Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

As Catholics, we accept the covenant between the spouses as being integrated into God’s covenant with man “Authentic married love is caught up into divine love” (Cf. CIC, can. 1141.) As posted by David earlier in the month, as Catholics it is essential we are taught the truth of the faith; unfortunately, many of us are poorly catechized which has resulted in very complicated situations caused by some Catholics who have contracted to new civil unions after attaining a civil divorce. The Church recognizes that the covenant of marriage is sealed by God himself (Cf. Mk 10:9); therefore, if a marriage is valid, the couple is married until the death of one of the spouses.

As a sacrament, the graces we receive is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen the indissoluble bond between a man and a woman. These graces will assist us in our marriage, to strengthen us in forgiving one another, to bear one another’s burden, and to be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ, and to love one another with supernatural, tender and fruitful love. This is a forethought of the wedding feast of the lamb(Catechism of the Catholic Church).

It is no secret that Catholics have pretty much the same divorce rate as the secular society. Here is a variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups. Which group in our society has the highest divorce rate (and it ain’t “non-believers”). I wonder why that is? Who has the lowest rate of divorce of 1% - 5%? Do you think contraception is a possibility? Where much is given, much is expected. If one uses contraception during intercourse, they are not joined together immediately as man and woman, there is little essential difference between contraceptive intercourse and mutual masturbation, though the surrounding psychological circumstance make for a different situation. Regardless of our intentions, contraception is gravely wrong in of itself, because of the importance of the action which has resulted.

A marriage requires a total giving of oneself to the other, as Christ gave totally of himself for His Bride. There may be valid reasons that a married couple may require separation, but this does not authorize a subsequent civil union. For sufferings now, are preparation for that perfect joy. The supernatural sacrament of marriage joins a man and a woman to one flesh, which is a sign of ” the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us,” a sign of the union of Christ with his Church.

Courtesy of teen section of the PP website. As noted in an earlier post, PP “education” assumes that teens have the full mental capacity to make an informed decision on whether or not they are ready for sex (if the teen answers affirmatively on 4 out of 8 questions, then “(they) are well on (their) way to becoming assertive enough for safer sex. Congratulations! ” Perhaps more focus on age appropriate education and less recommendations of “safer sex” would be of benefit to teens. As quoted in a scientific evidence based 2005 study on the Adolescent Brain,  Teenagers are capable of enormous intellectual and artistic accomplishments, but the basic part of the brain that gives us strategies and organizing and perhaps warns us of potential consequences is not fully on board yet.” Recommendations of safe sex which includes vibrators, rubbing of genitals together through clothing, anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation demonstrates no concern, what so ever, for the welfare of our children.

he National Catholic Risk Retention Group (VIRTUS), which is responsible to oversee the development of the programs that address sexual abuse in the Church is also a concern to many parents. Bishop Robert Vasa, who also has concerns over the program asks, “is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them?” Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual

The “Touching Safety” program has several phases, one which starts at the 18 month - 3 year old level, where the parent should openly discuss sensitive issues, as well as to teach the children the names and location of the penis, vagina, anus, etc. Once the child enters the school age, I fear what type of open discussions will occur. I have a quick question here, if the objective is to educate on sex abuse prevention, why is it important for little children to articulate sexual body parts? Isn’t that sex education, which incidently, involves the very young and innocent? Shouldn’t parents have some say in how much a child of this age should be exposed?

The Church, in all her wisdom, protects the innocent and our teens by stating, “The Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles (Planned Parenthood). That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity — while still in the years of innocence — by opening the way to vice”. Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Pontifical Council for the Family Guidelines for Education Within the Family (November 21, 1995). Sexual limitations are imposed by the Church to protect, not oppress. The potetential of divorce, depression & suicide increases dramatically when we submit our intellect to our wills of the flesh.

This was John Paul the Great’s take on what the sexual revolution has brought us to in terms of what we think about children. In his 1985 letter to youth he writes: 

Today, the principles of Christian morality concerning marriage are in many circles being presented in a distorted way. Attempts are being made to impose on environments and even entire societies a model that calls itself “progressive” and “modern”. It then goes unnoticed that this model transforms a human being and perhaps especially a woman from a subject into an object (an object of specific manipulation), and the whole great content of love is reduced to “pleasure”, which, even though it involved both parties, would still be selfish in its essence. Finally the child, who is the fruit and the fresh incarnation of the love between the two, becomes ever more “an annoying addition”. The materialistic and consumeristic civilization is penetrating this whole wonderful complex of conjugal and paternal and maternal love, and stripping it of that profoundly human content which from the beginning was also permeated by a divine mark and reflection (Dilecti amici, 10).

When pleasure becomes the end of sexual intercourse, the other person involved becomes an object. The act becomes spiritually (and often physically) sterile. There is no total gift of self and the resulting selfish orientation leaves no openness for the fruitful expression of this love…a child. Sex has been package and marketed for our consumer culture and this has cheapened and distorted its meaning well beyond what had been possible prior to today means of worldwide communications. Oftentimes, even when having a child is pursued, it is for purposes of self-fulfillment rather than self-giving. This is not love. The beauty of love is only found in a love that makes clear demands on people. John Paul tells the youth where they can find these demands articulated—in the teachings of the Church. However, the results of acceding to these demands is true love, a love in which a child is viewed not as an annoying addition, but as a gift.

This is how the former Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy, describes liturgy which comes from one’s own imagination and creativity. He says:

. . . real liturgy implies that God responds and reveals how we can worship him. In any form, liturgy includes some kind of “institution.” It cannot spring from imagination, or our own creativity—then it would remain just a cry in the dark or mere self-affirmation. Liturgy implies a real relationship with Another, who reveals Himself to us and gives our existence a new direction (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000], 22).

This is a profound insight. Perhaps it can help to explain the phenomenon we have seen since the widespread abuses of the liturgy began in earnest in the early ‘70s and to some degree still occur today. Since that time, we have seen a great decline in Mass attendance. Sure there are many other factors at play, including a secularization of culture and widespread public dissent since the release of Humanae vitae which works to undermine the simple faith of much of the laity. 

However, I cannot help but think that illicit and inappropriate innovations strike at something interior, beneath the level of consciousness deep in the soul. Of those who have drifted away and even among those who have stayed, many say that the liturgical changes they have seen deprived them of the experience of mystery at Mass. This sense of mystery now lost may lead to the intuition that they somehow feel separated from the Source. This is kind of like the unarticulated feeling of emptiness one experiences in churches where the Blessed Sacrament is no longer present. Could this subliminal feeling of separation from authentic worship be a good part of the reason we have seen a lessening in practice of the faith? After all, one can cry in the dark any place.

This insight of John Paul the Great shows the great importance not just of sex differences but the sexual act itself for one’s personal identity, for one’s vocation, and for sacramental and liturgical life. In a word, our sex, as female and male (there are no others) establish the structure for all of creation and for everything we do. John Paul explicitly said:Â

In its masculinity and femininity, the body is called  from the beginning  to become a manifestation of the spirit. It does so also by means of the conjugal union of man and woman, when they unite in such a way as to form one flesh. Elsewhere (cf. Mt 19:5-6) Christ defended the inviolable rights of this unity, by means of which the body, in its masculinity and femininity, assumes the value of a sign “in a way, a sacramental sign (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 163).

In the context of this quote,  spirit is clearly the spiritual soul. The body in its sexuality reveals something unchangeable about the being  (or ontology) of the soul and so something ontological about the person. The body makes the soul visible not just in its physical appearance but also through its actions. The act of sexual intercourse where by the husband and wife become one flesh (and this only happens in a sacramental union) reveals and confirms the unity the spouses have by their participation in the Great Mystery  of Ephesians 5. That is, they enter into this moral sacramental union of two persons via their union in the Body of Christ whereby Christ is joined to His Church as Bridegroom to Bride. The body and its sex, in a certain sense, gives sacramental witness to this intimate and inviolable union whereby each spouse sanctifies the other and give way to fruitfulness, in an asymmetrical but still in analogous way in which the Bride is sanctified through Her union to the Bridegroom. It is asymmetrical of course because in the union of Christ to His Church, Christ is not sanctified by the union.

This truth of human sexuality and the cosmic order leave no room for the so called theological “developments” some dissenters attempt to peddle such as divorce and remarriage, homosexual acts, women priests, artificial contraception, etc. These dogmas are not something that ever can or will be reformed because they go to the heart Trinitarian love and the way that is expressed in creation and in the sex of the human person.

This of course is Latin for “toward the East.” It is the traditional orientation of churches as well as the direction the priest faces during the Eucharistic prayer. That is it was up until about forty years ago. What is its significance? First, let me say what it isn’t. It is very often been mischaracterized as the priest facing with his back to the people. While it is certainly true that this is an effect of his orientation, the real problem with this mischaracterization is the same problem we have with popular expectations of the liturgy which are fueled by too many modern liturgists. The problem is that the point of departure for both is the “people” rather than the object of worship which is God. You see the priest, acting in the person of Christ, is mediating Christ’s Sacrifice on the part of the Church, to the Father. The priest is not offering the Sacrifice to the congregation, he is not reenacting a scene for their entertainment, he is sacramentally, Christ. Neither does the congregation play the part of the twelve apostles. The misguided “performance” of some priests who extend and then move the bread and wine from one side to the other during the words of consecration certainly can provide the misimpression that this is somehow a reenactment and that those of us in the pews are playing the part of the twelve apostles. But we are not. We ARE the Mystical Body, the Church. We are joining ourselves to Christ’s Sacrifice and offering the one Sacrifice of the Cross to the Father along with Christ in the person of His priest. Unfortunately, our stark but functional modern architecture, which often resembles an amphitheater more than a church, also often adds to the misimpression that we are there to be entertained. But try as they might, no liturgist with this as their goal as come close to entertaining anyone with the liturgy. 

A couple of years ago, then Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in an interview that he thought that a return to the ad orientum orientation would be a helpful move for assisting the faithful to better experience the active part they play in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. Presumably, this experience would be articulated via necessary catechesis, preparing us for any such changes. He is correct of course. While many of these things are accidents, the way the priest is facing, his posture during consecration, church architecture, the future pope was still correct. Experience is mediated by some articulated structure. Because we are composite body and soul, the physical aspects of worship are an integral part of our total human experience. Knowing why we are doing what we do and having the symbols better express the reality which is taking place, are all so very important for letting the liturgical experience better represent the transcendent reality which our senses do not see. I honestly look forward to seeing a reform of the reform which will keep the good things which we have gained (vernacular, at least in the parts of Mass which change), a better sense of the need, if not actual achievement, for authentic participation (but this does not mean clericalizing the laity), and some (but not all) of the restructuring of the order of the Mass for example.

As I have said before, I have no idea what liturgical changes we will see from B16, which I have also guessed would come sometime after the synod, but I would not be surprised if the priest’s orientation is one of them. By the way, in the same interview, he mentioned that a re-introduction of some Latin would also be a good thing. Some possibilities being such things as some hymns (which is already becoming more and more popular around the U.S.), for the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater noster, and Angus Dei.

Hopefully, when they come the modern liturgists will embrace the changes as novelties as much as they do their other innovations?

Well this Saturday we went to the Penn State-University of Illinois blood-letting. Being of rather weak constitution, the gore got too much for me and before the second quarter was even over, we left. Any way, on way in my brother had been given a copy of The Orange and Blue Observer (they are on-line but have not yet posted this version of their paper). While not many accepted a copy of this conservative periodical on such a liberal campus (which I suppose explains their rather in-your-face approach) my brother did not know any better. What caught his attention was an article about an on-campus residence hall that recently sponsored a reading of the Vagina Monologues. This rather course and demeaning play is supposed to be aimed at stopping violence against women. Believe it or not, it appears that what is considered violence is solely in the eye of the beholder. Even though some supporters have tried to erase the memory of the infamous “good rape” scene, not all, including the brainiacs at the University of Illinois, have clued in on this.

What is the “good rape” scene? It is the recollection of aa 13 year old little girl who was seduced by a 24 year old woman. The little girl claims, “if it was a rape, it was a good rape.” Do they have a clue? I suppose not. The rest of the play continues with the diminishment of sex as nothing more than recreation and ironically, women and their genitals as objects for use. Do they not realize that this is a leading cause of violence to begin with. I do not doubt that Eve Ensler, the play’s writer, is serious about ending violence against women. I do doubt that she has much in her clue bag with regard to the meaning of the human person and the gift of sex.

I’ve been memed by Clayton Emmer.

The rules are as follows:

1. Go into your archives. 2. Find your 23rd post. 3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it). 4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions. 5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.

Sad though it was, here was my erudite pontification from July 13th earlier this year:

Beyond the personal tragedy, those of us who daily pray for an increase in faithful vocations to the priesthood have to add the loss of this young man the loss of a vocation, by all accounts I have read, of a very good, young priest.

Click here to read more about the tragedy.

I reluctantly tag Jamie, Christopher, Eric, Becky, and Kate.

This is what Clayton said: Again, this is NOT a chain letter… no passive-aggressive threats against your life and happiness if you choose not to participate. (Don’t you love those sentiments such as You don’t have to send this on to five people you know… you decide if you want to be alive tomorrow.)

Here is a nice summary of the tie between Catholic social teaching, natural law, and marriage. It is another good way of explaining why marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

Catholic Social Teaching and Natural Law Marriage as a social institution can be viewed from the perspective of social teaching. At the heart of Catholic social teaching is the concept of the common good. The common good entails a network of social conditions which enable human individuals and groups to flourish and live a fully, genuinely human life. Collectively, everyone is responsible for the common good at the level of society and of nation. Catholic social teaching begins with this starting point and then reflects on specific questions, such as marriage, using insights gained from natural law. Catholics recognize natural law as simply that which we can discover about the order of God’s creation by looking at nature and it is thus accessible to believers and non-believers alike. More precisely, natural law is a form of reasoning which approaches questions in terms of the ends or purposes of a thing which can be deduced from nature. Some examples of insights gained from natural law are well known: you shall not kill, you shall not commit sexual immorality, you shall not steal, you shall not lie. These values are a source of moral guidance open to everyone.

Marriage and Natural Law Natural law sees marriage in terms of its purpose, the procreation and education of children and the foundation of the family and society. For the sake of family and the interests of society marriage is, by nature, between one man and one woman. What does right reason tell us about marriage? It tells us that marriage is not a human invention. Marriage is a human good that perfects those called to its state. Humanity universally discovered the marital relationship as something that is between a man and a woman. While historically it took some time for humanity to recognize that the good of marriage is best fulfilled as a monogamous relationship, all of humanity has seen it as instituted between men and women. This insight was aided by Divine Revelation first given to the chosen people (see Gen 1-2) and then most perfectly revealed in the teaching of Jesus (see Matt 19:5-6; Eph 5:31-32). However, its ordering as between men and women is something that humans of all races and nations have seen.

Marriage and the sexual acts proper to marriage establish a one-flesh union between husband and wife. This one-flesh union is the normal and proper way that parents co-create children with God. The reality of this one-flesh union has historically been codified in both civil and commercial laws. A valid marriage becomes indissoluble when the married couple consummates their marriage by the marital act of sexual intercourse. This requirement for consummation is part of the common legal tradition and is reflected in the Church’s Code of Canon Law (Canon 1061) and as one example, Illinois state law (750 ILCS 5/301; 1). But what is consummation? It is nothing other than the total gift of self of each spouse to the other, including their fertility. This fertility is made possible by their complementarity. Same sex couples can never be validly married because they cannot form a one-flesh union. These unions are not based on the natural complementarily of male and female and cannot cooperate with God to create new life and so they do not consummate marriage. The natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union, so while sexual acts between people of the same sex may simulate the marital act they can not physically or spiritually establish between themselves the covenant of a one-flesh union that is marriage. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

Natural law reveals to us that the marital union is meant for the purpose of the perfection of the spouses and the begetting, rearing, and educating of children. The marital union is essential for the common good of society. It should therefore, be protected and enhanced by social policies and law that favor them and allow them to fulfill their mission. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws, because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good. Though it is regulated by civil laws, it did not originate from the state. It is an institution which corresponds to the order of nature established by God. Therefore the state does not have the competence to alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage. Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high a social cost.

Well, it seems that once again, that is what about half of our visitors are seeking. I am not sure why but about every couple of weeks we will get a surge of hits who happen upon us having searched for “sex.” Serendipitously, I have been researching the issue of pornography today for a talk that my boss is giving at the Catholic Leadership Conference next week and in doing so I happened upon a host of very disheartening stats and stories. Would you be surprised to hear that “sex” is the most searched on word on the internet these days? I am not anymore. If you want to read about the distressing story of pornography here is a much too long list of the sad statistics.

It is no surprise that sex is the area that Satan hits us the hardest (below the belt so to speak). Not that we need a lot of help in our fallen state for sinful responses to normal sexual attraction. However, his temptations are needed to move us from normal, but sinful sexual activities, to more obscene pornographic sexual disorders. But moving on to these is becoming more and more common place. Satan’s focus on sex certainly makes sense. It is first a very strong natural drive and second, it is the most holy and intimate activity that two human beings can engage in with one another. Sex, as Karol Wojtyła says in our tagline from Love and Responsibility, is where man and woman enter the cosmic stream. Through a total gift of themselves they become one-flesh and subsequently co-creators with God, if everything is in working order any way. Sex is an act of self-gift and reception.

Pornography, on the other hand, is a violent act of taking, possessing, consuming the other. In pornography, one person turns another from a person, into an object for selfish, sexual gratification. It is sterile; it is self-enclosed; it isolates those who engage in it and leaves them empty. Pornography is actually any act which objectifies the other person and so turns this act of gift into an act of taking. In the act of gift, we are satisfied because we enter into Trinitarian love. In the act of taking, one may be momentarily sexual spent but he is never satisfied. And so that is not the end; the need for taking increases and some are tempted into the need for more and more perverse acts of taking that are more and more separated from the natural order of creation. As the acts of taking become increasingly perverse, the person experiences less and less satisfaction and becomes more and more disturbed (think here of Uncle Screwtape, toward the end of The Screwtape Letters, describing demonic motivation in terms of consumption). These slaves of their own passions continue in the direct opposite direction from what they are really searching for, the satisfaction and peace that only can come by entering into a selfless, giving union with God.

Those who are looking for sex in all the wrong places do not recognize that the happiness they seek is not to be found in the taking and consuming of another human person as an object for satisfaction. They are really looking for the peace, satisfaction, and happiness that only God, and an authentic union with Him, can give. Does this sound familiar?

It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”. . .

The solution to addictions like pornography? The Eucharist: the proleptic union that every human soul really seeks.

John Paul the Great was fond of reminding us that Christ reveals man to himself. We cannot fully appreciate who we are or, even more importantly, who we are called to become without reference to Christ. Jesus’ revelation of Himself and who we are is spoken no where more eloquently than the Eucharist where He is physically (anyone want to debate this term?) present, Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. The goodness and dignity of the human body is testified to in the Incarnation. The incomparable worth of the human soul is revealed in the Passion and death. The ultimate calling of the human person is foreshadowed in the Resurrection. The ineffable unity that God has in store for those who really love Him is both symbolized and proleptically made real in the Eucharist. 

It seems that there is a last gasp of dissent raising up by some who would deny the Real Presence. I suppose that this is really a scary truth, that we actually and really take God into our bodies and incorporate Him into ourselves both physically and spiritually. The need for personal holiness to make this a comfort rather than curse, not to mention fruitful, can be a foreboding thought for those following their own agendas.

Zenit is running an interview with Archbishop Angelo Comastri, the Pope’s vicar general for Vatican City State, who published a study on Eucharistic miracles a little while back. He discusses several issues of the Real Presence, including those who consider devotion to the Blessed Sacrament obscurantism, and the reality of Eucharistic miracles which are worth reading about. These miracles give eloquent witness that “real” means physical. God is physically present with us, and during Holy Communion, in us. That is what I call Emmanuel!

What is the obsession of some organizations feeling they need assume the responsibility in educating young girls on sex, contraception and abortion. Planned parenthood is doing their part, with the Girl Scouts, and it was recently discovered that the popular children’s doll company, American Girls, is partnering with Girls Inc.

Imagine if, instead of sex, organizations used the same educational philosophy for children on drugs and drug abuse/addiction. Programs could be set up to help our kids make “smart” decisions on drug use. If the kids decided they were ready to use drugs, than the focus would shift towards providing information and resources to ensure safe and responsible drug use. If children think they are ready to take drugs, we should respect their decision. For the sake of the children, drugs and drug paraphernalia could be provided at their local public school . Of course, the parents would not have the right to know their children decided to exercise their freedom to take drugs.

If our children are going to take drugs, they should be provided with the education and means to make it as safe as possible. It’s time we take our heads out of the sand and come to the realization that a program that teaches drug abstinence only, can never be effective. The drug abstinence program funds would be better spent on educating children on safe and responsible drug use.

Here is an article on an issue related to our earlier discussion about marriage and divorce: in this article Archbishop Gregory seems to be hinting that he would opt for pastoral expedience over truth. Unfortunately, instead of the Archbishop explaining the teaching, he essentially says yea I know what the Church says but what do we say to the great folks who are divorced, remarried outside of the Church and now suffer because they cannot go to communion? I suggest the truth. Certainly, the truth in a loving, compassionate, and understandable way, but the truth. The same truth that if taught to them as children growing up, and in their pre-cana classes, in their adult education classes, in counseling during their marriage struggles, etc. then many may not be in this sad situation. Now that they are, they need to know that the situation in which they find themselves is problematic. They need to know that it is not simply a rule that prevents them from full communion with the Church but an action they took and remain in that is causing the situation. They need also to know their options, as difficult as they are. 

Look, I do not want to appear as though I have no compassion for those who find themselves in the situation. Not too long ago I sat heartbroken with feelings of complete helplessness, watching someone I love dearly cry because he finds himself in this situation and his wife is unwilling to do anything to reconcile it. If this were simply a matter of discipline, I would be the first to argue for a change. But it is not. The sad reality is that those Catholics who are living with someone not married to them in the Church have by that very act, separated themselves from communion with God and the Church. The most charitable thing to do is to ensure that they recognize this, and do not sin further by attempting communion without reconciling their situation. As I said, they also need to know their options, as difficult as they are. I do believe that if I found myself in this situation today, knowing what I know about the Eucharist and the truth of marriage, and if there were children involved, I would take the option of living together as brother and sister; I would at least want to know about this possibility.

What positive can come from this tragedy which results especially from the poor catechesis and generally poor spiritual leadership over the last 40 years or so? I suggest that the bishops of the world ought to take this very painful experience as motivation to help ensure it does not happen to those not yet in this situation. They ought to ensure strong catechesis about the reality of the Sacraments and the indissolubility of marriage. They ought to ensure stronger and longer marriage preparation classes. They ought to refuse to marry those who are ill prepared, especially those who are living together (a sure recipe for divorce). They ought provide programs to educate those already married about meaning of married life and their vocation to holiness through marriage. They need to make the Church present in the lives of families before divorce happens. The failure to address the cultural situation in which the Church finds herself, lead to the kinds of questions that Archbishop Gregory so inappropriately and publicly posits aloud to the press. I know, all this is easier said than done . . . but that does not change the fact that done, it must be.

As you might have detected, this inappropriate type of talk from leaders of the Church always disturbs me. It does nothing other than to sow seeds of confusion and to fan the flames of dissent from Church authority. O.k., I’m done. (P.S. - I do not want to minimize personal responsibility of those in these situations but the focus here is of course, the importunity of the Archbishop’s comments).

No, I am not becoming a source of ecclesiastical gossip. Unfortunately, we have more than enough of those blogs already. Even if I were to have learned something from a friend or anonymous source I would not publish it in search of satisfying that sinful blogger’s pride (i.e. more hits). Nor do I intend to prognosticate (even if it might sound like it). Rather, I am trying to make some distinctions. You see, it seems to me that even orthodox Catholic writers often fall into the trap of using terms like “gay” and “homosexual” in a way that furthers misunderstanding.

First, the term “gay” itself is one which presupposes an agenda. Namely, it presupposes that the person not only acts on his homosexual tendencies but that he publicly advocates a political agenda which, if not giving those practicing homosexual acts pride of place in society, gays at least lobby to ensure that the public accepts homosexual actions as legitimate. In this sense, of course no gay person can be considered suited for priestly ordination. However, what about those who have the (yes it is) disorder of same sex attraction. Here, I think that there are in fact some further distinctions to be made.

First, notice I say those with homosexual tendencies rather than homosexuals. That is for the very reason that too often those who push the homosexual agenda try to make the claim that their desires define who they are as persons. In other words, the person in his very being is “gay.” This is as logical as say that the desires of pedophiliac define who he is as a person. His is a pedophiliac in his very being. Will and desire do not change human nature. If it is a disorder than it can be cured, though as with addicts, sometimes a cure is much more difficult and tenuous for those who have relinquished themselves to their desires for long periods of time. In any case, these real differences bear significantly on understanding the Church’s policy. If someone’s same sex attraction is not part of their very being than it would be fair to say that one could ordain someone who, in the past, did have same sex attraction disorders and still be able to have a Church policy against ordaining a “homosexual.” In other words, someone is not homosexual if he no longer suffers from same sex attraction. So what has the Church said in the past on the subject.

Well, as recently as 2002, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments sent a letter to the Congregation for the Clergy on the issue of ordaining those with same sex attraction to the priesthood. The letter said:

Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Notice the clarification on what the letter means by “homosexual.” It takes pains to avoid the insinuation that homosexuality is ontological. But on the issue of the forthcoming policy, this letter certainly does not provide assurance of what the impending document will say. Nevertheless, it does suggest that any lessening of this restriction will be exactly that. However, it could also be that further nuance is necessary. There are varying degrees of homosexual tendencies. Certainly, one who has lived a life of homosexual license would be much more pastorally imprudent to ordain than a man who has never acted on his disordered tendencies. There may also be those who have confused tendencies with attractions to both men and women but who have never acted on them. There may also be those with an occasional temptation which is quickly put aside. Within these degrees of disorder, the Church will affirm a policy based upon prudence and sound anthropology.

Simply based upon sound theological anthropology, I suspect that guidelines (but probably not precise criteria) will be provided which attempts to ascertain the degree to which a disorder may be present. It seems to me that any guidelines should try to help define when a person is sufficiently “cured” of the same sex attraction disorder to be theologically and pastorally suited to act in the Person of the Bridegroom. Any way, it is from this perspective which I will read the policy when it is made public.

This term fits not just the west’s problem with vocations but the problem with faith in general. As Cardinal Telesphore Toppo, archbishop of Ranchi, India, and one of the synod’s co-presidents said: “The lack of priests is not the cause, but a symptom. The real problem is the crisis of faith, as the priesthood is the fruit of the community’s faith. Without faith, there are no priests, no vocations.

I mentioned this last week in the context of the Abraham narrative. I thought that I would bring it up again because this fact suggests that everyone who has even a clue about their Catholic faith is of fundamental importance for vocations because they need to help stem the great confusion many have about the truth of the faith and its necessary place in their lives. The Holy Spirit has not stopped calling but the “noise” of the world has made it such that young men can no longer hear the call.

Archbishop O’Brien, Ordinary for the Military Services (and previously my bishop) put it this way. He said that a man will give his life for a mystery but not for a question mark. This is certainly true. If one thinks about it, the priesthood is a ridiculous life to live if it is not what the Church has always taught it to be. When priestly identity came to be questioned publicly by Catholic theologians and even by many priests, that is when we saw such a large drop off in vocations. Those orders and dioceses who continued, and today still, instill a strong identity of the priest as an alter Christus, are by and large, gifted with plenteous vocations and have had little of the scandal affect them. It is overcoming the crisis of faith that is the first step to solving not just the vocations problems but the wide spread problems in society as well. We need to start planting, watering and weeding if we are to avoid another long spell of grim harvests.

The experience of divorce in someways is like death. In others, it can be much worse. For children of divorce, the experience is often worse. A study by Elizabeth Marquardt, which Zenit reviewed over the weekend, reveals some of the problems she found in children of divorce. Sadly, most of us will either experience it ourselves, or know someone who will go through it. Thus, the Marquardt study might be a worthwhile read for all. For those marriages which can still be saved, perhaps it may provide some motivation to save them if the oath the spouses took before God is not enough. For those situations which for whatever reason cannot be reconciled, perhaps it may provide some insight into ways to mitigate the damage to children. However, I suspect that the study will help show that only the most severe of situtations should make divorce a real consideration.

We are up in the northern Chicago suburbs today visiting my brother and his wife. We went up to Milwaukee today to see the Basilica of St. Josaphat and Gesu church at Marquette. While either was easily worth the trip, the Basilica is especially remarkable. The faith and sacrifice of those humble souls who built that Church is inspiring. That leads me to today’s thought. This morning we went to Mass at the convent of the Handmaids of the Precious Blood, a semi-cloistered order whose charism is continual prayer for our priests. Well it was the first reading from Romans in the context of the sisters’ charism that got me ta think’n again. This was the passage in which Paul talks about the depth of Abraham’s faith. Hoping against hope is very apropos for describing Abraham’s situation and perhaps a lesson for some situations today. Abraham, who with Sarah was quite advanced in age, had no earthly chance of having children. However, since this was promised by the God who Paul reminds the Romans creates out of nothing, Abraham believed.

However, there is more to the story. Most of us can identify with the all too human experience of Abraham and Sarah. After a time, the exhilarating experience of hearing God’s promise began to subside and doubt crept in. They began to think that maybe God actually might need some help in living up to his promise, so Sarah gave her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham as a concubine to kind of help God, the Creator of the universe, out. We all know the rest of the story. Ishmael, the wild ass of a man, became the father of the mortal enemies of Israel. The moral of the story, pragmatism must not be used to justify contravening God and His laws.

I think that often times we suffer from the same kind of thinking in our day. The call for married men and women as priests to “solve” the priest crisis is just one example (even though as the Synod intervention correctly asserted—the priest shortage is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed—the widespread lukewarm faith of too many Catholics).

It seems to me that our focus must be on Christ who has sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. All that is needed is our faithfulness (and yes of course, our hard work). But God does not need our help to fix things by trying to overturn solid discipline or infallible teachings. Prayer, holiness, fidelity to the authority of the Church, and work to reenergize the faith are the parts we should be playing. That and hoping against hope.

A couple of weeks ago the Brussels Journal ran a story about the first threesome union in the country. It seems that in the land of anything goes, the first to allow homosexual marriage, that there was nothing that could prevent the formation of any sort of union that one (or in this case three) desired. When nature and common sense are disregarded, and the only criteria is what I want there is no end to the unions that the state must sanction and safe guard. Yesterday it was homosexual marriage, today it is threesomes, tomorrow it may very well be three men and a dog and why not? Anything else would be unfairly exclusive, wouldn’t it? I mean, don’t we want to be affirming and inclusive of everyone? Can anyone think of any good arguments for those with this mindset that would help them to wake up and find out that the coffee has burnt?

According to the then Cardinal Ratzinger, they are the same and that would be divinization. He says this in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy. Just what might be this divinization? If you have not read theologians who have been influenced by the Ressourcement, the recovery of the original sources of theology, or Eastern Christian writings this may at first sound a little strange, even blasphemous. However, it is not an idea foreign to the Latin Church. It is essentially the result of fruitfully receiving sanctifying grace. We become partakers in the divine nature and we are changed. We become more and more Christ-like.

The fruit of divinization is our goal, a world of authentic freedom (i.e. not a libertine freedom but one fixed in truth) and love. The goal of liturgy, the essence of sacrifice and worship is our divinization, our being taken up and joined in a koinonia, a communion, with God and with the Church. Man’s divinization is why God created the cosmos. It is why He allowed the Fall and why He continues to call each of us to conform ourselves to His plan for us.

Love for God thus must manifest itself in our love and total immersion in authentic liturgy. If we do not surrender ourselves and learn to love and live for the liturgy, we will not be comfortable in heaven either. In other words, we must allow the liturgy to transform us if we are to reach our full potential as human persons, i.e. if we are to become saints.

Canon law does not give very many rights to the lay faithful but of those it does, authentic liturgy and access to the Sacraments are some of them. It is no surprise. The liturgy is heaven on earth and the Sacraments are the way to our divinization. The Mass especially is our training ground for heaven and the ultimate source of our spiritual strength. Too often, liturgists, priests, even some bishops (some well meaning, some not) highjack the liturgy and turn it from a universal expression of the unified Church into a personal expression of some sort or another . . . and drag the rest of us along, like it or not. John Paul the Great, in as gentle a manner as one could imagine, has been trying to draw along the recalcitrants, to some success perhaps but not total.

Now it is B16’s turn. There of course was much speculation about what he would do in this regard. However, since he did not immediately excommunicate anyone, there are some who have already written him off. I believe we will have a bit longer to wait. The Synod must occur first.

In this vein, there was a Zenit article yesterday about Cardinal Julian Herranz, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and his intervention at the Synod. Here he was talking about the right to access to the Eucharist, especially the right to those gifts we need to allow us fruitful reception of grace. This includes confession, time for prayerful adoration in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and of course, reverent liturgy. This is encouraging to hear it more and more expressed. It is obvious to me that Redemptionis sacramentum is not a dead letter.

I do think that there are unmistakable signs of an emerging springtime in the Church. However, I suspect that there is still much suffering left to experience before the full fruits of Vatican II and the pontificates of John Paul the Great and B16 begin to emerge. In the meantime, I wonder how it would be taken by those who still deny the faithful access to authetic and reverent liturgy, if we were to demand it as our right?