Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 12, 2025

The Silent Shepherds: Bishop Strickland's Cry in the Wilderness and the Fractured Voice of the American Episcopate

The Silent Shepherds: Bishop Strickland's Cry in the Wilderness and the Fractured Voice of the American Episcopate

In the grand halls of the Marriott Waterfront Hotel in Baltimore, where the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) convened its fall general assembly on November 11-14, 2025, a moment unfolded that encapsulated the profound tensions roiling within the Catholic Church in America. Bishop Joseph Strickland, the emeritus bishop of Tyler, Texas—removed from his see by Pope Francis in 2023 for his unyielding fidelity to traditional doctrine—rose to speak. His voice, steady yet laced with urgency, cut through the chamber as he addressed a scandal that had ignited fury among faithful Catholics: the recent confirmation of ABC news anchor Gio Benitez, who lives openly in a same-sex "marriage," overseen by none other than the prominent Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin, SJ. Strickland's intervention lasted barely 47 seconds, a fleeting plea for his brother bishops to confront this public defiance of Church teaching. But in a scene that will haunt the annals of ecclesiastical history, his words were met not with debate, not with affirmation, not even with rebuke—but with silence. The chair moved swiftly to the next agenda item, as if the emperor's new clothes had never been mentioned at all.

This was no isolated slight. It was the latest chapter in a saga of marginalization for Strickland, a bishop who has become a lightning rod for those yearning for doctrinal clarity amid a sea of ambiguity. His brief remarks—"I don't know how many of us have seen on social media... Priests and others gathered, celebrating the confirmation of a man living with a man openly. And it just needs to be addressed... We need to address this"—echoed the frustrations of countless laity who see in such events not pastoral outreach, but a betrayal of the sacred deposit of faith. The confirmation rite, held in New York under the auspices of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, featured Fr. Martin alongside the pastor, Fr. Eric Andrews, a Paulist priest, administering the sacrament to Benitez in what appeared to be a jubilant affirmation of his lifestyle. Social media footage showed the group posing triumphantly before the Blessed Sacrament, a visual that struck many as a mockery of the very Eucharist it purported to honor.

Strickland's courage in naming this elephant in the room—Fr. Martin's role in what he and others perceive as a normalization of grave sin—deserves not just admiration, but emulation. Yet, his brother bishops, ensconced in their collars and crosiers, chose the path of least resistance: indifference. This is not mere oversight; it is a symptom of a deeper malaise, a disconnect between the shepherds and the immutable teachings of the Church they are sworn to guard. In an era when the world clamors for the Church to bend to cultural winds, moments like this reveal a hierarchy adrift, torn between the timeless truth of Christ and the fleeting applause of modernity. This blog post delves into that chasm, exploring the event itself, the unyielding doctrine it contravenes, the figure of Fr. Martin at its epicenter, and the cognitive dissonance that plagues the faithful. At its heart lies a simple truth: Bishop Strickland was not just brave; he was right. And in ignoring him, the USCCB has ignored not only him, but the voice of the Church eternal.


 The Incident: A Confirmation That Confounds the Faithful

To understand the gravity of Strickland's intervention, one must first grasp the provocation. Gio Benitez, a well-known face on Good Morning America, entered the Catholic Church through a rite of confirmation on All Saints' Day, November 1, 2025, at St. Paul the Apostle Church in Manhattan. The ceremony was no quiet affair; it was livestreamed and shared widely, drawing cheers from progressive Catholic circles and outrage from traditionalists. Benitez, married to his husband since 2022, received the sacrament from Fr. Andrews, with Fr. James Martin—perhaps the most visible advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the American Church—present and participating in the celebration. The group, including Martin, later received Holy Communion, posing for photos that framed the moment as a triumph of "inclusion."

For Catholics steeped in the faith, this was seismic. Confirmation is not a mere formality; it is a sacrament that seals the Christian with the Holy Spirit, strengthening them for witness to the Gospel. To administer it to someone in a public state of objective mortal sin—living in a same-sex union that the Church deems gravely disordered—without any apparent call to repentance, strikes at the core of sacramental integrity. Canon Law is unequivocal: those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin may not be admitted to the sacraments (Canon 915). Yet here, in the heart of Dolan's archdiocese, the rite proceeded, blessed by priests who have made inclusion their banner.

Bishop Strickland, attending the USCCB meeting as a bishop emeritus with full rights to speak, could no longer hold his peace. During a discussion on pastoral priorities, he seized the floor. His words were measured, almost plaintive: a reference to the viral images, a nod to the priests involved, and a direct challenge: "We need to address this." The chamber fell quiet. No bishop rose in support. No one invoked doctrine. Instead, Bishop James Massa interjected with an "infomercial" about a faith and science symposium, and Archbishop Timothy Broglio, presiding, pivoted seamlessly to immigration messaging. It was as if Strickland had spoken in tongues.

This snub was not lost on observers. Social media erupted, with faithful Catholics decrying the "cowardice" of the assembly. "Bishop Strickland is the only one with a spine," tweeted one prominent lay commentator. Videos of the moment spread like wildfire, amassing millions of views and fueling podcasts, articles, and homilies across the traditional Catholic world. For many, it recalled Strickland's earlier prophetic stands: his 2018 USCCB floor speech questioning why bishops allowed priests to contradict Church teaching on homosexuality (widely seen as aimed at Martin), or his 2023 removal by Pope Francis after years of outspoken criticism of perceived heterodoxy. In Baltimore, history repeated, but with a crueler twist—the lone voice silenced not by expulsion, but by erasure.

Why did this happen? The answer lies in the uncomfortable reality of episcopal collegiality in crisis. The USCCB, meant to be a synod of successors to the apostles, has increasingly functioned as a bureaucratic machine, prioritizing consensus over confrontation. To address the Benitez confirmation would mean scrutinizing Dolan's oversight, Martin's influence, and the broader drift toward accommodation. Easier to let it slide, to focus on safer topics like synodality or climate. But in doing so, the bishops forfeit their mandate. As St. Augustine warned, "Bad shepherds drive out the flock." And the flock is watching, wounded and wandering.


 The Church's Unchanging Teaching: A Rock Amid Shifting Sands

At the root of this scandal is a fundamental rupture: the chasm between eternal doctrine and ephemeral practice. The Catholic Church has spoken with crystalline clarity on homosexuality for millennia, rooted in Scripture, Tradition, and natural law. Homosexual acts are not a matter of opinion or cultural evolution; they are "intrinsically disordered," a phrase that, while jarring to modern ears, encapsulates a profound anthropological truth.

The foundational text is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1992 and reaffirmed under subsequent pontiffs. Paragraph 2357 states: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." This is no innovation; it echoes the Bible's witness—from the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-11) to St. Paul's condemnation of same-sex relations as contrary to God's design (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Earlier magisterial documents reinforce this. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana) affirms that "homosexual activity is not a complementary union" but "deprives human sexuality of its essential subordination to the welfare of the children." The 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons) doubles down: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as objectively disordered." These acts, it warns, "can never be approved" and lead to a "grave depravity."

Even Pope Francis, often caricatured as a revolutionary, upholds this in Amoris Laetitia (2016), paragraph 250: "The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman." His 2023 response to the dubia of five cardinals reiterated that the Church cannot bless "irregular" unions, as blessings presuppose alignment with God's will. The 2021 Responsa ad dubia from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that blessings for same-sex couples must not resemble sacramental rites, lest they imply approval.

This teaching is not born of animus but of a vision of human flourishing: sexuality as a divine gift ordered to spousal love and procreation, mirroring the Trinity's self-giving communion. To call it "disordered" is to say it deviates from this telos, much as a misfiring engine deviates from its purpose. Persons with same-sex attraction—whom the Church calls to chastity and respect (CCC 2358-2359)—are not condemned but invited to heroic virtue, uniting their trials to Christ's cross. Yet, when sacraments are administered without repentance, this merciful call becomes a snare.

The Benitez confirmation flouts this. By confirming a man in a public same-sex union, the rite implicitly endorses the union as consonant with faith—a contradiction in terms. Strickland's plea was a defense of this doctrine, urging bishops to reaffirm what the Church has always taught. Their silence? A tacit permission for confusion.


 Fr. James Martin: Bridge-Builder or Demolisher?

No figure embodies this disconnect more than Fr. James Martin, SJ, whose ministry has made him a celebrity in Catholic and secular media alike. Ordained in 1999, Martin rose through Jesuit ranks as a writer and editor for America magazine, blending humor, social justice, and a folksy style that endeared him to many. But it was his 2017 book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity that catapulted him to prominence—and controversy. The tome, inspired by Pope Francis's "Who am I to judge?" remark, calls for dialogue, using language from CCC 2358 to advocate "respect, compassion, and sensitivity." Yet, critics argue, it omits the crucial caveats: the intrinsic disorder of acts and the call to chastity.

Martin's influence peaked under Francis, who appointed him a Vatican communications consultant in 2017. He has keynoted synods, advised on LGBTQ+ outreach, and amassed over 300,000 Twitter followers. His Outreach initiative, launched in 2022 under the Jesuit conference, aims to support LGBTQ+ Catholics, hosting conferences with speakers like Bishop John Stowe and Sr. Jeannine Gramick—figures who have faced Vatican scrutiny for blurring doctrinal lines.

In the Benitez case, Martin's presence was emblematic. Photos show him beaming alongside the confirmand, his social media posts framing the event as a "joyful" milestone. For supporters, this is mercy incarnate; for detractors, it's a sleight of hand, elevating accompaniment over conversion. Strickland has long targeted Martin: In 2018, at the USCCB, he decried bishops hosting priests who "do not believe" the Church's teaching on homosexuality. In 2021, he urged Martin to preach the "full message" at an LGBTQ+ retreat. And in 2023, post-removal, Strickland called Martin's Pride Month tweets "sacrilegious."

Martin's defenders decry this as homophobia, but the charge rings hollow. Strickland affirms the dignity of all, including those with same-sex attraction. His ire is for Martin's selective catechesis: emphasizing welcome while eliding sin and repentance. This is no minor omission; it fosters the very scandal that drove McCarrick's downfall and the abuse crisis. When a priest like Martin—blessed with platforms denied to most—presents homosexual unions as normative, he sows seeds of heresy. The Church's documents demand more: truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Martin's arc mirrors the broader progressive wing: earnest intent, but at the cost of fidelity. His bridge, intended to span divides, has become a ramp to relativism, where doctrine dissolves into dialogue. Strickland's confrontation was a call to rebuild on rock, not sand.


 The Great Disconnect: Bishops Adrift from the Barque of Peter

The USCCB's silence on Strickland's plea reveals a profound disconnect: bishops, ordained to teach, sanctify, and govern, increasingly prioritize image over integrity. This is not new—recall the 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report exposing abuse cover-ups, or the McCarrick scandal that implicated the hierarchy's complicity. Yet, on homosexuality, the fracture is acute. While laity polls show 60-70% of U.S. Catholics support same-sex "marriage" (Pew, 2023), the Magisterium stands firm. Bishops, caught between Gallup and the Gospel, opt for ambiguity.

Consider the landscape: Progressive prelates like Cardinals Cupich and McElroy push "inclusion" initiatives, hosting LGBTQ+ Masses that skirt canonical boundaries. Traditional voices like Strickland or Bishop Thomas Paprocki issue clarion calls, only to be sidelined. The 2021-2024 Synod on Synodality amplified this, with U.S. reports urging "LGBTQ+ inclusion" without doctrinal qualifiers. Meanwhile, Vatican documents like Fiducia Supplicans (2023) permit non-liturgical blessings for couples—promptly twisted to "bless" unions, despite clarifications.

This disconnect breeds hypocrisy. Bishops decry abortion (rightly) but hesitate on sodomy; they champion migrants but ignore the spiritual peril of unchaste unions. The result? A Church that preaches justice abroad while tolerating injustice at home. As the 1986 CDF letter warned, "Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who promote an unacceptable concept of the homosexual person and homosexual union."

Strickland embodies the alternative: a bishop who, like Athanasius contra mundum, stands alone if need be. His 2024 open letter outside the USCCB—"What will it take for more than a few bishops to finally speak up?"—echoes this. Removed for "reckless" criticism, he remains a bishop, his pectoral cross a symbol of undimmed authority.


 Cognitive Dissonance: The Faithful in Turmoil

For the average Catholic, this is no abstract debate—it's existential agony. We are taught in catechism class, confirmed in youth group, that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, acts gravely sinful. Yet, Sunday homilies laud "love is love," and Fr. Martin tweets rainbows over the Sacred Heart. Parishes host "Pride" events; schools fly flags contradicting Persona Humana. The dissonance is deafening: How can the Church that birthed saints like Catherine of Siena now bless what it once condemned?

This hypocrisy erodes trust. A 2024 CARA study found 40% of young Catholics view the Church as "unwelcoming" to LGBTQ+ persons—not for doctrine, but for perceived judgment. Yet, the real wound is inversion: doctrine becomes "hate," mercy "license." Faithful families grapple: How to affirm a child's dignity while upholding truth? Converts like Benitez enter amid fanfare, but without the full Gospel, they risk eternal peril.

Psychologically, it's trauma. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) explains the strain: conflicting beliefs breed anxiety, resolved by rationalization or rejection. Many resolve by leaving—U.S. Catholic retention hovers at 30% (Georgetown, 2023). Others cling, like the 200 who rallied with Strickland in 2023, praying rosaries outside the Marriott.

The hypocrisy peaks in sacraments: Confirmation for the unrepentant, Communion for the "married" gay man. This isn't inclusion; it's profanation, echoing Judas's kiss.


 Bishop Strickland: Prophet in Exile

Amid this fog, Bishop Strickland shines. Born in 1958 in Texas, ordained in 1985, he shepherded Tyler for 14 years with zeal: building schools, fostering vocations, tweeting truth bombs. His 2023 removal—after backing Vigano's accusations and decrying "false messages" from Rome—made him a martyr for orthodoxy. Yet, he persists: leading rosaries, writing letters, confronting at USCCB.

In Baltimore 2025, his 47 seconds were prophetic, echoing Elijah's solitude (1 Kings 19). Brave? Undeniably—he risked further isolation. Right? Absolutely, as canonists note: such confirmations demand investigation. His fidelity honors the apostles' charge: "Guard what has been entrusted to you" (1 Timothy 6:20).

Strickland's example calls all: laity to pray, priests to preach, bishops to lead. As he told LifeSite in 2021, "It's not 'my truth' but Jesus'."


 A Call to Renewal: Rebuilding on the Rock

The USCCB's silence is a clarion call for renewal. Bishops must reclaim their voice, enforcing canon law with charity. Pope Francis's call for "synodality" demands listening—to doctrine first. Laity, emboldened by Strickland, must demand accountability: petitions, rallies, faithful voting.

Ultimately, hope lies in Christ, who promised the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matthew 16:18). The Church is holy, not despite sinners, but through them—purified in fire. May Strickland's cry awaken sleeping shepherds, mending the disconnect, healing dissonance, restoring hypocrisy to humility.

In the words of St. John Henry Newman: "To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." But change without truth is chaos. Let us pray for bishops who change the world by unchanging fidelity.




 References


- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), paragraphs 2357-2359.

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Vatican, December 29, 1975).

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Vatican, October 1, 1986).

- Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia (Vatican, March 19, 2016), paragraph 250.

- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsa ad dubia on the blessing of same-sex unions (Vatican, October 21, 2021).

- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fall General Assembly Minutes, Baltimore, MD, November 11-14, 2025 (unofficial transcripts from attendee reports).

- Catholic News Agency, "Ousted Bishop Strickland Leads Rosary Outside USCCB Meeting," November 13, 2025.

- LifeSiteNews, "Bishop Strickland Stands Up at USCCB: Calls Out Fr. James Martin," November 12, 2025.

- Michael Haynes, Twitter post, November 12, 2025.

- AKA Catholic, "Where Have All the Heroes Gone?" November 13, 2025.

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

Why Dating Multiple People Simultaneously Undermines Authentic Love

The Case for Exclusive Courtship: Why Dating Multiple People Simultaneously Undermines Authentic Love


Introduction

In modern society, the practice of dating multiple people simultaneously during the courtship phase has become increasingly common. Fueled by cultural shifts, the rise of dating apps, and media portrayals of romance as a game of choice, many view dating as an opportunity to "keep options open." This approach often treats potential partners as commodities, akin to contestants on a reality show where one selects the "best" option from behind a metaphorical wall. However, this perspective is fundamentally at odds with the principles of authentic love, commitment, and discernment required for a meaningful courtship leading to marriage. Drawing from Catholic Church teaching, Sacred Scripture, and the wisdom of saints, this blog post argues that dating multiple people at once during the courtship phase is detrimental to forming a deep, intentional relationship. Instead, exclusive dating—one person at a time—fosters the emotional, spiritual, and moral clarity necessary for discerning a lifelong partner.

This post will explore the theological, psychological, and practical reasons why dating multiple people simultaneously fails to cultivate authentic love. It will also highlight why exclusive courtship aligns with human dignity and God’s design for relationships. By grounding the discussion in Catholic teaching, biblical principles, and the insights of saints, we will demonstrate that treating people as options undermines the sacred nature of courtship, while exclusive dating honors the uniqueness of each person and prepares couples for the lifelong commitment of marriage.


The Nature of Courtship in Catholic Teaching

Courtship, in the Catholic tradition, is a deliberate and purposeful phase of discernment aimed at determining whether two individuals are called to the vocation of marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) emphasizes that marriage is a sacred covenant, instituted by God, that reflects the unbreakable bond between Christ and His Church (CCC 1601). Courtship, therefore, is not a casual endeavor but a time of serious reflection, prayer, and mutual discovery to assess compatibility for this lifelong commitment.

The Church teaches that love, as the foundation of marriage, is an act of the will that seeks the good of the other (CCC 1766). This love is characterized by self-giving, fidelity, and exclusivity, even in the preparatory stages of courtship. Dating multiple people simultaneously contradicts this vision by fragmenting one’s emotional and spiritual focus. When a person divides their attention among several potential partners, they risk treating each individual as a means to an end—a choice to be evaluated—rather than a unique person created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

The Catechism further underscores the importance of chastity in relationships, which includes not only physical purity but also purity of intention and affection (CCC 2337). Dating multiple people often involves emotional manipulation, as one may withhold full commitment to keep options open. This approach lacks the sincerity and integrity that chastity demands, as it treats relationships as transactional rather than covenantal.


Biblical Foundations for Exclusive Courtship

Sacred Scripture provides a clear framework for understanding love and relationships in the context of God’s plan. The Bible consistently portrays love as an exclusive, self-sacrificial commitment that mirrors God’s love for humanity. In the Song of Songs, the love between the bride and bridegroom is depicted as singular and all-consuming: “My beloved is mine, and I am his” (Song of Songs 2:16). This mutual belonging reflects the exclusivity that should characterize romantic relationships, even in their early stages.

The New Testament further reinforces this principle. St. Paul describes love as patient, kind, and not self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). Dating multiple people simultaneously often involves self-interest, as it prioritizes personal gratification or security over the good of the other. Such an approach risks reducing love to a superficial exercise in comparison, rather than a genuine pursuit of the other’s well-being.

Jesus Himself emphasizes the importance of wholehearted commitment in relationships. In Matthew 19:4-6, He affirms the indissoluble nature of marriage, rooted in God’s original design: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” While this passage specifically addresses marriage, its underlying principle applies to courtship: relationships oriented toward marriage should reflect the same exclusivity and intentionality. Treating potential partners as options to be weighed undermines the biblical call to love with undivided devotion.


The Wisdom of the Saints on Love and Discernment

The saints offer profound insights into the nature of love and the importance of intentionality in relationships. St. John Paul II, in his Theology of the Body, emphasizes that love must be personalistic, meaning it respects the inherent dignity of the other as a person, not an object to be used. He writes, “The only adequate response to a person is love” (Wojtyla, 1960). Dating multiple people simultaneously risks objectifying others, as it reduces them to a set of qualities to be compared rather than unique individuals to be cherished.

St. Augustine, reflecting on the nature of love, famously stated, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you” (Augustine, 397). While this speaks primarily of our relationship with God, it also applies to human relationships. The restlessness of dating multiple people often stems from a lack of trust in God’s providence, leading individuals to hedge their bets rather than commit fully to discerning one relationship at a time.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux, known for her “little way” of love, teaches that true love is expressed through small, deliberate acts of self-giving (Thérèse, 1897). In courtship, this translates to focusing one’s attention and affection on a single person, fostering a relationship built on trust and mutual respect. Dating multiple people, by contrast, scatters one’s efforts and dilutes the authenticity of these acts.


The Psychological and Practical Pitfalls of Dating Multiple People

Beyond theological concerns, dating multiple people simultaneously poses significant psychological and practical challenges. Psychologically, humans are wired for deep, meaningful connections rather than superficial interactions. Research in attachment theory, such as the work of Bowlby (1969), suggests that secure relationships require emotional investment and consistency. When a person dates multiple individuals, they split their emotional energy, making it difficult to form a secure bond with any one partner. This can lead to confusion, insecurity, and a lack of trust, as each person senses they are not the sole focus of their partner’s affection.

Practically, dating multiple people complicates the discernment process. Courtship requires time and intentionality to evaluate compatibility in values, goals, and faith. Juggling multiple relationships simultaneously makes it nearly impossible to give each person the attention needed to discern whether they are a suitable partner for marriage. This often results in superficial judgments based on external qualities, such as appearance or charm, rather than deeper attributes like character and shared beliefs.

Moreover, dating multiple people can foster a consumerist mindset, where individuals treat relationships like a marketplace. This approach aligns with what Bauman (2003) describes as “liquid love,” a modern phenomenon where relationships are transient and disposable. Such a mindset is antithetical to the permanence and exclusivity of marriage, as it trains individuals to view partners as interchangeable rather than irreplaceable.


The Superficiality of Treating People as Options

The modern trend of dating multiple people often mirrors the format of reality dating shows, where contestants are pitted against one another, and the “winner” is chosen based on arbitrary criteria. This approach is inherently superficial, as it reduces people to a checklist of qualities rather than recognizing their unique dignity. In Catholic teaching, every person is a gift, created for a unique purpose in God’s plan (CCC 357). Treating potential partners as options to be ranked dehumanizes them and undermines the sacredness of courtship.

This superficiality also erodes trust, a cornerstone of any healthy relationship. When one dates multiple people, they may withhold full transparency or commitment, knowing they are keeping other options open. This dynamic can create a cycle of mistrust, as each partner senses they are not fully valued. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, love requires a mutual gift of self (Aquinas, 1274). Dating multiple people inherently limits this self-gift, as one’s heart is divided among several individuals.


The Case for Exclusive Dating

In contrast, exclusive dating aligns with the principles of authentic love and discernment. By focusing on one person at a time, individuals can invest fully in understanding their partner’s values, character, and compatibility for marriage. This approach fosters emotional intimacy, trust, and mutual respect, all of which are essential for a strong marital foundation.

Exclusive dating also reflects the biblical call to love with an undivided heart. In Hosea 2:19-20, God speaks of betrothing His people to Himself “in faithfulness.” This fidelity begins in courtship, where exclusivity signals a commitment to discerning marriage with seriousness and integrity. By dating one person at a time, individuals practice the virtues of patience, trust, and selflessness, which prepare them for the lifelong commitment of marriage.

From a practical standpoint, exclusive dating simplifies the discernment process. It allows couples to focus on building a relationship without the distractions of competing interests. This clarity is crucial for evaluating whether a relationship aligns with God’s will. As St. Ignatius of Loyola teaches in his Spiritual Exercises, discernment requires a focused heart and mind to hear God’s voice clearly (Ignatius, 1548).


Counterarguments and Responses

Some may argue that dating multiple people allows individuals to explore their options and make an informed choice about a partner. While discernment involves careful consideration, treating people as options to be sampled undermines their dignity and reduces love to a transaction. True discernment requires depth, not breadth, and this is best achieved through exclusive dating.

Others may claim that dating multiple people is a practical response to the uncertainties of modern relationships. However, this approach often stems from fear or a lack of trust in God’s providence. As Jesus teaches, “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you” (Matthew 6:33). Trusting in God’s plan allows individuals to approach courtship with confidence, rather than hedging their bets.


Conclusion

Dating multiple people simultaneously during the courtship phase is incompatible with the principles of authentic love, as articulated by Catholic Church teaching, Sacred Scripture, and the wisdom of the saints. This approach fragments emotional and spiritual focus, treats people as options, and undermines the trust and intentionality needed for discerning marriage. In contrast, exclusive dating honors the dignity of each person, fosters deep connection, and aligns with God’s design for love as a total, self-giving commitment. By dating one person at a time, individuals cultivate the virtues of fidelity, trust, and discernment, preparing them for the sacred covenant of marriage. In a culture that often reduces love to a game of choice, the Church’s vision of courtship calls us to a higher standard—one that reflects the beauty and permanence of God’s love.


References


- Aquinas, T. (1274). Summa Theologica.

- Augustine of Hippo. (397). Confessions.

- Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Polity Press.

- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

- Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.

- Ignatius of Loyola. (1548). Spiritual Exercises.

- Thérèse of Lisieux. (1897). Story of a Soul.

- Wojtyla, K. (1960). Love and Responsibility. Ignatius Press.


 

Sunday, October 6, 2024

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time: God Orders Relationships

Reflections on the Readings for October 6, 2024, Year B

As we approach the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time for the liturgical year B, the readings presented to us invite deep contemplation and reflection. The themes of unity, family, and adherence to God's will are woven throughout the passages, offering a rich tapestry of wisdom and guidance for our faith journey.

The first reading from Genesis 2:18-24 reminds us of the intrinsic value of companionship and the sacred bond of marriage. It portrays the creation of woman as a partner for man, emphasizing the importance of equality and unity within this divine institution. This narrative sets the stage for a reflection on the mutual support and love that are meant to flourish within a marriage, reflecting God's loving design.

The Responsorial Psalm, Psalm 128, echoes this sentiment of blessing and prosperity for those who fear the Lord and walk in His ways. It is a celebration of the fruits that come from living a life aligned with divine principles, highlighting the joys of family life and the peace that comes from divine favor.

The second reading from Hebrews 2:9-11 delves into the profound mystery of Christ's incarnation and sacrifice. It speaks of Jesus being made lower than the angels to taste death for everyone, thus leading many to glory. This passage invites us to ponder the depth of God's grace and the perfection that comes through suffering, a theme that resonates with the call to holiness and sacrifice within our own lives.

The Gospel reading from Mark 10:2-16 presents us with Jesus' teachings on the sanctity of marriage and the welcoming of children into the fold of faith. Here, Christ emphasizes the original intent of marriage as a lifelong union, not to be dissolved by human caprice. Moreover, the innocence and openness of children are highlighted as qualities that all faithful should emulate to enter the Kingdom of God.

These readings collectively underscore the significance of relationships—our relationship with God, within marriage, and as a family. They challenge us to reflect on our commitment to unity, respect, and fidelity. They also call us to embrace a childlike trust in God, a trust that opens our hearts to the fullness of His kingdom.

God only created male and female. There is no in-between or anything else. People who claim they are in the wrong body or have the wrong sex are just exhibiting gender dysphoria.  The soul has no gender or sex, so we are not "male" or "female" spiritually speaking.  Sex/gender are natural evolutionary constructs created by God. They convey a purpose. Within these differences, sexual reproduction takes hold.  This is why Transgenderism can never be a good or normal. It defies everything in nature and God's will that male and female exist and unite as one in marriage. 

The union must be complementary. This can only be accomplished via one male and one female. Same-sex relationships are intrinsically disordered and can never be natural or normal. They can never be a marriage. They distort nature and God's will for the formation of the family unit which is the building block of society.  

As we meditate on these scriptures, let us consider how we can apply these timeless truths to our contemporary lives. How can we foster unity and love within our own families? In what ways can we live out our marital commitments with greater faithfulness? And how might we embody a childlike openness to God's will, trusting in His providential care?

These are the questions that the readings for October 6, 2024, Year B, invite us to consider. May our reflections lead us to a deeper understanding and a more profound living out of our faith.


 

Sunday, August 22, 2021

21st Sunday in Ordinary Time - To Whom Shall We Go?

 Please help keep this evangelization work alive. So far a few have donated, but I have not met the goal. In December, I have to pay for the renewal of this domain name, so I need your help.  I also want to expand this work so it can reach even more people.  Please help me meet my campaign goal by donating at www.gofundme.com/sacerdotus.


If about 2,700 people donate only $9.25, then I will meet the goal.  As more people donate, gofundme will in turn place my campaign on the front page of their website giving it more promotion.  So I hope you reading this will help with a donation.  Remember, after December 2021 if I have not raised enough, then I will have to wind this work down.   

Thank you, God bless + Mary keep!

Reflection:
We have pretty much wrapped up Jesus' revelation to the Jews that He was the "Bread of Life."  In today's readings, we see how this affects the people who took His words as too hard to follow. This created a dilemma: do they follow Jesus or someone else?

In today's first reading, we read of Joshua who had taken the lead after the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 31). He gathered all the tribes of Israel, calling forward the elders, leaders, judges, and officials.  Each stood before God as Joshua spoke to them.  He tells them if they are not happy with serving God then they must decide who they must serve. He puts before them the gods of the Amorites or the God of their ancestors.  As Israel began to expand, she found herself surrounded by other nations who worshiped different gods.  Many atheists love to claim that "Yahweh" is one of the gods of these nations who the Israelites adopted as their own. They claim that "Yahweh" was a "borrowed" god from the Pantheon.  However, this is not true. While "Yahweh" is listed in the pantheon, this only occurred after the Israelites mingled with the surrounding nations.  So naturally, those nations would add the God of the Israelites as part of their gods to reflect the diversity of cultures.  They were Henotheists, or people who worshiped a single deity but acknowledged that there were other gods.

Anyhow, Joshua gathers the top people of Israel and questions their loyalty to the God of the Hebrews - of their ancestors.  The people respond that they will not forsake their God for other gods because it was their God who rescued their ancestors from the Land of Egypt.  It was this God who wrought the miracles and protected the people (Exodus 20:2, Leviticus 22:33, Amos 2:10, Exodus 3:20, Psalm 40:5).  They chose God Yahweh.  We too should ask ourselves this question every day, especially every Sunday before we recite the creed.  Do we serve the one true God or the "gods" of today: money, sex, power, popularity, the self etc? Now we know there are no other gods out there, Yahweh is the only one (1 Kings 8:23, 2 Chronicles 6:14, Isaiah 45:5, Deuteronomy 33:36).  Today we understand that primitive man defined and named god the best way they could.  So they got the right idea that a supreme being existed, but got His name and description wrong. I address this more in this radio podcast (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sacerdotus/2014/05/09/the-3000-gods-argument).  Like the Israelites, we choose God, the real God.  We "taste and see the goodness of the Lord" as we repeat again in the responsorial Psalm.

We are called to "taste and see the goodness of the Lord."  In order to do this, we must be with God, bless Him, praise Him, let His glory shine in our being.  We must be happy and proud to be with God and not "blush with shame" (Mark 8:38, 2 Timothy 1:8). God hears us during our distress just like He heard Elijah (1 John 5:15).   God sends His angel to protect us and aid us just like with Elijah (Psalm 91:11).  He is with us when we are down or hurting.  The phrase that "He watches over all His bones; not one of them shall be broken" is a foreshadowing of Christ on the cross who was spared from having his legs broken by the Roman soldiers (Psalms 34:19-20, Exodus 12:46, John 19:36).

The second reading has been controversial in the last 40 years ago. This is why the Church gives us two versions.  One skips some controversial statements.  We read that we must be "subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."  This is something that causes shock in today's world where it is all about the self or "me me me."  We are taught at a very early age to strive to be better, to share and care.  Then all of a sudden when we get older, we are told that we have to be "go-getters" and step on others in order to climb the ladder of success.  But this is not how a Catholic is supposed to be.  We are supposed to serve others (Mark 9:35, John 13:14, Galatians 5:13).

Now, the next phase is a big one that causes controversy, especially among radical feminists.  It says, "wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of his wife."  Ouch!  Those are fighting words in today's culture.  However, the latter word is what it is all about, culture. During St. Paul's time, women did not have much of a role. They were considered the property of man. Now, this does not mean that ancient people were evil or misogynist.  It simply was the way it was back then just like in America we had laws that allowed White men to buy Africans; and laws that said that they were 3/5th human!  Does this mean America is evil or racist?  Not at all. It was just the way people thought back then out of ignorance.  I guarantee you that centuries from now, kids will be in school having discussions about us who lived in 2015 and how we allowed abortion, same-sex marriage, and other illogical and evil things as "normal."  So what did St. Paul really mean?  Remember, St. Paul was speaking to the people of his day so he used examples that related to them in order to convey the Gospel to them better.  The theme of this phrase is that we must be "subordinate to ONE ANOTHER."  So St. Paul made it clear that this is a two-way street, so to speak.  St. John Paul II helps us out in "Mulieris Dignitatem," he wrote,

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."  Source: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

So as you can see, St. Paul was using the cultural ideas of the time to convey the idea that Christ is the head of the Church and that we must be submissive to this head just like at the time wives were submissive to the husband as the head of the household. Unfortunately, many of our separated friends in the many fundamentalist Protestant sects take this "be submissive to the man" to heart and it can be abusive. Some Catholics have also fallen victim to this literal interpretation. Men and women are equal beings (Proverbs 22:2, Acts 17:26, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28).  The two cannot become "one body" in marriage if one is lesser than the other (Matthew 19:5). This is why God made Eve from Adam's side (rib), not his toes, feet, or back (Genesis 2:22).  Eve (women) must stand with man side by side as equals before God.  Similarly, we must love the Church and as Church submits to Christ.

Like husbands love their wives, we must love our Catholic Church.  Some people in the Catholic Church may do wrong, it will happen.  This is no reason to abandon her or demand changes of her to fit our views. This week I had interesting chats on Twitter with Catholics who feel the Church's teachings on sex must change.  Another believes the Catholic Church went apostate at Vatican II and thinks only a few are "real Catholics."  These individuals are not following St. Paul's words in today's second reading. We must love our Church.  The Church that Christ died for, sanctifying her with the blood and water that flowed from His pierced heart (John 19:34).  We are the Church.  We are the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27, Romans 12:5).  As St. Paul says, "no one hates his own flesh."  We cannot hate the Church. If we do, then we hate Christ's body and ourselves. We choose to do our own thing rather than what Christ wanted. Today's Gospel presents a similar dilemma where a choice is presented to follow Christ or walk away.

In today's Gospel, many of the followers of Jesus were murmuring among themselves saying, "This saying is hard, who can accept it?"  They were referring to Jesus' words stating that He is the "bread of life" and that this bread is His "flesh." He tells them that they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.  These words are hard.  Imagine if someone tells you that you have to eat their arm in order to live forever?  How would you feel about this?  Jesus asks the people, "Does this shock you?  What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?  It is the spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail.  The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.  But there are some of you who do not believe."  Jesus knew that they were having trouble believing in Him. Because of His words, many of his disciples left and returned to their former lives. The Twelve remained and Jesus asks them, "Do you also want to leave?"

Here we see Simon Peter take the lead as the first Pope, speaking for the rest saying, "Master, to whom shall we go?"  You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."  Like in Joshua's day, the people were given a choice.  Either they accept Christ's words on the Holy Eucharist or return to their former lives worshiping money, success, and whatnot. Unfortunately, they chose the latter.  Today we are presented with the same situation.  Do we accept Yahweh or the fake gods of today?  Do we accept Christ, the Holy Eucharist, and the Catholic Church or do we go back to our former lives, believe the Eucharist is a symbol, and pick and choose what teachings of the Church to follow?  Jesus' words can be hard for us which is a cross, but we must not give up and walk away (Luke 9:23). Jesus asks us today, "Do you also want to leave?"  What will we respond?  We must respond like St. Peter did, "Master, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life. We are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."  During this time of Covid 19 coronavirus, particularly the Delta variant, we must go to Jesus more than ever.  Vaccines were developed hastily and were believed to have been the answer to this pandemic.  Unfortunately, they are not working as they were expected.  Breakthrough infections are taking place and several have still died from the virus.  It is basically a 50/50 gamble with the vaccine now.  God has the final say in regards to what happens to us.  May Jesus Christ be praised!





Readings:  Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time | USCCB



Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Book Review: THE SACRAMENTS: DISCOVERING THE TREASURES OF DIVINE LIFE

Tan Books was kind enough to send me a review copy of Father Matthew Kauth's THE SACRAMENTS: DISCOVERING THE TREASURES OF DIVINE LIFE. The book is just 145 pgs but filled with lots of information on the Seven Sacraments. Fr. Kauth wastes no time going into each Sacrament. With clear and simple language, he explains the meaning behind each Sacrament.

By "simple," I mean that he does not drown the reader's mind with technical theological or liturgical terminology. The book presents the information in a way any reader can understand. One does not need to have a dictionary or other reference to look up what father is writing about. He does an excellent job making complex theological and liturgical concepts understandable. This is what makes this book a must-have for every Catholic, especially those in religious education. It is easy to read and to-the-point.

Father begins with the introduction and explanation of what is a Sacrament. He relies on the traditional definition of a Sacrament and uses Scripture and other sources for reference. He ties in the importance of the Sacraments and how they are necessary for living a life in Christ and salvation.  He continues dedicating a chapter for each Sacrament. For each Sacrament, he shows their origin in Scripture, cites tradition and explains the effects and elements of each. This is important because it gives a full picture of each Sacrament.  Instead of stating, "Holy Baptism" removes Original Sin and makes on a Catholics, father goes beyond that and explains why and how. He explains why certain elements or sacramentals are used to bring about the Sacrament (i.e. water, oil, laying of hands, etc). 

He does an excellent job showing how each Sacrament works in us and how we must cooperate with grace in order to keep the Sacrament working. I highly recommend this book to every Catholics. While it is an easy read, it does not water down anything. Father provides orthodox information in line with the Church's teachings and presents it in a way anyone without a theology background can understand. The book will be understandable to readers from middle school and up. Protestants and others will benefit greatly from this book as well. This book should be on every Catholic shelf and in the satchels of every catechist or religious education teacher. Even theology students and seminarians can greatly benefit from reading this book before engaging the more complex and wordy academic books used in courses. 

I want to thank Tan Books for sending me this book and thank Father Kauth for giving us this treasure which tells us about the Divine Treasure found in the Sacraments. 






Saturday, November 4, 2017

Pope Wants Valid Proposals for Married Priests

There are conflicting reports circulating around the media regarding celibacy and Pope Francis.  Some articles claim that Pope Francis is going to allow married men to become priests in Brazil while others state that Cardinal Cludio Hummes, president of the Episcopal Commission made the request.

It is not new that Pope Francis has been open about having a discussion regarding celibacy, female deacons and so on.  However, this does not mean that he wants to make any change.  If he wanted to make such a change, he would have done it by now.  In previous statements, the pope has reaffirmed the beauty of celibacy. 

It is no wonder that there is a shortage of priests in the world.  There are many reasons for this which I will not go into now. However, we must be realistic. Our Catholic population is going faster than it can get priests to care for them. This is a problem.  People are hungry for God.  This is good. However, without priests, who will pastor those people?  Who will feed them via the Sacraments?  I have always theorized that eventually, the Church will have to create a sort of "sub-orders" under the umbrella of Holy Orders that will allow for married men to be ordained priests just as there is the permanent diaconate.

This seems to be the topic now, according to the media outlets reporting. Cardinal Cludio Hummes and Pope Francis seem to have in mind the creation of such a "viri probati" or "sub-order." The creation of such a thing will possibly scandalize those who call themselves "conservative" or "traditionalist." However, any Catholic who knows his or her history will know that married priests are nothing new.  Clergy from the early Catholic Church were married. We read in Matthew 8:14 that even St. Peter, the first pope was married.  Jesus healed his mother-in-law. Jesus never endorsed celibacy, but never condemned it either.  In fact, He said that there are those who become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and leaves it open to those who can receive it (Matthew 19:11-12).  Eunuchs were men who were castrated, were born with damaged reproductive organs or simply chose to remain celibate. 

The strongest evidence for the endorsement of celibacy comes from St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.  St. Paul gives a long discourse on relationships and how they may affect service to the Lord.  Those men who are single can focus on the Lord more, as opposed to, those men who are married and have to care for their wives and families. He describes himself as the former and encourages it.  The earliest mandate for celibacy comes from Canon 33 from the Council of Elvira written in AD 303 which stated that all "bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics are to abstain completely from their wives and not to have children."  However, this mandate was not universal.  Nevertheless, we see how celibacy was developing throughout the life of the Church. It was not until the 12th century in 1139 during the Second Lateran Council that priests were mandated into celibacy.  The Council of Trent in 1563, later on, reaffirmed celibacy.

It is interesting to note that the mandate of celibacy was mostly instituted in order to restore some morality among the clergy and protect Church assets and properties. Priests who died often left widows who sought Church assets and property as an inheritance.  The Catholic Church had to intervene, for obvious reasons.

Allowing priests to marry has its positives and negatives. It may increase the number of priests. However, it may also bring problems regarding assets and property as in the past. If a priest dies, where will his family live?  Surely, they will not be allowed to live in a rectory for life. Moreover, parishioners may not like the idea of supporting multiple clergy-families living in rectories. Space itself is a problem. Rectories would have to be updated to allow priests with large families. As you can see, there are many problems that may arise with the allowance of married priests.  However, if a "sub-order" of married priests is created, there may be fewer problems.  These priests may be allowed to live in their own homes or apartments just like permanent deacons who do not live on Church properties. Moreover, these priests can hold secular jobs just like permanent deacons and can assist only at parishes who cannot have a full-time priest.  There are many possibilities that can come about if such a "sub-order" is created within the Latin Rite. Only time will tell if such a "sub-order" will be created that will function alongside permanent deacons, celibate priests etc.

I think a "viri probati" sort of order of priests is tangible who work alongside celibate clergy. 




Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/02/pope-requests-roman-catholic-priests-given-right-marry/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pope-francis-priests-married-men-brazil-hopes-raised-a8034651.html

https://stream.org/did-pope-francis-really-call/





Saturday, January 14, 2017

Malta Bishops in Heresy?

The signs of the times are showing.  Malta's bishops recently said something which contradicts Church teaching.  In a newly issued document (see: Guidelines For Communion/Divorce), the Maltan bishops say, “a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are [sic] at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist." This interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is based on footnote 351 which has caused debate within the Church and has led for some Cardinals to issue a dubia to the pope. Pope Francis has yet to answer the dubia.

The Malta bishop's document is causing concern throughout the rest of the Church.  Though the document is centered towards mercy and "meeting people where they are at" or their personal situation, it fails to acknowledge the Church's teachings.  St. Pope John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio (84): "However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage."   (http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html)

The Church's teaching is clear.  I do not understand how Malta's bishops came up with another interpretation.  Let us pray for these bishops.  








Source:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/01/13/maltas-bishops-tell-the-remarried-take-communion-if-you-feel-at-peace-with-god/?utm_content=buffer20d19&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

https://www.lifesitenews.com/all/today#article-breaking-maltas-bishops-to-allow-civilly-remarried-divorcees-to-receive-com

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-published-guidelines-suggest-pope-francis-support-for-communion-fo

http://ms.maltadiocese.org/WEBSITE/2017/PRESS%20RELEASES/Norms%20for%20the%20Application%20of%20Chapter%20VIII%20of%20AL.pdf



Friday, April 8, 2016

Amoris Laetitia - The Joy of Love

Today at around 12 PM Rome time, the Apostolic Exhortation "Amoris Laetitia: On Love in the Family" was released to the public. It is important to note that an Apostolic Exhortation does not introduce, change or define doctrine.  Rather, it is the Pope communicating to the Universal Church to take certain actions. The Apostolic Exhortation released today was a lengthy work in progress which began at the Synods 14 & 15. It focuses on the family and the modern situations it finds itself in. During the Synods, open discussions were held regarding the family, homosexual unions, divorce and the reception of the Sacraments.

The exhortation begins with an introduction telling of the issues at hand and how complex they are.  The Pope says that not everything should be left to the magesterium and that each local region should seek solutions base don culture, traditions and the needs of the local people. In chapter 1, the Pope reflects on the family using Sacred Scripture, specifically Psalm 128.  He describes the family as a 'trade' and not some abstract idea. He follows in chapter 2 by presenting the situations of families in today's world.  The ideas of contraception, biotechnology, gender theory, pornography, abuse of minors etc are mentioned. He expounds on them and calls on all to have an informed conscience. The Pope stresses that Catholics should not see couples living in 'irregular situations' as 'living in sin.'

In chapter 3, the Pope points to Christ as the center and vocation of the family.  He relies on the Gospel to make his case and reminds Catholics of the indissolubility of marriage and the importance of transmitting life as well as the education of the youth.  He brings out the 'imperfect situations' that exist in the world and that pastors must be merciful and avoid judgments. Pastors must understand each situation and try his best to work with families involved in said situation. In chapter 4, the Pope addresses love in the family and expounds on the many hardships couples face in marriage. He stresses that love must be transformational. Couples must work at it and not give in to the changes that take place i.e. loss of attractiveness, physical changes, changes in sexual desire and so on.

Chapter 5 deals with procreation and the call to be "fruitful and multiply."  The Pope stresses that this fruitfulness can be found in adoption and the care of children by parents and the extended familiy. In chapter 6, the Pope addresses the issues via a pastoral perspective.  He relies on the teachings of Pope John Paul II and his own catechesis along with the reports from the two Synods to stress that the family must not only be evangelized but it must also go out into the world and evangelize.  He makes the observation that most clergy are not well educated on how to deal with the face of the changing family in the post modern world and stresses changes in the psycho-affrective formation of those in seminary. The Pope continues speaking on the family, married couples and those who are divorced and often felt abandoned by the Church. He describes divorce as an evil and stresses the need for the annulment process to be reformed. Lastly, he addresses the situations with married couples of different faiths as well as homosexual persons.  He stresses that homosexuals must be loved and respected, but also makes it clear that same-sex marriage is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman and can never be the same.

In chapter 7, the Pope speaks on the education of children and how parents cannot control every situation a child faces. He stresses all kinds of education including sex education, but warns that so-called 'safe sex' education is harmful because it presents the procreative finality of sex as something negative or as something that can being negative consequences. He says that it promotes narcissism and aggression. Chapter 8 invites the Church to be more merciful to others and provide pastoral discernment in regards to today's family situation and the many dysfunctional aspects we find in it today. The Pope reminds us that the Church is like a field hospital caring for all those who are wounded.  It should not be a place for judgment. The Pope also makes it clear that pastoral mercy must never lessen or water down what Jesus offers and desires of the family, couples and so on, he writes: “To show understanding in the face of exceptional situations never implies dimming the light of the fuller ideal, or proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being. Today, more important than the pastoral care of failures is the pastoral effort to strengthen marriages and thus to prevent their breakdown.”

Finally, chapter 9 reiterates the spirituality of marriage and the family. The Pope stresses the need for prayer and participation in the life of the Spirit.  He reminds us that families do not appear perfect.  Each family has its issues, but they must strive to grow in love and maturity.


The Apostolic Exhortation can be found here:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html


***

My thoughts:

The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia: On Love in the Family is very well written. As expected, there were no doctrinal changes nor any endorsements of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Nevertheless, some are not too happy with it, especially so-called Traditionalists who feel the Pope did not reiterate strongly that those who divorce and remarry cannot be admitted to Holy Communion.  I can see why they would feel this. Footnote 351 which says:



seems to leave open the idea that Holy Communion can be given out on a case by case scenario since the "Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak."

The footnote is supporting this statement in the exhortation:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

As you can see, it is referring to those people who are in a situation of sin, but can "can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church's help..."  This can leave open the idea of giving Holy Communion to those who are divorced and remarried, or any situation for that matter where Holy Communion is prohibited. I feel Pope Francis needs to clarify this otherwise some bishops and priests will run with the wind with it and give our Holy Communion with disregard to the idea that we have to be in the state of grace to receive the Lord. While the Sacraments are a 'medicine' of sort, we are told by St. Paul that receiving the Lord's body and blood unworthily brings about not only sin against the body and blood of the Lord, but also bodily sickness:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.  Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1 Corinthians 11: 27-30

Overall, I liked the exhortation and see that the Pope is speaking pastorally and with mercy, so I understand where he is coming from.  However, what worries me is how others will interpret this and go around handing out Holy Communion to everyone as if it were government cheese.  The Holy Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but it is also not food for dogs.

In closing, we must read this exhortation carefully.  I have already read it 3 times just to make sure I got every detail and  understood where the Pope was coming from and why he was coming from there, so to speak.  The media has already jumped to conclusions saying things the Pope never said. Please ignore them.


Here are some reactions from others:






















Sources:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html


http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2016/04/08/0240/00534.html#en

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/04/08/amoris-laetitia-is-kitchen-sink-theology-and-all-the-better-for-it/utm_content=buffer7a833&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

http://americamagazine.org/issue/top-ten-takeaways-amoris-laetitia

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/no-doctrine-change-from-pope-francis-but-a-call-for-better-pastoral-care-85474/?platform=hootsuite

http://www.romereports.com/2016/04/08/the-pope-encourages-the-integration-of-the-divorced-in-the-church

http://www.cyberteologia.it/2016/04/the-joy-of-love-the-structure-and-meaning-of-pope-francis-post-synodal-apostolic-exhortation/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/08/pope-francis-releases-key-text-family-matters/82782602/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-marriage-idUSKCN0X42TB?utm_source=twitter

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160408/pope-francis-offers-hope-to-divorced-catholics-says-no-to-gay-marriage

http://linkis.com/www.cnn.com/2016/04/l0gbP

http://mashable.com/2016/04/08/pope-francis-the-joy-of-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29#WYFyFXrtbZql

http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160408/pope-francis-offers-hope-to-divorced-catholics-says-no-to-gay-marriage

http://brisbanecatholic.org.au/articles/pope-francis-marriage-family-life/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-insists-conscience-not-rules-must-guide-faithful-100149710.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/04/amoris-laetitia-pope-francis-1968-moment.html

http://www.romereports.com/2016/04/08/full-text-of-pope-francis-post-synodal-apostolic-exhortation-amoris-laetitia?platform=hootsuite

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/04/08/pope-francis-in-epic-bid-to-save-the-family-convert-the-church/?platform=hootsuite

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/08/pope-francis-releases-key-text-family-matters/82782602/

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/popes-family-document-amoris-laetitia-tackles-complex-pastoral-challenges/


Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Motu Proprio- Annulment Changes

Pope Francis has issued two motu proprios which are similar to presidential executive orders.  The motu proprios entitled, "Mitis Iudex Dominex Iesus" (The Lord Jesus, a meek judge) and "Mitis et misericors Iesus" (Jesus, meek and merciful) detail several changes to the annulment process.  The first document touches on modifications to the Cod of Canon Law in the Roman Rite and the latter document deals on the laws for the uniate rites or Eastern Rite Churches who are in full communion with Rome and who have different laws.

Last year's synod of bishops brought up the topic of annulments.  Many bishops complained that the process is too complicated and at times forces Catholics to leave the Church altogether.  The Pope decided to speed up the process for those couples who both agree that the marriage was invalid for one reason or more.  He also removed any fees associated with it.  Many dioceses charged couples $600 -$900 for the process which entails a lot of paperwork, canon lawyers, interviews and extensive investigation.

An annulment is a declaration by the Church that a marriage that took place ceremonially, did not take effect sacramentally due to the lack of certain elements.

(1) the spouses are free to marry;
(2) they freely exchange their consent;
(3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children;
(4) they intend the good of each other; and
(5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister.
- http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/


The USCCB defines it as:

"An annulment is a declaration by a Church tribunal (a Catholic church court) that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union."  - http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/annulment/


Many people, especially outsiders confuse an annulment with a divorce.  It is not a divorce.  The Catholic Church does not approve of divorces and any Catholic who attempts to "dissolve" a Catholic marriage (which is Indissoluble) in the civil sense is in mortal sin and cannot receive Holy Communion.

The Pope made it clear that he does not wish to "dissolve" any marriage but is focused on the salvation of souls. So far the news have been met with concern from self-proclaimed "conservative" Catholics but accepted by "mainstream" Catholics.

I too have some concern in regards to the possibility of an increase in so-called "invalid" marriages now that the process will be free and expedited, but only time will tell.  However, I am happy the fee is gone.  The idea of charging $600 or more came across as simony to me and many others.  The Catholic Church should not come across as a business looking to profit off spirituality.  Some of her members in the past made the mistake of selling indulgences already, we do not need a repeat of this stupidity.




Source:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/motu_proprio.index.html

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=12586

http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=12584

Sunday, August 23, 2015

21st Sunday in Ordinary Time - To Whom Shall We Go?

Please help keep this evangelization work alive. So far a few have donated, but I have not met the goal. In December, I have to pay for the renewal of this domain name, so I need your help.  I also want to expand this work so it can reach even more people.  Please help me meet my campaign goal by donating at www.gofundme.com/sacerdotus.

If about 2,700 people donate only $9.25, then I will meet the goal.  As more people donate, gofundme will in turn place my campaign on the front page of their website giving it more promotion.  So I hope you reading this will help with a donation.  Remember, after December 2015 if I have not raised enough, then I will have to wind this work down.   

Thank you, God bless + Mary keep!

Reflection:
We have pretty much wrapped up Jesus' revelation to the Jews that He was the "Bread of Life."  In today's readings, we see how this affects the people who took His words as too hard to follow. This created a dilemma: do they follow Jesus or someone else?

In today's first reading, we read of Joshua who had taken the lead after the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 31). He gathered all the tribes of Israel, calling forward the elders, leaders, judges and officials.  Each stood before God as Joshua spoke to them.  He tells them if they are not happy with serving God then they must decide who they must serve. He puts before them the gods of the Amorites or the God of their ancestors.  As Israel began to expand, she found herself surrounded by other nations who worshiped different gods.  Many atheists love to claim that "Yahweh" is one of the gods of these nations who the Israelites adopted as their own. They claim that "Yahweh" was a "borrowed" god from the Pantheon.  However, this is not true. While "Yahweh" is listed in the pantheon, this only occurred after the Israelites mingled with the surrounding nations.  So naturally, those nations would add the God of the Israelites as part of their gods to reflect the diversity of cultures.  They were Henotheists, or people who worshiped a single deity but acknowledged that there were other gods.

Anyhow, Joshua gathers the top people of Israel and questions their loyalty to the God of the Hebrews - of their ancestors.  The people respond that they will not forsake their God for other gods because it was their God who rescued their ancestors from the Land of Egypt.  It was this God who wrought the miracles and protected the people (Exodus 20:2, Leviticus 22:33, Amos 2:10, Exodus 3:20, Psalm 40:5).  They chose God Yahweh.  We too should ask ourselves this question every day, especially every Sunday before we recite the creed.  Do we serve the one true God or the "gods" of today: money, sex, power, popularity, the self etc? Now we know there are no other gods out there, Yahweh is the only one (1 Kings 8:23, 2 Chronicles 6:14, Isaiah 45:5, Deuteronomy 33:36).  Today we understand that primitive man defined and named god the best way they could.  So they got the right idea that a supreme being existed, but got His name and description wrong. I address this more in this radio podcast (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sacerdotus/2014/05/09/the-3000-gods-argument).  Like the Israelites, we choose God, the real God.  We "taste and see the goodness of the Lord" as we repeat again in the responsorial Psalm.

We are called to "taste and see the goodness of the Lord."  In order to do this, we must be with God, bless Him, praise Him, let His glory shine in our being.  We must be happy and proud to be with God and not "blush with shame" (Mark 8:38, 2 Timothy 1:8). God hears us during our distress just like He heard Elijah (1 John 5:15).   God sends His angel to protect us and aid us just like with Elijah (Psalm 91:11).  He is with us when we are down or hurting.  The phrase that "He watches over all His bones; not one of them shall be broken" is a foreshadowing of Christ on the cross who was spared from having his legs broken by the Roman soldiers (Psalms 34:19-20, Exodus 12:46, John 19:36).

The second reading has been controversial in the last 40 years ago. This is why the Church gives us two versions.  One skips some controversial statements.  We read that we must be "subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."  This is something that causes shock in today's world where it is all about the self or "me me me."  We are taught at a very early age to strive to be better, to share and care.  Then all of a sudden when we get older, we are told that we have to be "go-getters" and step on others in order to climb the ladder of success.  But this is not how a Catholic is supposed to be.  We are supposed to serve others (Mark 9:35, John 13:14, Galatians 5:13).

Now, the next phrase is a big one that causes controversy, especially among radical feminists.  It says, "wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of his wife."  Ouch!  Those are fighting words in today's culture.  However, the latter word is what it is all about, culture. During St. Paul's time, women did not have much of a role. They were considered the property of man. Now this does not mean that ancient people were evil or misogynist.  It simply was the way it was back then just like in America we had laws that allowed White men to buy Africans; and laws that said that they were 3/5th human!  Does this mean America is evil or racist?  Not at all. It was just the way people thought back then out of ignorance.  I guarantee you that centuries from now, kids will be in school having discussions about us who lived in 2015 and how we allowed abortion, same-sex marriage and other illogical and evil things as "normal."  So what did St. Paul really mean?  Remember, St. Paul was speaking to the people of his day so he used examples that related to them in order to convey the Gospel to them better.  The theme of this phrase is that we must be "subordinate to ONE ANOTHER."  So St. Paul made it clear that this is a two-way street, so to speak.  St. John Paul II helps us out in "Mulieris Dignitatem," he wrote,

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."  Source: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html

So as you can see, St. Paul was using the cultural ideas of the time to convey the idea that Christ is the head of the Church and that we must be submissive to this head just like at the time wives were submissive to the husband as the head of the household. Unfortunately, many of our separated friends in the many fundamentalist Protestant sects take this "be submissive to the man" to heart and it can be abusive. Some Catholics have also fallen victim to this literal interpretation. Men and women are equal beings (Proverbs 22:2, Acts 17:26, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28).  The two cannot become "one body" in marriage if one is lesser than the other (Matthew 19:5). This is why God made Eve from Adam's side (rib), not his toes, feet or back (Genesis 2:22).  Eve (women) must stand with man side by side as equals before God.  Similarly, we must love the Church and as Church submit to Christ.

Like husbands love their wives, we must love our Catholic Church.  Some people in the Catholic Church may do wrong, it will happen.  This is no reason to abandon her or demand changes of her to fit our views. This week I had interesting chats on Twitter with Catholics who feel the Church's teachings on sex must change.  Another believes the Catholic Church went apostate at Vatican II and thinks only a few are "real Catholics."  These individuals are not following St. Paul's words in today's second reading. We must love our Church.  The Church that Christ died for, sanctifying her with the blood and water that flowed from His pierced heart (John 19:34).  We are the Church.  We are the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27, Romans 12:5).  As St. Paul says, "no one hates his own flesh."  We cannot hate the Church. If we do, then we hate Christ's body and ourselves. We choose to do our own thing rather than what Christ wanted. Today's Gospel presents a similar dilemma where a choice is presented to follow Christ or walk away.

In today's Gospel, many of the followers of Jesus were murmuring among themselves saying, "This saying is hard, who can accept it?"  They were referring to Jesus' words stating that He is the "bread of life" and that this bread is His "flesh." He tells them that they have to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life.  These words are hard.  Imagine if someone tells you that you have to eat their arm in order to live forever?  How would you feel about this?  Jesus asks the people, "Does this shock you?  What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?  It is the spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail.  The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.  But there are some of you who do not believe."  Jesus knew that they were having trouble believing in Him. Because of His words, many of his disciples left and returned to their former lives. The Twelve remained and Jesus asks them, "Do you also want to leave?"

Here we see Simon Peter take the lead as the first Pope, speaking for the rest saying, "Master, to whom shall we go?"  You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."  Like in Joshua's day, the people were given a choice.  Either they accept Christ's words on the Holy Eucharist or return to their former lives worshiping money, success and what not. Unfortunately, they chose the latter.  Today we are presented with the same situation.  Do we accept Yahweh or the fake gods of today?  Do we accept Christ, the Holy Eucharist, and the Catholic Church or do we go back to our former lives, believe the Eucharist is a symbol and pick and choose what teachings of the Church to follow?  Jesus' words can be hard for us which is a cross, but we must not give up and walk away (Luke 9:23). Jesus asks us today, "Do you also want to leave?"  What will we respond?  We must respond like St. Peter did, "Master, to whom shall we go?  You have the words of eternal life. We are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."  May Jesus Christ be praised!





Readings:  http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/082315.cfm

Sacerdotus TV LIveStream

Labels

Catholic Church (1472) Jesus (680) God (667) Bible (563) Atheism (385) Jesus Christ (376) Pope Francis (333) Liturgy of the Word (298) Atheist (267) Science (224) Apologetics (211) Christianity (192) LGBT (147) Theology (133) Liturgy (121) Blessed Virgin Mary (113) Abortion (97) Gay (92) Pope Benedict XVI (91) Prayer (90) Philosophy (85) Rosa Rubicondior (82) Traditionalists (73) Vatican (72) Psychology (69) Physics (68) Christmas (64) President Obama (59) Christian (58) New York City (58) Holy Eucharist (56) Protestant (46) Biology (45) Health (45) Politics (45) Vatican II (45) Women (43) Gospel (39) Racism (37) Supreme Court (35) Baseball (34) Illegal Immigrants (32) Pope John Paul II (31) NYPD (30) Death (29) priests (29) Astrophysics (27) Religious Freedom (27) Space (27) Priesthood (26) Donald Trump (24) Eucharist (24) Evangelization (24) Jewish (24) Morality (24) Christ (22) Evil (22) First Amendment (21) Pro Abortion (19) Child Abuse (17) Divine Mercy (17) Marriage (17) Pedophilia (17) Pro Choice (17) Easter Sunday (16) Police (16) Autism (14) Gender Theory (14) Holy Trinity (13) Pentecostals (13) Poverty (13) Blog (12) Cognitive Psychology (12) Muslims (12) Sacraments (12) September 11 (12) CUNY (11) Hispanics (11) Pope Paul VI (10) academia (10) Evidence (9) Massimo Pigliucci (9) Personhood (9) Podcast (9) Angels (8) Barack Obama (8) Big Bang Theory (8) Evangelicals (8) Human Rights (8) Humanism (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Eastern Orthodox (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Hell (7) NY Yankees (7) Spiritual Life (7) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (6) Babies (5) Baby Jesus (5) Catholic Bloggers (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Donations (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Ephebophilia (4) Plenary Indulgence (4) Pluto (4) Pope John XXIII (4) Death penalty (3) Encyclical (3) Founding Fathers (3) Dan Arel (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)