risen, Sovereign of time and of history, in the glad certainty that this truth coincides with the deepest expectations of the human heart. In the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, that is, of the fact that God became man like us, lies both the content and the method of Christian proclamation. The true dynamic centre of the mission is here: in Jesus Christ, precisely. The centrality of Christ brings with it the correct appreciation of the ministerial priesthood, without which there would be neither the Eucharist, nor even the mission nor the Church herself.
A Timely Warning
In this regard it is necessary to be alert to ensure that the "new structures" or pastoral organizations are not planned on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the proper promotion of the laity for a time in which one would have "to do without" the ordained ministry, because in that case the presuppositions for a further dilution of the ministerial priesthood would be laid and possible presumed "solutions" might come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of contemporary problems linked to the ministry.
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the members of the Congregation for the Clergy on the occasion of their Plenary Assembly, March 16, 2009:
Heartfelt and Total Adherence to a New Form of Life
The missionary dimension of the priesthood is born from the priest's sacramental configuration to Christ. As a consequence it brings with it a heartfelt and total adherence to what the ecclesial tradition has identified as apostolica vivendi forma. This consists in participation in a "new life", spiritually speaking, in that "new way of life" which the Lord Jesus inaugurated and which the Apostles made their own.
In Every Authentically Priestly Heart: the Aspiration to Moral Perfection
Through the imposition of the Bishop's hands and the consecratory prayer of the Church, the candidates become new men, they become "presbyters". In this light it is clear that the tria munera are first a gift and only consequently an office, first a participation in a life, and hence a potestas. Of course, the great ecclesial tradition has rightly separated sacramental efficacy from the concrete existential situation of the individual priest and so the legitimate expectations of the faithful are appropriately safeguarded. However, this correct doctrinal explanation takes nothing from the necessary, indeed indispensable, aspiration to moral perfection that must dwell in every authentically priestly heart.
Year for Priests 2009-2010
Precisely to encourage priests in this striving for spiritual perfection on which, above all, the effectiveness of their ministry depends, I have decided to establish a special "Year for Priests" that will begin on 19 June and last until 19 June 2010. In fact, it is the 150th anniversary of the death of the Holy Curé d'Ars, John Mary Vianney, a true example of a pastor at the service of Christ's flock. It will be the task of your Congregation, in agreement with the diocesan Ordinaries and with the superiors of religious institutes to promote and to coordinate the various spiritual and pastoral initiatives that seem useful for making the importance of the priest's role and mission in the Church and in contemporary society ever more clearly perceived.
God: the Only Treasure People Desire to Find in a Priest
The priest's mission, as the theme of the Plenary Assembly emphasizes, is carried out "in the Church". This ecclesial, communal, hierarchical and doctrinal dimension is absolutely indispensable to every authentic mission and, alone guarantees its spiritual effectiveness. The four aspects mentioned must always be recognized as intimately connected: the mission is "ecclesial" because no one proclaims himself in the first person, but within and through his own humanity every priest must be well aware that he is bringing to the world Another, God himself. God is the only treasure which ultimately people desire to find in a priest.
The Priest: An Expert in Divine Intimacy
The mission is "communional" because it is carried out in a unity and communion that only secondly has also important aspects of social visibility. Moreover, these derive essentially from that divine intimacy in which the priest is called to be expert, so that he may be able to lead the souls entrusted to him humbly and trustingly to the same encounter with the Lord. Lastly, the "hierarchical" and "doctrinal" dimensions suggest reaffirming the importance of the ecclesiastical discipline (the term has a connection with "disciple") and doctrinal training and not only theological, initial and continuing formation.
Uninterrupted Ecclesial Tradition
Awareness of the radical social changes that have occurred in recent decades must motivate the best ecclesial forces to supervise the formation of candidates for the ministry. In particular, it must foster the constant concern of Pastors for their principal collaborators, both by cultivating truly fatherly human relations and by taking an interest in their continuing formation, especially from the doctrinal and spiritual viewpoints. The mission is rooted in a special way in a good formation, developed in communion with uninterrupted ecclesial Tradition, without breaks or temptations of irregularity. In this sense, it is important to encourage in priests, especially in the young generations, a correct reception of the texts of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, interpreted in the light of the Church's entire fund of doctrine. It seems urgent to recover that awareness that has always been at the heart of the Church's mission, which impels priests to be present, identifiable and recognizable both for their judgement of faith, for their personal virtues as well as for the habit, in the contexts of culture and of charity.
The Deepest Expectations of the Human Heart
As Church and as priests, we proclaim Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ, Crucified and Risen, Sovereign of time and of history, in the glad certainty that this truth coincides with the deepest expectations of the human heart. In the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, that is, of the fact that God became man like us, lies both the content and the method of Christian proclamation. The true dynamic centre of the mission is here: in Jesus Christ, precisely. The centrality of Christ brings with it the correct appreciation of the ministerial priesthood, without which there would be neither the Eucharist, nor even the mission nor the Church herself.
A Timely Warning
In this regard it is necessary to be alert to ensure that the "new structures" or pastoral organizations are not planned on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the proper promotion of the laity for a time in which one would have "to do without" the ordained ministry, because in that case the presuppositions for a further dilution of the ministerial priesthood would be laid and possible presumed "solutions" might come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of contemporary problems linked to the ministry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
