An On-line Conversation With a Cafeteria Catholic

Charles’, the Cafeteria Catholic, began:
The Roman Catholic Church is undergoing its greatest reform. Women will become priests. Priests will be allowed to marry. Homosexuals will be married sacramentally. Children will be conceived through artificial insemination. Masturbation will be recognized as a natural and healthy phenomena. It will all come to its greatest culmination under a female Pope. By what great awareness has this fallen upon me? The common sense that comes with being rational and a reasoning human being. The Church in all its greatness was most aware of its fallibility, and incorporated a well-known doctrine into the institution.

Nathan replies:
So now Charles knows the future.
Well, certain things that are defined as doctrine (ie. the Truth as the revealed Word of God) will not and cannot ever change because God does not change.

Here's what the church teaches:

1- Women cannot become priest just like men cannot become mothers and this will never change.

2- Many Roman Catholic priests are married even today. The church generally chooses men who have made a vow of celibacy for the priesthood but that practice can change any day. It is not a doctrine revealed by God.

3- Men with homosexual tendencies can be married sacramentally even today but can only marry women. The opposite is true for women as well because that's how God designed the male and female counterparts. They are complimentary of each other, no such complimentarity exists between two men or two women.

4- Children are already conceived through artificial insemination but that doesn't make it right. For example, 3 to 10 times more children die from the rejection of the embryo by the lab techs then there are successful artificial inseminations. These children deserve to live but died because the parents were willing to allow the deaths of so many for the life of the one.

5- Wasting ones seed (ie masturbation) has always been seen as wrong even from Biblical times (Gen 38:9-10).

Ones "common sense" can be terribly misguided especially when ones conscience is ill-informed.

To have a good conscience is to have it align with church doctrine because we KNOW that Church doctrines are always true since the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Charles answered:
I'm afraid that I cannot go there or would ever wish to. I have children watching and listening to me, especially a gay son. I teach that God is a most loving God and far more understanding than the Catholic Church teaches at the moment. But with patience and perseverance reason will win out. Those who think, keep hope alive, and education shall lead the way.

Having blind faith, is no excuse, for not thinking.

 

Here a lurker (a third-party) chimes in:
What many Catholics and most non Catholics fail to understand is that the Catholic Church welcomes homosexuals or divorced into the church. They ask no more from homosexuals than they do from single Catholics. The urge to have sex with someone is not wrong but doing so outside of marriage is the wrong part. I struggle with the logic of some of the Catholic teachings but I understand them.

Nathan replies:
Very well put [lurker].  Thanks for the clarification.

Charles then said:
The two of you are not aware that my wife's first husband tried to kill her, while high on cocaine. It was at my advice that she extricate herself from the threat of being assaulted and perhaps killed the next time. Did she know when she was a bride that 5 years later under the influence of cocaine that her sacramental partner, blessed by God, would try to kill her? No. But, isn't it reasonable to recognize that if a person tries to kill you, that perhaps they don't love you, and that in fact, staying married to that man, is not sanctioned by God? Something to contemplate.

Nathan answers:
A statement from the USCCB states this in regards to spousal abuse:

Finally, we emphasize that no person is expected to stay in an abusive marriage. Some abused women believe that church teaching on the permanence of marriage requires them to stay in an abusive relationship. They may hesitate to seek a separation or divorce. They may fear that they cannot re-marry in the Church. Violence and abuse, not divorce, break up a marriage. We encourage abused persons who have divorced to investigate the possibility of seeking an annulment. An annulment, which determines that the marriage bond is not valid, can frequently open the door to healing.

The document can be found here:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm

I hope this helps.

Charles answers:
Thank you Nathan.  I did not know that such a socially aware document existed.  I do commend our American Bishops for their pastoral understanding in this area.

Finally, Nathan replies:
You’re welcome.  I’m glad I could help.

God Bless
Nathan

The Happy Priest - Defend Marriage, Save America

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - Aside from the abortion issue, the issue of homosexual marriages is now in the forefront of the culture wars. Let us take a clear look at the issue according to the mind of the Catholic Church.

The Conference of American Bishops has already given a clear and comprehensive teaching (http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.shtml).

Here is a brief summary.
- Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children.

- Marriage is both a natural institution and a sacred union because it is rooted in the divine plan for creation. In addition, the Church teaches that the valid marriage of baptized Christians is a sacrament-a saving reality. Jesus Christ made marriage a symbol of his love for his Church (see Eph 5:25-33). This means that a sacramental marriage lets the world see, in human terms, something of the faithful, creative, abundant, and self-emptying love of Christ. A true marriage in the Lord with his grace will bring the spouses to holiness. Their love, manifested in fidelity, passion, fertility, generosity, sacrifice, forgiveness, and healing, makes known God's love in their family, communities, and society.

- The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife.

- For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and a same-sex union cannot achieve the natural purpose of sexual union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

- Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other.

- The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. 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.

- Laws play an educational role insofar as they shape patterns of thought and behavior, particularly about what is socially permissible and acceptable. In effect, giving same-sex unions the legal status of marriage would grant official public approval to homosexual activity and would treat it as if it were morally neutral.

- 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.

- To uphold God's intent for marriage, in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place, is not to offend the dignity of homosexual persons. Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth and oppose as immoral both homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

- The state has an obligation to promote the family, which is rooted in marriage. Therefore, it can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others. Ultimately, the stability and flourishing of society is dependent on the stability and flourishing of healthy family life.

Throughout her long history, the Catholic Church has always pointed out that civil law must conform to the moral law. Public opinion does not make something right or wrong; the objective moral law does. Thus, not only Catholic politicians, but also all men and women in public life have an objective moral criterion to follow.

When a civil law is not in conformity with the moral law, it is an unjust law. Legalized slavery, for example, was an unjust law. Legalized forms of segregation were unjust laws. Legalized abortion is an unjust law. Legalized euthanasia is an unjust law. Legalized same-sex marriage is an unjust law. Slavery, segregation, abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriages are in essence contrary to the objective moral law, and therefore, no human law can claim them to be legitimate.

Visit Fr. James Farfaglia on the web at www.fatherjames.org and listen to the audio podcast of this Sunday homily.

Communion of Saints

In today’s second reading we find that there is a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us.  Reading Hebrews 11, the previous chapter of today’s reading, tells us that these witnesses are the Old Testament saints.

 

These ‘dead’ saints who are alive in Christ are aware of what’s happening to us.  Here are few verses to show this awareness of those in heaven of what is happening here on Earth.

 

Heb 12:1          “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”

 

Mt 17:3            Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

 

(If Jesus didn’t want any contact between saints on earth and saints in heaven, why did our Lord make a special point of appearing to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration in the company of Moses and Elijah, two ‘dead’ saints? (Patrick Madrid))

 

Rev 6:9-10       When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?

 

Luke 15:10       …There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents.

 

We have just learned that the ‘dead saints’ are indeed aware of earthly doings, but can they do anything about it?  Are there intercessory prayers effective?  Of course there are.  Prayers of the righteous availeth much (Jas 5:16).  Who are more righteous than those who have been made perfect (Mat 5:48) and in heaven?

 

I feel I must make clear that Jesus alone is our mediator, John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out:

The Catholic Church allows no…Saint, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, to come between the soul and its Creator…The devotions then to angels and saints as little interfered with the incommunicable glory of the Eternal, as the love which we bear our friends and relations, our tender human sympathies, are inconsistent with that supreme homage of the heart to the Unseen.  (Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p.284-285)

 

We can therefore see that asking saints to pray for us (whether they are ‘living’ or ‘dead’) is acceptable, approved by God, and avails much. 

 

[Text adapted from http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070100.htm ]

Be Prepared

We are to be ready for those times that we will be in a position to defend the Truth. Here is an exchange I recently had online. His words in italics, mine in bold as well as interspersed within his response. It all started when my friend posted the picture you see at the top of this leaflet with the caption: “Homosexuality is unnatural? Not according to nature.” I commented that the underlying premise was false. That is, just because you see a certain behavior in nature doesn’t mean that the behavior is morally ok to engage in. For example we find that sometimes lions kill rival's lioncubs. He answers back this way…

Oh[ Nathan]! Loving another consenting adult who happens to be of the same sex is not morally wrong. What IS though is rape, murder, pedophilia, incest, child porn, human trafficking and other very criminal stuff, punishable by law. Homosexuality is NOT punishable by law. It is natural. So saying that it is morally wrong is promoting homophobic slurs and prejudice. It incites criminal activity against another person who is minding his own business, living his life in a most normal way... loving another person... body and mind, as long as it is with consent.

A 60-year-old man dating a 20-year-old woman... is it morally wrong? NO. Do I find it repulsive? Yes to some extent. Does it mean they shouldn't have the same rights as any other "normal" couple to get married, have/adopt children and have the exact same rights and privileges as any other married couple. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

This should also be applied to any same-sex couple wanting to marry and have/adopt children. No one should lose their jobs for their sexual orientation. No one should be banned from living anywhere for that either. No one should be discriminated for it in any way as long as it is with consenting adults.

Here’s my underlined answer interspersed within his original post. His words in italics:

Oh [Nathan]! Loving another consenting adult who happens to be of the same sex is not morally wrong.

Loving another is never wrong whether he is of the same sex as you ro not. But the behavior between two lovers of the same sex is always wrong and you simply saying the contrary doesn’t make it true.

What IS [morally wrong] though is rape, murder, pedophilia, incest, child porn, human trafficking and other very criminal stuff, punishable by law. Homosexuality is NOT punishable by law. It is natural.Whether some things are lawful does not determine what is moral. For example, is it morally ok to have extra marital affairs? Adultery is not punishable by law so by your standard it is morally ok. The laws of man can be moral laws but only when they are in line with natural law.
So saying that it is morally wrong is promoting homophobic slurs and prejudice. It incites criminal activity against another person who is minding his own business, living his life in a most normal way... loving another person... body and mind, as long as it is with consent.

Just because I don’t agree with the lifestyle and me saying so does not mean that I’m inciting criminal activity. One cannot logically go from me disagreeing with something to automatically mean that I’m inciting criminal activity. If that were the case then the government could prosecute me for disagreeing with anyone else on any given issue. That means that even defense attorneys could be prosecuted for inciting criminal activity because they are defending those who acted against the law. There is no logic in your statement, one does not follow the other.

If there is nothing wrong as long as it is with consent then what is wrong with a father and daughter being intimate with each other? Even if they are of legal age and both consent, is it still morally ok? By your standard it would be.

A 60-year-old man dating a 20-year-old woman... is it morally wrong? NO. Do I find it repulsive? Yes to some extent. Does it mean they shouldn't have the same rights as any other "normal" couple to get married, have/adopt children and have the exact same rights and privileges as any other married couple. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

Why are you bringing up all these different things? We were talking about the false premise that because you see a certain behavior in nature then it must be morally ok. And now you bring up the subject of marriage? For the record, I agree with the point you made in the above paragraph.

This should also be applied to any same-sex couple wanting to marry and have/adopt children. No one should lose their jobs for their sexual orientation. No one should be banned from living anywhere for that either. No one should be discriminated for it in any way as long as it is with consenting adults.

I agree that no one should be unjustly discriminated against. Why are you talking about marriage anyway? The subject was that just because you see a certain behavior in the animal world doesn't mean that it is ok to do.

To come back to my original point. Just because you see a certain behavior in the animal world does NOT mean that the behavior is morally acceptable.

God Bless
Nathan

Call no Man Father

One of the first times that a religious individual tried to show me that the Catholic Church was wrong was by pointing out that we call our priest ‘Father’ even though Christ Himself said not to call anyone by that name.  In this article I shall try to explain why it is not against Christ to call our priests ‘father’.

 

I acknowledge that Jesus did say:  “And give no man the name of father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven ” (Mat 23:9).  Was Jesus saying an all-encompassing statement?  Did He leave any room for exceptions?  This verse seems to indicate that the Catholic Church is wrong in calling Her priests ‘father’.

 

After being barraged with questions mostly to trick Jesus into saying something unscriptural, Jesus turned to the people who were following Him and said: “The scribes and the Pharisees have the authority of Moses; All things, then, which they give you orders to do, these do and keep: but do not take their works as your example, for they say and do not.”  Jesus was condemning their actions for they may be teaching correctly but they were not doing what was taught…they were being hypocrites.

 

But Jesus also said in the next few verses: “But all their works they do as to be seen by men…and the things desired by them are the first places at feasts, and chief seats at Synagogues, and the words of respect in the market-places, and to be named by men, Teacher.”  Jesus was denouncing their egos, he was telling everyone that these priests were in it for the fame and not for the Glory of God.   And so, our Lord wanted to make sure that the people knew because he did not wish it to continue.

 

And so, in this context did Jesus say in Matt 23:8 : “But you may not be named Teacher: for one is your teacher, and you are all brothers.  And give no man the name father on earth: because one is your Father, who is in heaven.”  It seems as if Jesus was trying to condemn what the Pharisees and Saduccees were doing.  They were, in effect, misusing the title of Father.  It is this misuse that Jesus is condemning.

If Jesus was condemning all uses of the title father then surely His disciples would have understood it that way.  But you can see many different instances where Jesus’ apostles use the title father.  In the book of Acts St Stephen addresses the rabbis and his fellow jews as “Men, brothers and fathers, listen”(Acts 7:2).  Also in Acts 4:25 we find Peter and John Glorifying God saying with one accord: “Sovereign Master, You are the One who has made heaven and earth and the sea and all things in them, Who, through the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, has said, ‘Why, did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise vain things?’” And once more in Acts we find the apostle Paul talking to the elders of Jerusalem saying: “Men, brothers and fathers, hear my defense which I now make to you.”

 

With these past verses we find that Peter, John, Paul and Stephen all use the title ‘father’.  Would it surprise you that even Jesus himself used that title?  He uses it when referring to Abraham in his parable of the suffering rich man.  Being a parable Jesus is unrestrained in using any and all terms allowable to Him for describing this story and He still chooses to use the term ‘father’ when referring to the rich man by addressing Abraham in Luke 16:24: “…Father Abraham, have mercy on me…”  and again in verse 30: “…No, Father Abraham; but if someone risen from the dead would go to them, they will repent.”  If Jesus was making an all-encompassing statement when He said to call no man Father, then He either made a mistake (which I don’t believe) or He is not the perfect example of man (which I believe He is the perfect example to follow).  Therefore, there is no other conclusion to come of this other than Jesus was denouncing the misuse of the title and not of the word itself.  Anything else would deny the deity of Christ.

 

This little study also points out that to take anything on its own, that is not to use the whole of the scriptures to compare what is said about a certain subject is to possibly bring you to some very wrong beliefs which Christ never intended.  Some of what is said in one verse of scripture cannot be all-inclusive statements.  It needs to be interpreted in light of other passages that refer to the same subject matter in order to have a clear picture of what the Word of God is trying to teach you.

 

God Bless