Not many people make the front page news before their first birthday.
But my nephew is kind of a big deal. ; )
Read the whole story here.
Well, a few days before leaving for Rio, Msgr Konrad found out he was getting a promotion.
The Catholic Church – where handing out food to the poor is a promotion. I love the Church.
Today is one of those days that I feel like I should have a really profound blog post. Then I read a bunch of other people’s blogs and wonder if I should just do a giant link-up. Is there anything new to say?
Part of me is just scared that if I even mention the issue on this blog I’ll be hammered with hate speech in the comments. As we’ve seen, nothing is more intolerant than “tolerance.”
But I’m wading in a little bit anyway.
Could things have gone worse this morning? Yes. Is there some hope? Sure. (There’s always hope…right?)
But do I think things look pretty grim? Yes. Read Kennedy’s language carefully. It will have serious repercussions.
As Justice Scalia said in his dissent in United States v. Windsor, “It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”
I think we have some interesting days ahead, and I think you’re kidding yourself if you’re thinking, “Yeah, but it won’t directly affect me.”
But what I think concerns me even more than what happened this morning is what didn’t happen this morning.
Millions of people in this country went along with their day and didn’t even know what happened. They didn’t even care. That’s scary to me. I’m not expecting everyone to be glued to their computer screen waiting the decision to appear, but this was a turning point for our culture and the future of our society. And people are clueless.
I’m sick of complacency. WAKE UP, PEOPLE.
Eve is in the Garden. Adam is beside her. The devil is telling her that freedom is doing whatever the hell she wants it to do. And instead of saying, “No, actually, that’s Hell,” Adam is ignoring the whole exchange.
The devil is telling Eve that making it illegal to kill babies after they’re 20-weeks old is “anti-woman.” He’s telling her that passing a law so that abortion clinics need to have the same health standards as surgical centers (because last time I checked, that’s what pro-abortion advocates say happen there — “safe surgical procedures”) is “bad healthcare.”
And all Adam does is tweet his support for Eve and then pats himself on the back for being pro-woman.
We’re in the garden with the serpent. He’s lying. We’re buying it.
And no one seems to care.
Wake up, America. Last night was not about women or democracy or healthcare. This morning was not about equality. It was not about love.
“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated.” (Scalia)
Perhaps it is fitting that this all happened on the feast of St Josemaria Escriva. Living at a time when the Catholic Church was under attack for Her beliefs and practices, he noted, “It is surprising how often, even in the name of freedom, many people fear and oppose Catholics being simply good Catholics.”
This morning wasn’t about the Catholic Church. It was about natural law, the fundamental unit of society, and the future of this country. But because our Church upholds natural law, we will be persecuted. I would say “and this is just the beginning” … but it’s not. It’s been happening for awhile in this country.
And it’s time to wake up.
(If you are desirous to read what real people are saying: “Worse Than it Sounds” “Why I’m Scared” “Marriage is Dead” … If you need less gloom and doom: “DOMA, Prop 8 Could Have Been Worse” and there’s always good stuff to be said by Archbishop Chaput)
I was writing a post in my head this morning. This is not that post.
In fact, I never wanted to write this post. Ever.
My mom shared very sad news with me at noon, when it broke on the Catholic blogs. By this evening, it was one of the lead stories when I opened my email provider’s website, so it seems to have made it mainstream.
Father Thomas Williams, LC, has admitted to fathering a child.
Now, Father Williams would probably not know me if he passed me on the street. But readers of this blog and my Rome blog know that I attended his Mass in English every Sunday night while studying in Rome. When I went back to Rome in October, one of the first things I did after settling details like airfare and housing was to email Father and see if he was still having 6pm Mass at San Giovanni.
Father even named this blog, in a way — the “Ordinary Time” comes from a homily he had about being saints in ordinary time, in our normal daily lives. So once I returned from Rome (my “feast,” if you will), my sister suggested I turn JoaninRome into JoaninOrdinaryTime.
When I received the news, I sat in complete shock. The expression “speechless” doesn’t refer to me very often, but it’s an adequate description here. I tried to say something to my friend Liza, who works across the hall, but words wouldn’t come. I managed to tell her, still not able to formulate full sentences or process my own thoughts. The sick feeling came right away, the shaking began soon after. I did what I always do in situations like this. I called my mom.
My thoughts are still haphazard. Why did this blow me away? Why did this news cause me to reel like it did? Shouldn’t we all be used to priests disappointing us? Especially “celebrity” priests?
I respected Father. Not because I knew him personally — I had maybe one conversation with him outside of Mass. But because he celebrated Mass reverently and he had the best homilies I’ve ever heard from a parish priest. After returning to the States, I was actually “homesick” for his Sunday night Masses and his homilies. I looked forward every week to his homilies, and when I no longer had them, I missed them terribly.
I put Father on a pedestal. I know that now — and I knew it then. Here was a priest who knew the truth, and not only knew the truth, but had the ability to preach it well. He didn’t ramble or preach generic homilies. He was one of the most articulate priests I knew, and each week, he said exactly what I needed to hear. Only two things stopped me from asking him to be my spiritual director while I was at Rome – 1) his busy schedule and 2) he was too good looking.
His book on conscience is fantastic. His appearances on CBS and NBC were great.
I was a fan.
And now this.
I sat in my office and kept repeating, “no,” as if that would make it go away. I looked over to a little note, posted near my computer. It was his email to me, telling me he still said Mass and that he would see me in October. On the top of the email, I had written a countdown to my departure to Rome and had put it by my computer as daily inspiration. I never took it down, even as the October trip came and went.
I sat there in shock, and suddenly, the feeling of betrayal set in. Was it all an act?
As I’ve sorted through my emotions, I realize that my intellect has grasped the situation and has sorted everything out. My heart – not so much.
So Father has fallen. So have we all. Assuming this was a sin of his past, assuming he’s gone to confession and reconciled with Christ and His Church, shouldn’t I extend the same forgiveness?
His book on right and wrong and the formation of conscience — does this sin degrade that work? No. In fact, perhaps it gives it more credibility, in a way. (If he has repented of the sin, that is — and to tell you the truth, it never occurred to me that this wasn’t a sin of his past until the Huffington Post pointed out that he never specified if he was still seeing the woman. I hope I’m not giving him too much credit to think that if he says “a number of years ago” he had a relationship with a woman… he isn’t still in a relationship with her.)
Our culture will tell us that the sin of Father Williams (and the other priests before him) is proof that we hold our priests to a standard set too high. No one can be expected to live a celibate life. Sometimes it seems as if everyone lies in wait, ready to pounce on the next victim of the sex-less life the Church demands. When is a single man’s consensual affair with a woman and a child out of wedlock front page news? When that man is a priest.
As Catholics, we must deal with this difficult dichotomy — we do ask a lot from our priests, and yet they are fallen human beings, just like us. The life they have agreed to live is not an easy one. It is the life of the Cross. As a result, it bears much fruit. But it is still the life of the Cross. It is possible through the grace of his vows. But it is still the life of the Cross.
Through the hands of the sinful priest, Christ comes to our altars. There is no one else on this earth with that power. The priest is not like us. We honor him, respect him, care for him – for without the priest, there is no Eucharist.
At the same time, we can’t put him on a pedestal he doesn’t deserve. As soon as we expect him to be sinless, we will be scandalized. Priests have access to great graces, but they’re not immaculate. They are living, breathing, passionate males.
The priest does not act on his own. He does not preach his own Gospel. He does not confect the Eucharist of his own accord. All he has is Christ’s.
Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, “Ordination is not about the development of one’s own power and gifts. It is not the appointment of a man as a functionary because he is especially good at it, or because it suits him, or simply because it strikes him as a good way to earn his bread … Sacrament means: I give what I myself cannot give; I do something that is not my work; I am on a mission and have become the bearer of that which another has committed to my charge” (emphasis mine).
So even priests who fall, even priests who disappoint us, do not discredit the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church. Because the message doesn’t depend on them. Nor do the sacraments.
There’s a reason why we understand that even a sinful priest can dispense the sacraments. Even a priest in mortal sin can change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Jesus chose to use sinful men as His instruments, as His means to give us the sacraments. Why would He punish us by making those sacraments dependent on the worthiness of the minister?
So Father has fallen. He has sinned. So have I.
Does that mean I don’t hold priests to a high standard? No. Does that mean I condone what he did? Of course not. Does that alleviate the heaviness in my heart and the feeling of betrayal? Not much.
But Christ has chosen to make men priests, not angels. And if anyone needs some guidance and wisdom tonight, as I did, I encourage you to read Bl. John Henry Newman’s essay “Men, not Angels, the Priests of the Gospel.”
I’ll close with a rather lengthy excerpt. My heart still hurts, but I go to sleep with a prayer — a prayer for Father, for his child, for the mother of his child, and for all those who are tempted to lose the Faith because of this new scandal.
“[Christ] came and He went; and, seeing that He came to introduce a new and final Dispensation into the world, He left behind Him preachers, teachers, and missionaries, in His stead. Well then, my brethren, you will say, since on His coming all about Him was so glorious, such as He was, such must His servants be, such His representatives, His ministers, in His absence; as He was without sin, they too must be without sin; as He was the Son of God, they must surely be Angels. Angels, you will say, must be appointed to this high office, Angels alone are fit to preach the birth, the sufferings, the death of God. They might indeed have to hide their brightness, as He before them, their Lord and Master, had put on a disguise; they might come, as they came under the Old Covenant, in the garb of men; but still men they could not be, if they were to be preachers of the everlasting Gospel, and dispensers of its divine mysteries. If they were to sacrifice, as He had sacrificed; to continue, repeat, apply, the very Sacrifice which He had offered; to take into their hands that very Victim which was He Himself; to bind and to loose, to bless and to ban, to receive the confessions of His people, and to give them absolution for their sins; to teach them the way of truth, and to guide them along the way of peace; who was sufficient for these things but an inhabitant of those blessed realms of which the Lord is the never-failing Light?
And yet, my brethren, so it is, He has sent forth for the ministry of reconciliation, not Angels, but men; He has sent forth your brethren to you, not beings of some unknown nature and some strange blood, but of your own bone and your own flesh, to preach to you. ‘Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?’ Here is the royal style and tone in which Angels speak to men, even though these men be Apostles; it is the tone of those who, having never sinned, speak from their lofty eminence to those who have. But such is not the tone of those whom Christ has sent; for it is your brethren whom He has appointed, and none else,—sons of Adam, sons of your nature, the same by nature, differing only in grace,—men, like you, exposed to temptations, to the same temptations, to the same warfare within and without; with the same three deadly enemies—the world, the flesh, and the devil; with the same human, the same wayward heart…
Had Angels been your Priests, my brethren, they could not have condoled with you, sympathised with you, have had compassion on you, felt tenderly for you, and made allowances for you, as we can; they could not have been your patterns and guides, and have led you on from your old selves into a new life, as they can who come from the midst of you, who have been led on themselves as you are to be led, who know well your difficulties, who have had experience, at least of your temptations, who know the strength of the flesh and the wiles of the devil…
Ponder this truth well, my brethren, and let it be your comfort. Among the Preachers, among the Priests of the Gospel, there have been Apostles, there have been Martyrs, there have been Doctors;—Saints in plenty among them; yet out of them all, high as has been their sanctity, varied their graces, awful their gifts, there has not been one who did not begin with the old Adam; not one of them who was not hewn out of the same rock as the most obdurate of reprobates; not one of them who was not fashioned unto honour out of the same clay which has been the material of the most polluted and vile of sinners; not one who was not by nature brother of those poor souls who have now commenced an eternal fellowship with the devil, and are lost in hell. Grace has vanquished nature; that is the whole history of the Saints. Salutary thought for those who are tempted to pride themselves in what they do, and what they are; wonderful news for those who sorrowfully recognise in their hearts the vast difference that exists between them and the Saints; and joyful news, when men hate sin, and wish to escape from its miserable yoke, yet are tempted to think it impossible!
…And O, my brethren, when you have taken the great step, and stand in your blessed lot, as sinners reconciled to the Father you have offended (for I will anticipate, what I surely trust will be fulfilled as regards many of you), O then forget not those who have been the ministers of your reconciliation; and as they now pray you to make your peace with God, so do you, when reconciled, pray for them, that they may gain the great gift of perseverance, that they may continue to stand in the grace in which they trust they stand now, even till the hour of death, lest, perchance, after they have preached to others, they themselves become reprobate.” (all emphases mine)
This is one of the best explanations of why we must oppose the mandate, so please take the time to read it. I didn’t want to copy the whole thing here — do blogging rules allow that? — but there’s a link to read the rest. Please do!
By Ann Schneible
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 16, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities throughout the United States are facing the possibility of being forced, by law, to violate Church teaching under the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Mandate.
Under the HHS Mandate, most Catholic institutions will be required to pay for abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilization in their employees’ health insurance plans.
William H. Marshner is professor of theology at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. He recently spoke with ZENIT about the moral implications that the mandate could impose upon American Catholics.
ZENIT: To start off with, why is contraception morally prohibited by the Catholic Church, and why is it immoral for us to pay for others who wish to use it?
Marshner: We can’t justly be forced to pay for it because that means that we’re cooperating with it. So the question is, why is the act immoral? I mean, if it weren’t immoral, we’d be okay to cooperate with it formally or otherwise. Why is it an immoral act? Because it is a willful violation of a key part of a woman’s health, and a man’s health. Fertility is part of health. Pregnancy’s a healthy development. You cannot call contraceptive practice a medical service; it’s not aimed at a medical problem.
There’s a fundamental dishonesty about performing acts per se act for the procreation of children, and then covertly doing something to undermine those acts so that they can’t have that effect. It’s as though I said, let’s go off and play golf. I bet I can beat you. And unbeknownst to you, I have gone around and filled up the little holes so your ball can’t go in. This is a dishonest golf-game. It’s also similar to saying, well, I’m going to play poker but I’m not going to lose any money. How am I going to ensure that? Ace up the sleeve. A contraceptive is like an ace up the sleeve. I’m going to play, but pregnancy’s not going to happen. Why? I’ve got an ace up my sleeve. It’s an internal chemical thing, or it’s an IUD, or whatever it is. But contraception is a falsification of an act which ought to be a marital act.
read the rest here: http://www.zenit.org/article-34467?l=english
-and listen to this homily.
And then pray for this priest and all the courageous leaders like him.
Tomorrow Timothy Dolan will become Cardinal Timothy Dolan, as he is elevated by Pope Benedict and receives his red biretta, his ring, and his titular church.
If it was earlier in the evening or if I didn’t have to be on the road by 5:45 tomorrow morning to teach hungry souls, I would wax eloquently about any number of things, including the acceptance of the possibility of martyrdom each of these men accepts:
“To the praise of God, and the honor of the Apostolic See
receive the red biretta, the sign of the cardinal’s dignity;
and know that you must be willing to conduct yourselves with fortitude
even to the shedding of your blood:
for the growth of the Christian faith,
the peace and tranquility of the People of God,
and the freedom and spread of the Holy Roman Church.”
or the honor bestowed on Cardinal-designate Dolan, who was asked to address the Cardinals and the Holy Father today (full text here, and it’s well-worth a read), or the new design of the rings this year, or the fact that I wish I was in Rome right now because I’ve always wanted to wander around the Apostolic Palace (and you have the opportunity to do so during the consistory, when they open up various rooms of the Palace and each Cardinal greets visitors), or how much I’ve enjoyed the special consistory broadcasts from Vatican Radio on the Catholic Channel with Lino Rulli from the Catholic Guy Show and Father Dave and Brett from the Busted Halo show.
But it’s late, so I just want to say how happy I am that Cardinal-designate Dolan’s titular church is Our Lady of Guadalupe. If I had time, I would tell you all about titular churches, but instead I direct you to my JoaninRome post when I attended Mass with Cardinal DiNardo when he accepted his titular church, San Eusebio.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is sort of on the outskirts of Rome, near the Cornelia metrostop. I’m rather surprised it was chosen – I don’t think it’s been a titular before now (although I could be wrong), and I can’t imagine many people have even heard of it. It’s a wonderful choice for the obvious reason that Our Lady is patroness of the Americas, but I am particularly pleased with the choice because not only have I been there, I have rather fond memories of it.
(That’s not the greatest picture in the world, but I remember snapping it quickly because I felt out of place taking it, given that the church has probably had very few “tourists” snapping pictures. I felt like I was screaming “I’m a visitor! I’m an American! Look at me!” when I took it after Mass.)
When I was studying in Rome in 2005 with Christendom, Our Lady of Guadalupe was just down the street from our home at Casa la Salle. They had an evening Mass that many of us frequented, especially towards the end of the semester when the Lenten station Masses were over and the novelty of riding the bus into the city for an evening Mass had worn off. It became our little parish, in a sense, and we began to recognize the priests (there was an Irish priest there who heard confessions in English) and began to feel a little at home there.
I had forgotten about the little church (“new” by Rome standards) until I read that Cardinal-designate Dolan had spilled the beans early about his titular church.
I think another pilgrimage is in store.
UPDATE: Please remember to keep these new Cardinals, the Holy Father, and all the leaders of our Church in your prayers. These won’t be easy days up ahead.
UPDATE 2: Never mind – you can ignore half of this post. It’s a different church to Our Lady of Guadalupe. Phooey.
(If you’re interested in following the consistory coverage, especially the coverage of Cardinal-designate Dolan and his entourage, I’d highly recommend http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com)