Left Unsaid..

Now that I'm writing again.. [evil laugh] I do think that I'll also mention those snippets of Mass readings that get skipped over in the Missal. Sometimes, it's really valuable stuff, though might end up being those 'hard sayings' that many pastors try to avoid.

For instance; This Sunday's first reading from Samuel, chapter 3 uses verses 3-10 and then skips out to 19. Here's what we missed:

11 Then the Lord said to Samuel, “See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make both ears of anyone who hears of it tingle. 12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 13 For I have told him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God,[b] and he did not restrain them. 14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering forever.”

15 Samuel lay there until morning; then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli. 16 But Eli called Samuel and said, “Samuel, my son.” He said, “Here I am.” 17 Eli said, “What was it that he told you? Do not hide it from me. May God do so to you and more also, if you hide anything from me of all that he told you.” 18 So Samuel told him everything and hid nothing from him. Then he said, “It is the Lord; let him do what seems good to him.”

So, here we read that God will severely punish those who have profaned the priesthood. This has been painfully relevant these past 17 years, and now, lately, since Cardinal Bernard Law's passing. Law, like ancient priest Eli, knew what his "sons" were doing, but did not restrain them. He shuffled abusive priests to other parishes and diocese without care for the laity. "But, but, but the psychiatrist said.." is a flimsy excuse.


But, in reality, this reading is what we did NOT hear this Sunday. Most folk probably went on to sing "Here I Am, Lord' during the offertory, later, and went about with their day..

The Gravity of Sins Disputed

I don't know what it is about America magazine, but the editors frequently seem to be drifting Leftward, and happen to be Jesuits.

On this occasion, Fr. James Martin S.J. takes issue with the Pope's declaration that Abortion and Homosexual "Marriage" are gravely evil sins. From America magazine's blog:

Pope Benedict XVI's comments last week in Fatima, Portugal, in which he stated that abortion and same-sex marriage were "some of today's most insidious and dangerous threats" to the common good seemed oddly discordant. The equation of abortion, something that clearly is about a threat to life, with same-sex marriage, which no matter how you look at it, does not mean that anyone is going to die, is bizarre.

The Pope said they are "insidious" threats, because all but the most wise would not believe them to be threats. Like Fr. Martin S.J., who seems to be under the impression that gay marriage is a socially and spiritually harmless diversion.

Why has same-sex marriage been equated with abortion? Are they really equivalent "threats" to life?

They aren't equated, but they do spring from a similar source: "My body is MINE, and I shall do with it as I see fit." Abortion denies life to a life already started, while homosexual relationships denies life to future life. Both refuse the rule of God over our sexuality and reproduction. This is mortal sin.

If you’re looking for a life issue with stakes as high as abortion, why not something that actually threatens life? Like war? Or the death penalty? Or the kind of poverty and destitution that lead to death? Why aren't “abortion and war” the most "insidious and dangerous" threats to the common good? Or “war and the death penalty”? Or “war and poverty?”

These are not "insidious and dangerous" because they are OBVIOUS and dangerous, and the Church speaks out about these things all the time, the Gospel also speaks out against theft, hatred and violence. But, War is not socially acceptable, and neither is poverty. It is not only against socially abhorrent sins, but also against the sins that our culture embraces that the Church is to speak out. Don't filter your message because you fear the loss of party invitations and the shallow goodwill of the social elites.

The great danger is that this increasingly popular equation will seem to many as having less to do with moral equivalency and more to do with a simple dislike, or even a hatred, of gays and lesbians.

Instead of condemning the message and messenger, the writer should be expounding on Church teaching, not just pounding on it. He'd be doing all his gay friends a better service by preparing them for the Kingdom of Heaven, rather than railing for their comfort on Earth.

Flogging

Yeah, it was another long, long Lent, complete with the media and every detractor against that Church that still draws breath flogging the Church and Pope Benedict. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The New York Times says "rocks here, hard rocks, get your rocks here.."

Having been molested when I was 8 or 9, I can completely relate to, and still have to fight, the attitude of "string 'em up!" And I thank God that I don't know if my molester was a priest or not, and I try not to imagine it as so. Also, in the intervening years, I've learned some hard lessons about mercy and forgiveness, so I'm less apt to lash out about the issue.

I won't get into an analysis of the sexual abuse, the abusers, the bishops that kept it discrete, the therapists that enabled abuse to continue. I'm not an expert on any of those topics, and neither are most of the Church's current detractors. Most of the Church's fiercest critics are not interested in rooting out all sexual abuse in society, or else they'd be also relentlessly scouring the foster care systems, the public schools, and daycare programs as well.

Detractors' primary interest is the shame the Church by the failings of some of its' members, and to try and change the Church's doctrines and disciplines that they find most offensive to popular sentiments:

- Ordaining women won't eliminate abuse, or else you'd never see female teachers bedding male students.

- Married clergy won't eliminate abuse, or you'd never see married men sexually abusing minors.

- Blessing the use of contraception won't eliminate abuse either, instead it would just encourage already familiar forms of sexual abuse, like the current hook-up culture.

Sexual abuse is a feature of fallen human nature, not a feature of Catholic doctrine or discipline.

Soap Opera in Miami

When the news broke in early May, I wasn't going to give much mental time to Fr. Alberto Cutié. He was a man who'd stumbled, fallen, and needed to pick himself up, stand as a man, and keep carrying his cross as he should. I prayed for him, hoped that he'd resolve the situation and stay true to his faith.

Well, he had other ideas:

The Rev. Alberto Cutié, the celebrity priest removed from his Miami Beach church after photos of him kissing and embracing a woman appeared in the pages of a Spanish-language magazine earlier this month, has left the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami to join the Episcopal church and announced that he will marry the woman he has dated for two years.

I guess since the vow of chastity was quietly tossed, any notion of obedience to his bishop and Church went with it. Were I either the Episcopal Church or this man's paramour, I'd be leery of accepting any vow or promise he makes in the future. Caveat Emptor.

From the CNN story:

"This is something I've struggled with," he[Cutié] said this month. "I don't support the breaking of the celibacy promise."

I beg to differ with him, as his actions over the last two years indicate his tacit support for breaking the celibacy vow, and his leaving the Catholic Church most publicly indicates such support. Had he taken his vow seriously, he would have ended the relationship once it crossed the line, and sought Reconciliation, counseling, and the advice and guidance of his bishop. Instead, after his duplicity has been exposed, he's running to another church.

The Episcopal church is doing itself no favors in proudly scooping up notoriously integrity-challenged men like Fr. Cutié and former governor and catholic Jim McGreevey. If these men could not uphold their commitments to Christ, Church, or spouse, why is the Episcopalian church so eager to throw them into vestments and a pulpit?

The Episcopal bishop, Leo Frade, speaks to Fr. Cutié's vow of celibacy:

"That promise is not recognized by our church. If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected,"

Episcopalians have become deft at dismissing things that are IN the Bible, so this challenge to "find it in the Bible" is laughably ironic. Others have tackled this topic at length, but here are a couple highlights:

1 Corinthians 7:

32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;

33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,

34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

And this from the Gospel via both Luke and Matthew, which makes it even clearer, with those having ears to hear:

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other.."

There was a time when men were unconcerned with the raising of their children and the running of the household, and there are still men today who behave that way. But, we've come to the conclusion that a man needs to be engaged in the family, and not some distant provider, a socio-economic god, ruling from his reclining throne in the den. Being a husband and father requires a man's full attention and devotion.

A Catholic priest is not just a sacrament-dispensing ATM that works a couple hours on Saturday, and a couple hours on Sunday. He not only guides, but is intimately involved in the spiritual life of the parish: Morning Mass, visiting the sick, memorials, funerals, weddings, baptisms, counseling, confessions, vigil masses, etc, etc.. It's a full-time, mom's hours, vocation that requires a man's full attention and devotion.

A man seeking to undertake both priesthood and family life will end up giving short shrift to one or the other. He cannot be fully devoted to both. He cannot be two men.

The Catholic Church understands both the biblical admonitions and the practical implications on this, and so its discipline reflects these realities. Candidates for priesthood in the Catholic Church are taught this in the seminaries, so Fr. Cutié has made his choice not in ignorance, but in spite of what he's been taught.

Post # 250, Swiss Cheese

A blogger dedicated to revealing the truth (condemnations) about Catholicism had posted the following:

"...Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" ... Jesus: "You are right Peter, Upon this ROCK (THE TRUTH that I AM GOD'S SON), I will build my Church. And the gates of hell (extra-biblical doctrines and man-made rituals for salvation), will not prevail against it!" Matthew 16:18"

The first problem is that he cannot even disclose the truth about the scripture he's using! Here's the entire section of Matthew 16 he was editing:

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Now, I'm a context junkie, and really get annoyed when people turn Holy Scripture into holey scripture. I'd hate to tar all Protestants with the same brush, but like Jack Chick's cartoon theology, I see too much strategic omission when Protestants try to make a case against the Church. Why is that?