Showing posts with label Sacred Deposit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sacred Deposit. Show all posts

Friday, September 20, 2019

Archbishop Chaput Calls Out Fr. James Martin, S.J.

Finally, an American prelate had the courage to refute Fr. James Martin, SJ.  Fr. Martin has taken to task to be as sort of "bridge-builder" between homosexuals and the Catholic Church. He even wrote a book about "Building Bridges." However, his effort does not call for homosexuals to live a chaste life as the Church teaches, nor does it call them to repent for their homosexual sins. Rather, his tone is soft and often ambiguous which has left many confused, Catholics and homosexual.

Listening to Fr. Martin or reading his content, one would think that the Catholic Church endorses homosexual acts and so-called same-sex marriage. On his Facebook page, many people clearly support homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  Catholics such as myself who have dared to comment on his posts have been met with personal attacks and mockery. Father Martin in no instance jumps in to correct those who attack the Catholic teachings on homosexuality.

The silence from the Vatican and bishops has bothered many Catholics. Is the Church turning from the truth? Is she now going to become like the Episcopalians who endorse homosexuality?  This is what many Catholics dread. However, Archbishop Chaput gave us some hope. He publicly reprimanded Fr. Martin and made it clear that he is not an authority in the Catholic Church.  In a column on his diocese's website, he writes:

Father James Martin, S.J., spoke at St. Joseph’s University earlier this week (Tuesday, September 17) on themes related to his book Building A Bridge. And as I expected, quite a few emails arrived in my inbox questioning his teaching on same-sex related issues and urging me to prevent his appearance. A local bishop is typically unable to do that, since most Catholic universities operate under the authority of the religious community that sponsors them.
Father Martin has also, at times, been the target of bitter personal attacks. As I’ve said previously, such attacks are inexcusable and unChristian.
In reality, Father Martin has sought in a dedicated way to accompany and support people with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. Many of his efforts have been laudable, and we need to join him in stressing the dignity of persons in such situations.
At the same time, a pattern of ambiguity in his teachings tends to undermine his stated aims, alienating people from the very support they need for authentic human flourishing. Due to the confusion caused by his statements and activities regarding same-sex related (LGBT) issues,[i] I find it necessary to emphasize that Father Martin does not speak with authority on behalf of the Church, and to caution the faithful about some of his claims.
Among my concerns, I note the following:
Father Martin suggests that same-sex attracted people and those with gender dysphoria should be labeled according to their attraction and dysphoria, calling for use of the phrase “LGBT Catholic” in Church documents and language.[ii] But while the Church does teach that the body is integral to human identity, our sexual appetites do not define who we are. If we are primarily defined by our sexual attractions, then, in order to be fulfilled, it would follow that we must identify with and act on our attractions.
Anything calling for the denial or restraint of our sexual appetites would logically amount to repression and even cruelty. This is the opposite of the Gospel’s clear teaching that our identity is found in Jesus Christ, created in the image and likeness of God and called to be sons and daughters of God.
Father Martin has, in the past, suggested that people are born “gay.” In his own words, “[i]t is a fact that people are born this way … [a] psychological, psychiatric, and biological truth.”[iii] To his credit, Father Martin has seemed to modify this view; studies have recently shown that there is no “gay gene,” and homosexuality is the product of a variety of factors.
It’s true that many persons with same-sex attraction have experienced it for as long as they can remember, but no firm scientific consensus exists on the cause.  Moreover, genetic dispositions — to the degree they do exist — say nothing about the benefit or harm toward which they dispose those having them.
Any implication that a person’s behavior is predetermined, and that intellect and free will have little role in the formation and control of his or her sexual appetites, is both false and destructive, especially to young people.
Father Martin suggests that Catholic teaching on same-sex attraction as “objectively disordered” (for example, in CCC 2358) is cruel and should be modified. In his words, “saying that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is disordered is needlessly hurtful.”[iv] But here Father Martin misrepresents Catholic belief. As the U.S. bishops stressed in their 2006 document, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care:
“It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.”[v]
It’s worth recalling here that the Catechism also describes lust, extra-marital relations, and contracepted sex (2351), masturbation (2352), and even non-sexual sins such as lying and calumny (1753), as intrinsically “disordered.” The suggestion that the wisdom of the Church, rooted in the Word of God and centuries of human experience, is somehow cruel or misguided does grave harm to her mission. Families have been destroyed because of this misperception, and Father Martin regrettably contributes ambiguity to issues that demand a liberating biblical clarity.
Father Martin partners with organizations like New Ways Ministry that oppose or ignore the teaching of the Church, and he endorses events, such as PRIDE month, that cause confusion for the faithful. To the contrary we need to reaffirm, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) stated in its 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, that
“All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted.”
Father Martin — no doubt unintentionally — inspires hope that the Church’s teachings on human sexuality can be changed. In his book, Building A Bridge, he writes: “For a teaching to be really authoritative it is expected that it will be received by the people of God … From what I can tell, in the LGBT community, the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives … has not been received.”[vi] One might easily, and falsely, infer from such language that the Church’s teaching on sexual intimacy lacks binding authority for same-sex attracted Catholics.
Again to his credit, Father Martin has stressed that, “as a Catholic priest, I have … never challenged [the Church’s] teachings, nor will I.” [vii] But what is implied or omitted often speaks as loudly as what is actually stated, and in the current climate, incomplete truths do, in fact, present a challenge to faithful Catholic belief.
When people hear that “the Church welcomes gay people” or needs to be more “inclusive and welcoming” without also hearing the conditions of an authentically Christian life set for all persons by Jesus Christ and his Church — namely, living a life of chastity — they can easily misunderstand the nature of Christian conversion and discipleship.
For this reason, Catholic teaching always requires more than polite affirmation or pro forma agreement, particularly from those who comment publicly on matters of doctrine. Faithful Catholics who are same-sex attracted need support and encouragement in the virtue of chastity.  They deserve to hear — as all people do — the truth about human sexuality spoken clearly and confidently. Anything less lacks both mercy and justice.
In its 1986 Letter, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith warned us,
“This Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programs which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful.”
Supporters of Father Martin’s efforts will note, correctly, that several Church leaders have endorsed his work.   Those Churchmen are responsible for their words — as I am for mine, as pastor of the Church in Philadelphia.  And specifically in that role as pastor, I want to extend the CDF’s caution to all the faithful of the Church in Philadelphia, regarding the ambiguity about same-sex related issues found throughout the statements and activities of Father James Martin.
***
[i]      See, for example, Fr. Martin comments in “School defies Archdiocese of Indianapolis, refuses to fire teacher in same-sex marriage,” CBS News June 21, 2019
[ii]          Rev. James Martin, S.J., “Reflections on Two L.G.B.T. Questions at the Synod”, America, 12 October 2018; Rev. James Martin, S.J., Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity, Revised and expanded edition (New York: HarperCollins, 2018), 35.
[iii]         From a Facebook video entitled “Q&A about the Pope’s recent comment ‘God made you gay.’”
[iv]         Quoted in Jonathan Merritt, “This Vatican Adviser is Moving Catholics toward LGBT Inclusion”, Religion News Service, 6 June 2017.
[v]          http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/homosexual-inclination-guidelines-general-principles.cfm
[vi]         https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/10/fr-martin-does-not-actually-say
[vii]        Rev. James Martin, S.J., “What is the Official Church Teaching on Homosexuality? Responding to a Commonly Asked Question”, America, 6 April 2018.

Source:  http://catholicphilly.com/2019/09/archbishop-chaput-column/father-james-martin-and-catholic-belief/



Those are fighting words and welcome!  Finally, a Catholic bishop stands up to Fr. Martin and publicly tells all that he is not an authority and his messages are not in line with the Catholic faith. However, Fr. Martin is not one to stay shut. He quickly offered a short response, he wrote:


I want to thank Archbishop Chaput for his thoughtful response to my recent lecture at St. Joseph’s University “Building a Bridge: Reaching Out to the Excluded in Our Church.” However, I was sorry that he felt the need to publish it.
I think my main response to his column is that it’s difficult to respond to critiques that I am “implying” things about church teaching, when I am assiduous in my writings and talks about not challenging church teaching on matters of sexual morality (or anything, for that matter). I have written clearly about that in America magazine, among other places, for example, in my article “What is Official Church Teaching on Homosexuality?”

Also, the lecture at St. Joseph’s University this week, which prompted his column, is the same lecture that I presented at the World Meeting of Families in Dublin last year, the text of which was vetted and approved beforehand by the Vatican.
One of the reasons that I don’t focus on same-sex relations and same-sex marriage, which I know are both impermissible (and immoral) under church teaching, is that LGBT Catholics have heard this repeatedly. Indeed, often that is the only thing that they hear from their church.
What I am trying to do instead is encourage Catholics to see LGBT people as more than just sexual beings, to see them in their totality, much as Jesus saw people on the margins, people who were also seen as “other” in his time.
I remain grateful for the Archbishop’s asking people not to engage in “ad hominem” attacks, and I appreciate the careful tone of his letter and have always appreciated his kind communications with me. And may I take this opportunity to thank him for his service to my beloved hometown of Philadelphia.
Peace,
Rev. James Martin, S.J.
Editor at Large
America Media

Source:  http://catholicphilly.com/2019/09/commentaries/fr-martin-responds-to-archbishop-chaputs-critique/


I was shocked to read Fr. Martin finally acknowledge that same-sex relations and marriage are impermissible and immoral under Church teaching!  I almost fell out of my seat while reading his reply. This is probably the first time that Fr. Martin has told the truth regarding homosexuality and how the Catholic Church teaches on it.

Archbishop Chaput replied to Fr. Martin, he wrote:

I appreciate Father Martin’s typically gracious comments, which are consistent with the man. They do not, however, change the need for my column. I’m sure Father Martin would agree that “official” Church teaching (as opposed to some alternative, imagined, unofficial system of belief and practice) is simply what the Church believes based on the Word of God and centuries of experience with the human condition.
Moreover, the point is not to “not challenge” what the Church believes about human sexuality, but to preach and teach it with confidence, joy, and zeal. Biblical truth liberates; it is never a cause for embarrassment.
Finally, Father Martin and I emphatically agree that persons with same-sex attraction are children of God and well loved by him. Thus they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. The Church must earnestly seek to do that while remaining true to her convictions.
But it is clearly not true that the “only thing” Catholics with same-sex attraction hear from their Church is a message of rejection. Or if it is, perhaps the responsibility can lie as much with the listener as it does with the Church. We each have the freedom to choose. Listening, like teaching, is an act of the will.

Source http://catholicphilly.com/2019/09/commentaries/fr-martin-responds-to-archbishop-chaputs-critique/ (bottom of Fr. Martin's reply)


I hope more bishops and priests join in and offer their criticism of how Fr. Martin conducts ministry to homosexuals. The Catholic Church's mission is to bring the people back to God.  She is to go out in Jesus' name, baptize and teach, sanctify and forgive, admonish and show mercy. Reaching out to homosexuals is a must for the Church. They are not to be left behind. However, we do this by affirming what God has revealed to us about homosexuality and call for repentance and a change of behavior. Simply telling homosexuals that they are loved does not do much. It implicitly endorses their bad behavior (if they are active gays).  Calling on them to live holy lives is a must. This means accepting that one has homosexual tendencies, but not giving in to them.  Ironically, this same attitude applies to every other sin.

I hope Archbishop Chaput's words will not expedite the acceptance of his resignation. He turns 75 on September 26 and this is the age that is bishops must turn in their resignation as required by Canon Law. Archbishop Vigano had claimed that Pope Francis does not like Archbishop Chaput. Many have speculated this after Archbishop Chaput was never made a cardinal. If Pope Francis quickly accepts Archbishop Chaput's resignation, this may cement the theories.

Let us pray for Archbishop Chaput and Fr. James Martin, SJ.


What do you think?  Post your comment below on Disqus.  Remember to follow the rules on commenting.






News Source:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-chaput-warns-catholics-against-father-martins-pattern-of-ambigui

http://catholicphilly.com/2019/09/archbishop-chaput-column/father-james-martin-and-catholic-belief/

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/philly-archbishop-pro-lgbt-fr-james-martin-does-not-speak-authority



Thursday, September 19, 2019

Conspiracist Taylor Marshall Blocks Sacerdotus

As I have written before, when Pope Francis was elected, this stirred a lot of people in the Catholic Church. The "schism" really began on March 13, 2013. We are seeing it more open today, especially on social media. Catholics are fighting one another. I shared how many Catholics followed me, jumped into my mini-debates against atheists and protestants, and were friendly. That changed with many unfollowing me, blocking me or aligning themselves with party lines, so to speak.

Before on social media, there were Catholics who were more orthodox than others, and then there were the sedevacantists and the really absurd Catholics who deny almost everything the Church teaches. I faced them all. From NovusOrdoWatch and his sheep who deny the papacy and have a huge misconception of what Catholicism teaches, to the liberal ones who claim the Bible supports abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage. Despite these, there were always mainstream Catholics who alway balanced things out. Now, nearly all of those followers are competing against each other as to who is more Catholic than the next.

Taylor R. Marshall is one such character who went bonkers, along with Rorate Caeli and a few others. I used to follow Marshall back in 2015 and enjoyed his appreciation of the Liturgy from pre-Vatican II. However, his tweets started to become more nonsensical and contentious. He began to attack the Ordinary Form of the Mass, made implicit jabs at Pope Francis and started to show a scrupulous side that one would expect from the Pharisees. Having a doctoral degree, I expected him to be more rational and balanced, but he has demonstrated a tendency to rely on heuristic representativeness, conjecture, bias and conspiracy to push a narrative.

I am not sure when, but he blocked me on Twitter. It seems he blocked me because I questioned his comments and corrected his misinformation. I state this because I never was rude to him. My tweets are evidence of this. I will show them here:

In this tweet, I asked him for a review copy of his book so as to review it on my media


In this tweet, I comment on how I tried to get the nuncio to invite my nephew to meet the pope during his visit to New York, and the nuncio gave me the runaround:



These are the times I questioned him and offered a correction to his misstatements and misinformation:
































As you can see, my criticisms involved his misconceptions and bad takes on certain events or actions, particularly, involving the pope. They were never ill-willed or meant to make him look bad. I was doing my Christian duty of correcting a brother in error or offering him a different perspective than the negative and accusatory one he adopted. If this is what led him to block me, then he is clearly insecure with his intelligence and cannot handle criticism.

Had I come across as rude and vulgar, then I would understand the need to block me. However, I did no such things. This tells me what many others have stated about Marshall: that he is an opportunist profiting off the gullible. Opportunists do not like to be challenged. They are authoritarians who see themselves equal to no one and untouchable. I am concerned for Taylor and his large following. They are not well educated in the Catholic faith, history of the Church or her Liturgical rubrics. This is evident in the exchanges I have read online and on his personal website. Taylor caters to a group of alleged Catholics who call themselves "traditionalists," but are really ignorant of tradition, both with capital and lower-case T.

These are the type that believes the only valid Liturgy is the Extraordinary Form, want to oppress females to the pews wearing veils, oppress young girls from the altar, profess false ideas on how to receive Holy Communion, rely heavily on private revelations, and who deems everything they disagree with as "modernism." Another thing this type of Catholic does is nitpick externals. If a vestment or clerical attire is not to his or her liking, then the cleric if a "modernist," liberal or heretic. The scrupulous nature found in these types of alleged Catholics is disturbing. Taylor himself is guilty of this.

Here is a recent example of one of those scrupulous tweets that are worthy of the Pharisees:



In this tweet, he is mocking the use of different colored clerical collar shirts. Like seriously, Taylor? The Catholic Church has no official rubric that states what a cleric has to wear other than the cassock with the appropriate piping color and sash. Then there are religious orders and institutes which use their own variations of habits and clerical collar shirts or even cassocks. What difference does it make the color of the shirt a priest or deacon uses? Taylor's comment here to just wear a cassock is offensive to religious orders. Does that mean the brown and gray Franciscan habit or black and white robes of the Dominican invalid because it is not a cassock? This is what I mean when I say that Taylor has gone bonkers. He has gone off the rails, so to speak.

I will not go into his book which reads more like a fictitious novel with a conspiracy plot. It is like reading the Da Vinci Code or watching the movie Angels & Demons. The book would not pass vetting from scholars and academics. It is a veiled attack against Pope Francis that insinuates that the pontiff was seated in Rome due to the influence of cults within the Church, such as the Free Masons. If Marshall really believes what he wrote, that is scary. I worry about his psychological health along with his spiritual health.

Conspiracy theories are not new in the Church or secular world. There are many people who create them and believe them. Today, we hear of Trump being an accomplice with Russia, Hillary Clinton as a hitman of sorts, the Pizzagate scenario, Queen Elizabeth being a reptilian alien, Area 51 having captured aliens, Pope Francis is a Communist, I can go on and on, but we get the point. New ones pop up almost daily, especially on social media. Why are humans fascinated with conspiracy theories?

Well, psychologists have many theories. Human beings need to find a causal explanation for events in order to have a clear understanding of the world (Heider, 1958). This need to stabilize and formalize a causal explanation often leads to a rushed conclusion. In psychology, this is called Heuristic Representativeness. This is when the human brain pieces together pieces of information and comes up with a conclusion without process it logically. Conspiracy theories are formed by this processing. These theories posit, to varying degrees, that with certain actors, events hidden from the public perception that seems to be coincidental or link to one another offer a specific conclusion that proves a set narrative; the conclusion is then closed off from falsification (Lewandowsky et al., 2015). In fact, those who try to debunk the conspiracy theory becomes part of the conspiracy. Any attempt to debunk said conspiracy theory is met with aggressive responses and intense rejection (Goertzel, 1994). These conspiracy theories offer a safety blanket for the confirmation bias a person holds (Bost & Prunier, 2013). Any counter to them will force the brain of the person holding to the conspiracy theory to become defensive. This is why we see Taylor and his sheep become very defensive when their narratives and theories are questioned or debunked. It is the equivalent of offending someone's mother. The one whose mom is being attacked will not sit idle to it.

Those who foster conspiracies have a borderline personality disorder. They exhibit signs of Paranoid Ideation (Cichocka, Marchlewska, & Golec de Zavala, 2016). Narcissism is also a part of those who foster conspiracy theories. They feel superiors to others with the belief that only they possess the truth (Cichocka, Marchlewska, Golec de Zavala, & Olechowski, 2016). This is what we find in the works of Taylor and his followers. They exhibit paranoid (The Catholic Church is being infiltrated) and narcissism (only "traditional" Catholics are Catholic). This is why the Pope has been concerned with those Catholics who are "rigid." By "rigid," he does not mean Catholics who follow the Church's teachings and live the faith in an orthodox way. He means those who believe their form of Catholicism or how they understand it, is the correct one and refuse to adopt reality and the viewpoints of another(Stewin, Len (September 1983).

Dr. Coplan categorizes it in this manner: People who are cognitively rigid externalize and internalize certain behaviors. They externalize:


  • Insistently repetitious behavior, 
  • Difficulty with unmet expectations, 
  • Perfectionism, 
  • Compulsions, 
  • Preservation, 
  • Agitation, 
  • Aggression, 
  • SIB (Self-Injurious Behavior). 


They internalize:

  • Perfectionism, 
  • Obsessions, 
  • Anxiety, 
  • Depression and Suicidality. 


Individuals who are cognitively rigid adhere to a Mental Set. This is a paradigm of previous experiences that are ordered in such a way that it becomes a schema. Anything that counters or is different from this mental set is rejected. Doing so will cause the individual to learn new things and explore new environments. This is not easy to do for some people. It is like building a house the way you like it, living it in for years only to disassemble it and rebuild it in another way. Most are not willing to do this in real life with a house, imagine with their minds.

So those Catholics who are stuck in the past and only think the pre-Vatican II way is the only way, those who are cognitively rigid. These are the ones the pope has shown concern for as a pastor. He probably speaks about this because he knows well as a Jesuit how dangerous the rigid can be. Those who are cognitively rigid hide inner conflicts and personality disorders. If not treated, they can even lead to severe depression, antisocial behavior, and suicide. When I studied in Toronto, I lived in a parish that was "traditional-minded" in the sense of appreciating the pre-Vatican II Liturgy. The pastor of the parish was a Franciscan who was very critical of everyone. I felt very uncomfortable around him. He would tell me that priests who wore short-sleeved clerical collar shirts were heretics and was caught up on attire. When I went home for the holidays in New York, he called me, not to see if I got home safe, but to criticize my travel clothing. I wore jeans, a sweater, a winter coat, and a Yankees cap. This priest found an issue with this! I was dismayed and realized how sick some Catholic priests can be, psychologically speaking. One morning during breakfast, the priest said he would not open the door to black people. I questioned him as to why, and he said that a black man robbed him while he was depositing the collection and that he is more careful around black people. I was disgusted at his comment. This priest was a "traditionalist" and the rigid type the pope has spoken about numerous times. This is not an insult, but a description of abnormal psychology that some Catholics have adopted.

Taylor and his followers exhibit the same rigid and paranoid tones which all Catholic should be worried about. They are signs of an underlying personality disorder which and blow up into something more dangerous. Conspiracy theories are not something we should take lightly. They are dangerous and are often what create cults. The fact that many Catholics choose to follow Marshall over the pope and the Catholic Church's teachings are disturbing. Taylor is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts. He has made many gaffes on Twitter which have been caught by others who are knowledgeable. One such gaffe is his comment that the priest is somehow superior to the laity. This is not Catholic teaching! He eventually deleted the tweet. Another tweet is when he posted a photo of someone receiving Communion at an altar rail with the caption "this is how it is done." Again, this is not official Catholic teaching. While people can receive on the tongue while kneeling, this does not mean it is the only way or only correct way. This misconception and one which he claimed Communion in the hand was not done in the early Church led to writing my own post showing actually documentation refuting his misconceptions, see: https://www.sacerdotus.com/2019/09/holy-communion-hand-vs-tongue-discussion.html. It is scary to think that many believe his content is correct. They see "PhD" and believe he is an authority. However, his doctorate is in philosophy, not theology. His theological studies are on the master's level and are protestant in nature. Taylor was an Anglican priest who became Catholic.

That fact brings me to an interesting point. Suppose I wrote a book claiming that he infiltrated the Catholic Church and cite his former life as an Anglican priest, does that make my book factual? If you say no, then you are correct. Conspiracy theories are not factual. People can read whatever they want, but they have to be smart enough to vet it against the facts. I read a lot of things and take them as a grain of salt, so to speak. When I read them, I do extra research to verify the claims.

As Scripture says, "test the spirits (1 John 4)." Be careful with Taylor and others who present a narrative that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. As stated before, Marshall tweeted some good content in the beginning, however, he has gone awol, so speak. We need to pray for him and correct his errors with the facts, not insults or accusations. Marshall is one tweet away from becoming a schismatic. While he is not shy about his dislike of Pope Francis, I have not seen him openly state that there is no pope or that Pope Francis is not the pope. However, it is only a matter of time until he goes sedevacantist from what I have read from his own hands (tweets/writings). This indicates a psychological and spiritual crisis going on in him. We need to pray for him. He may suffer from an underlying psychological personality disorder or adjustment disorder.

Remember, Taylor Marshall is just a layman. He is not an official teacher of Catholicism. Catholics should rely on the magisterium and sacred deposit for their information, no one else. Marshall's content is his personal opinion and bias, nothing else. No Catholic should make any decisions on how he or she practices his or her faith based on what they hear or read from Taylor Marshall.



I hope the bishops do something to have more control and monitoring of alleged Catholic content found on social media. They are the teachers of the faith, not laypeople on YouTube or Twitter accounts. The bishops need to take control of the situation or they will lose the people to these lay people who post narratives in the name of the Liturgy and Catholic faith.  Are we to become petty Pharisees?  This scares aways Catholics and those interested in joining the Church as this person tweeted to me:




There is nothing wrong with loving the Liturgies from the pre-Vatican II era. I love them and love the traditional lace surplices!  I love Latin and receive Communion on the tongue and kneel when I can.  However, I do not impose my preferences upon other Catholics when the Church already decided options for them.  Being a true traditionalist is loving tradition, all of them, not just the ones from Trent until 1962.  It means accepting the fact that tradition is part of the Catholic Church and is a living organism which the pope and bishops have control and mandate over, not the laity or even priests and deacons.  As one of my Oratorian professors from the Oratory at St. Philip's Seminary in Toronto, Canada wrote in his book:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism the dead faith of the living" 
      ~On the Lord's Appearing



What do you think?  Post below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules on commenting.




Source:

https://taylormarshall.com

https://twitter.com/TaylorRMarshall

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721417718261

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/making-sense-autistic-spectrum-disorders/201608/cognitive-rigidity-the-8-ball-hell



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, April 21, 2012

Left vs Right





Left vs Right.  What is this?  You are probably thinking I will be writing about national politics, however, that is not the case.  While we do hear of 'left and right' used to describe political ideologies and what have you, the same terms are used to describe Catholics.

The "left" Catholics are seen as those who are not afraid to question the Church, are focused on social justice and social and Church issues such as: women's ordination, abortion, celibacy, contraception, homosexuality, sex education, 99% v 1%.  They seek radical changes that will basically replace Church doctrines in favor of teachings and practices that service man not God.

The "right" Catholics are seen as those who are "republican," adhere to social conservative ideas, are loyal to the Church prior to Vatican II and despise any changes made in the name of Catholic renewal.  They seek to put the Church above nations, and prefer clericalism.

These terms sound interesting and there is truth to them; however, they do not reflect a Catholic in reality.

A Catholic is neither "leftwing" or "rightwing."  A Catholic is a Catholic when he/she professes the Creed with sincerity, adheres to the Sacred Deposit of the Church (Sacred Scripture/ Sacred Tradition), and are faithful to the magisterium of the Church.

To quote the great outspoken Archbishop of New York, the late John Cardinal o'Connor, "The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you."


So again in case the first time wasn't clear:


A Catholic is a Catholic when he/she is faithful to the Church and her teachings and puts them into practice.  


Anyone who claims to be Catholic but picks and chooses what teachings to believe and put into practice is not a Catholic.  He/she is a band-wagoner.    


  

Labels

Catholic Church (1187) God (527) Jesus (513) Bible (434) Atheism (376) Jesus Christ (352) Pope Francis (297) Atheist (258) Liturgy of the Word (253) Science (195) Christianity (163) LGBT (147) Apologetics (103) Gay (90) Abortion (89) Pope Benedict XVI (86) Liturgy (84) Rosa Rubicondior (82) Philosophy (80) Blessed Virgin Mary (79) Prayer (72) Physics (63) Theology (61) Vatican (60) President Obama (57) Psychology (55) Christian (54) Christmas (53) New York City (53) Holy Eucharist (52) Traditionalists (47) Biology (43) Health (41) Women (39) Politics (36) Baseball (34) Supreme Court (34) Protestant (30) Racism (30) NYPD (28) Pope John Paul II (28) Religious Freedom (27) Illegal Immigrants (26) Space (26) Vatican II (26) priests (26) Death (25) Gospel (24) Priesthood (24) Astrophysics (23) Evangelization (23) Donald Trump (22) Christ (20) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Pro Abortion (19) Child Abuse (17) Eucharist (17) Pro Choice (17) Morality (16) Pedophilia (16) Police (16) Divine Mercy (15) Easter Sunday (15) Marriage (15) Jewish (14) Gender Theory (13) Autism (12) Blog (12) Holy Trinity (12) Pentecostals (12) Cognitive Psychology (11) Muslims (11) Poverty (11) September 11 (11) CUNY (10) Sacraments (10) academia (10) Hispanics (9) Massimo Pigliucci (9) Personhood (9) Big Bang Theory (8) Evidence (8) Human Rights (8) Humanism (8) Pope Paul VI (8) Barack Obama (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) NY Yankees (7) Podcast (7) Spiritual Life (7) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (6) Hell (6) Babies (5) Catholic Bloggers (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Eastern Orthodox (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Evangelicals (4) Plenary Indulgence (4) Pope John XXIII (4) Death penalty (3) Encyclical (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Baby Jesus (2) 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)