My older two kids and I were leaving our church today, on our way to the back parking lot to meet my wife, who was the cantor at the next Mass. Charlie and Anna scampered ahead of me to our pastor, as they always do, and started pulling on his vestments (as I've told them not to do). Father is a very patient man, with the young and the old. When my kids' enthusiasm has gotten the better of their manners, he is laughingly indulgent, and when adults argue against Church teachings, he is earnest but firm.
Both of those scenarios were happening simultaneously as I walked up to him. As my children begged for his attention, a chubby guy in jeans was haranguing Father, asking where in the Bible it said that homosexuality was a sin. Father seemed surprised that anyone would even question what Scripture has to say about the subject, pointing out that homosexual behavior is condemned several times in the Old and New Testaments.
"No, that was like in a war crime, you weren't supposed to do that during a war," the chubby heterodox guy said. His female companion started looking more embarrassed.
"Well, the Bible also says you're not supposed to engage in that behavior outside of war, too," Father replied.
I have to admit that was a new one for me. I've heard the canard that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were "violating hospitality" by threatening to gang-rape the angels and men who were visiting them. That seems like a rather mild way of putting it.
The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn genocide, conducting dangerous medical experiments on people without their consent, or poking somebody in the eye with a sharp stick. Yet those are all sins. Homosexual conduct is condemned much more explicitly than any of those things (do I really need to list the passages?) Consensual sodomy is less sinful than male-on-male rape, I'm sure, yet just because a thing is less bad does not therefore make it good.
Even more than this specific issue — and there are few issues that bore me more than homosexuality — I am impressed with the gall the chubby guy had. The only time I've ever challenged a priest after Mass was when he said something that was explicitly unorthodox, and I think that's only happened twice, neither time at my parish. Visiting priests have occasionally said things that made me uncomfortable, but if I gave them the charity to which they are entitled, I could not say they were speaking against the faith.
If you have a problem or a question about something a priest said, you ought to take it up with him privately, either in person or in a letter. When you challenge him on a point of Christian teaching, you ought to make sure that you are supported by the ancient teaching of the Church, not by the secular anything-goes materialism that appeared on the world-historical scene the day before yesterday.
Let me widen my net, to complete my point: if you are an orthodox Catholic, believing all that Holy Mother Church teaches, and you have a cynical, bitter attitude toward the men who serve the Body of Christ as priests and bishops, you are little better than the heterodox. If you say you believe that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, yet you condemn them en masse as unworthy of their offices, are you not insulting the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church? Can you not see that by acknowledging apostolic succession with one side of your mouth, and insulting the successors of the apostles out of the other, you give scandal to non-Catholics and gladden the hearts of the Church's enemies?
Have you never looked into your own souls, to see what darkness lies there? Have you no fear of judgment?
Hatred of priests is hatred of Christ. Hatred of Christ's commandments is hatred of Christ. Either one will kill your soul.
Agreed. A general good principle non-Catholic Christians can follow as well. I find disagreements or questions on doctrine are probably best discussed first through a courteous letter, then and later followed by one-on-one dialogue in a private setting, and always with graciousness, unless, perhaps of course, the teaching was so blatantly damaging, scandalous, and heretical as to warrant immediate and vocal censure. But that is a rare case.
Are you speaking of the Arian Bishops in the Second Century?
Are you speaking of the Aryan Bishops of the Second Century?
I agree whole heartedly. Our secular society has made so many people question what the Church teaches. Even transubstantiation is questioned by a wide majority of Catholics.
Ladt night on the Discovery Channel I watched this show concerning Ramses II and his involvement with the Exodus. They tried to explain everything scientifically. I had seen a show on another channel that did explain how God caused the plagues through a series of natural events. The Nile was filled with red silt that killed off the fish, caused frogs to come on land. They died, causing flied to gather in vast numbers and the flies brought with them various diseases. The original show I watched always suggested that this was God's scientific plan. They explained all of the plagues scientifically attributing them to the Almighty.
This show did not want to give God credit for anything but gave it all to Mother Nature. They briefly mentioned the Angel of Death at Passover but went on to say they found the skull of Ramses II first born, although they did not prove it - it came from ramses Tomb and was buried next to some of his other 22 children. The skull showed serious head trauma at time of death which was plain to see. They then said that Moses crossed the Reed Sea, not the Red Sea where the water was low and the chariots would have a hard time getting through this marsh. They mentioned the pillar of fire that held the Egyptians back as they crossed when they mentioned the Red Sea but never mentioned it at all when discussing the Reed Sea. The Hebrews turned and attacked Ramses First Born and killed him - they said that was the last plague explained. Man did they take liberties. They poo pooed thousand of years of Hebrew beliefs in 15 minutes denying the whole angel of death and passover. They never brought passover up again saying that they assume this skull was the son of the first born. It could have been anyone of his other 20 someodd children.
Society, scientists and the press have such a field day with our beliefs, our priests and the Holy Mother Church. What other religions are brought to the forefront of bad press as our beautiful religion. Look at how the DaVinci Code has many Catholics questioning the history of the Church.
Priest are human but the majority of them know their Apologetics, know their faith, and know what the Church teaches. All we have to do is pick up a copy of the Catechism of the catholic Church and it gives us references to all our beliefs. We also must remember that we do not base our faith on scripture alone. To be wrong it doesn't have to be in the Bible. We had wonderful Church doctors that knew people that knew Jesus like St. Iraneus and St. Justin who helped to lay down our beliefs in the second century.
Eric, yours is a perfect example of what our secular society is doing to our church members who are hurting the Church.
Why can't we trust? What happened to faith? When our mom and dad said something was bad we believed them (at least in the beginning of our lives) Jesus said we have to become like children to enter the kingdom of God. Part of that is having faith just as a child believes in Santa. Maybe that's a poor example but a child believes because of the excitement and beauty of the Santa experience.
As Catholics, especially American Catholics, we must support our Church. It is good, loving, and preparing us for our real purpose which is to be with the God and behold the beatific vision in Heaven. Earth is just a rest stop where we must wash ourselves for our final destination. How did we learn to wash as children - our Parents. The Church is bulding our faith, filling us with graces through our Parent the Church. The Priests are the implements of this Motherly church.
On alighter note, my youngest child, my 8 year old son is always showing off in front of the priests when they bring me communion (I'm homebound with a terminal illness). He loves them. I pray that someday he will be caled by God to be a Priest. What a wonderful gift that is?
I could go on and on.
Finally, confrontations with priests should be one on one so the priest can collect his thoughts and rebute and naysayers. I once walked out of a mass where we had an ancient fill in priest who was preaching about Jews calling them devils and saying they were going to hell. If a priest is wrong even after one confronts him then go to his superior just as Christ says in the Gospels - I'm not good at qoutes but it is in there. Lastly, let us remove the plank in our eye before we attempt to remove the cinder in our brothers.
Nice Commentary Eric!!
God Bless and may Mother Mary keep you protected in her mantle
Eric, your commets are right on the money, although I have to hang my head in shame at all the frustration I feel toward the Bishops.
Tim, may it please God that you will be healed.
trivia:
I didn't even watch that show when I saw that they were saying that Ramases II was "the paraoh of the exodus". IIRC, Hatphushet or Tutmoses were considered more likely, at least 10 years ago. There are some serious issues with Egyptian chronology. Some suggest that they were doubled over, and of course, the State never recorded defeats, though for some reason the Joseph stela was never destroyed. If Atlantis is the Minoan civilization, then they were off by about 66 centuries. If it was the flooding of the Black Sea - well, that isn't dated very well yet, so far as I know. But that is one example of issues with the Egyptian chronology.
Yam suph is indeed "Reed Sea" not "Red Sea" as the KJV spells 'reed' oddly. It is shallower than the "Red Sea", there are numerous places where it is only 12 feet deep. so that papyrus reeds grow there. 12 feet. There -did- have to be a miraculous parting of the waters, and drying of the silt, for the children of Israel to cross it.
The plagues specifically showed YHWH's power over various Egyptian gods.
Special thanks, Eric, for putting out the other side of priesthood. Those who seek to live the truth and get attacked by the "haters" as they are called in the city.
Reminds of a time when a DSS social worker felt it was her right to scream at me in front of the exiting parishioners after mass for speaking out against gay marriage. Her opening line was something to do with because I am a priest I support pedophilia. Fortunately, as a veteran I learned that yes I may be a priest, but I do not have to put up with that.
Thanks again Eric.
http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/2004/12/memo-to-eric-father-knows.html
http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/2004/12/memo-to-eric-father-knows.html
Catherine of Sienna gave the reigning pontif a good tongue lashing from what I read...to get him back to Rome.....holy criticism is sometimes necessary....where is it written that only a priest can criticize a priest or a bishop...or a pope.....it doesn't mean you're an apostate.
Weird how a post that starts by citing an example of a plainly heterodox man haranguing a priest turns into a harangue against orthodox Catholics.
Just weird.
Thanks for your comments -- and Tim, I hope God sees fit to heal you. May your faith be an inspiration to your family and everyone you know.
Some of you are missing my point. The title of my post was "Stop dumping on the clergy." I was not speaking against orthodox Catholics -- I'm one of them, or at least I try to be.
I'm not saying that our priests and bishops are perfect. As they'll tell you themselves, they are not. I am certain, however, that we have the clergy we deserve, because all of them were laymen at one point. If you want better priests and bishops, you should try to improve the laity, not lamenting they aren't all cut from the same cloth as Saint Athanasius.
I was also not ruling out confronting a priest, even a bishop, if he is speaking against the faith or permitting a grave evil to go uncorrected. As I said, I've done it myself, and I would do it again (with fear and trembling.) But first, you better make darn sure you're right, and you should give him a chance to clarify himself. Maybe you're the one who is misunderstanding; maybe he could have spoken better.
And if you do have a legitimate grievance against a man of the cloth, you should attempt to rectify it in a spirit of humility, doing penance on his behalf, and conducting yourself with sadness, not with glee that you have identified a flaw in someone Christ permits to confect the sacraments. Behaving in any other way smacks of rebellion -- and rebellion is the devil's handiwork, not God's.
If my son were the victim of a cleric's unnatural proclivities, I doubt that I would see it as an opportunity to practice humility.
Other than that (whew!), I'm glad we cleared all that up.
Note to Tim Foley: St Irenaeus knew somebody (St Polycarp), who KNEW somebody (St John the Evangelist) who knew Jesus. But you were close. Oh, and my dad has MS, so I feel for ya.
I have to wonder about the use of child abuse -- most of which happened in the '70s or '80s -- as an all-encompassing excuse not to trust priests or bishops. It's almost as if people are looking for reasons not to respect the legitimate, God-provided authority residing in the presbyterate. Curious.
I suggest that a distinction be made between the grace and charism given a priest and a bishop, and the actual use made by the recipient of those charisms.
I personally venerate the priesthood, and individual priests, who through the laying on of hands and the gift of the Holy Spirit have become icons of Christ the Bridegroom, the sacrificing and sacrificed Christ. I also venerate the episcopate, and bishops who are icons of Christ the Teacher and Christ the Ruler of all (Christ Pantocrator).
Fortunately for me, my parish priest, the Right Reverend Archimandrite Alexei Smith, is a true icon of Christ, and I am under the omophorion of Cyril, the Melkite Bishop of Los Angeles, who is a true teacher and ruler of his flock.
As for the overwhelming majority of priests and bishops, whom I have not seen, I am quite willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and to assume them to be true icons of Christ.
In cases where priests and bishops have erred, or are erring, perhaps the best counsel is to pray for them, and if one is in a position to do so, to attempt to correct them in a spirit of gentleness and peace, lest the same sin befall the corrector.
While one should not hate a priest or bishop who should chance to sin, it is always permissible to hate the sin, and to sorrow that an icon of Christ has been desecrated.
Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that priests and bishops can err, and that the result of their error can be their own damnation, and of injury to Christ's church. It was St. John Chrysostom who said: "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, and is lit by the skulls of erring bishops."
Eric, are you implying that homosexuality is a more serious sin than genocide, involuntary medical experiments and/or poking someone's eye out? I would hope not...
Nathan, I don't see that Eric ever implied that homosexuality was more serious than the other sins you stated. where are you coming from man? And are you not the same Nathan of the Tower that endorsed John Kerry and never answered my question; do you support killing human babies?
Homosexuality isn't a sin, as you know. Homosexual acts are. I don't know where they fall in the hierarchy (or should I say lowerarchy) of sin. I'd say they are less serious then genocide, though.
"Eric, are you implying that homosexuality is a more serious sin than genocide, involuntary medical experiments and/or poking someone's eye out?" Which city did God Himself destroy for genocide, involuntary medical experiments, or poking somebody's eye out?
Ok, Lane, I'll bite. Which city was it?
Eric:
You're absolutely right.
OK, there seems to be (the usual) disconnect going on here.
It's not the legitimate critique of a particular priest or bishop that's a problem. The problem lies in the fact that so many people - especially in St. Blogs - seem to think that every priest or bishop is a suspect until they're proven orthodox.
Eric hasn't said that all criticism is evil. He's said that automatically assuming a priest guilty of ... something ... is wrong. St. Blogs is filled to the brim with people that condemn first and look for facts afterward.
FWIW,
On Sodom and Gomorrah, I believe the reason the city was destroyed was not solely homosexuality and sexual perversion. Rather those were but prominent symptoms of the all out reckless abandon to sin and its consequences exhibited by the rebellious, God-loathing blasphemous denizens of those cities. These cities were so fundamentally corrupt and rebellious against God in all manners of lifestyle and conduct that they incurred the wrath of God.
he overall issue was that Sodom and Gomorrah were degenerate beyond the ability to repent. There was no willingness to repent for the rebellion against God. Ditto with the world in the days of Noah. Ditto with the Babylonian captivity and with the sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD and with the fall of the Roman Empire in the 400s. Sin works to the natural conclusion of death. Personally sin leads to sickness, deterioration, and death and corporately/socially/politically sin can and does destroy societies.
Eric, you wrote:
"I have to wonder about the use of child abuse -- most of which happened in the '70s or '80s -- as an all-encompassing excuse not to trust priests or bishops."
It's not. But that's hardly the end of it.
True, these things happened long ago. But it has taken this long for the indiscretions to be revealed, and overcome the resistance to their being dealt with effectively. For every priest who misbehaved, there was at least one other who transferred him to the next parish until the heat died down, or lived with him and looked the other way, or arranged to buy off the parents. The latter was usually with the approval (explicit or tacit) of the local bishop. And many are still coming to grips with the extent of their responsibility.
Time didn't heal these wounds; it left them open to fester. And while the skeletons in the closet continue to add up, the number of guilty parties continues to ADD up.
So, your Aunt Minnie who's been teaching catechism for thirty years has to be fingerprinted like a common criminal before she can continue teaching for another DAY, and your bishop can't get around his lawyers long enough to say, "I'm sorry," if, say, a priest in his diocese runs off with another man's wife.
Still curious?
I said "curious" because I think the obsession with clerical misdeeds says a lot about the obsessed person.
Since I know that my parish priests are faithful and I have absolutely no reason to think they're committing grave sins, is it okay that I trust them? Or since I have no reason to think that my bishop has ever transferred an errant priest, can I trust him, too?
We're both in a diocese where, relatively speaking, we are able to trust the Catholicity of the priests who serve us. My comments, indeed the subject in general, is more timely on a regional or nationwide scale. One need only travel an hour or two to go to Mass, and feel as if one has landed on a different planet.
I don't think that's true nationally, but if you're talking about going to the Richmond Diocese, that's sadly true.