Did the Apostles Succeed or Not?

Today's gospel reading for Mass relates to us the words of our Lord on the last night before His death:

"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide."

So then, I will ask, did it? Did the fruit that the Apostles bore "abide" or did it fade away? What I am asking is whether the Apostles were successful in their efforts to bring forth the Kingdom of Christ, or were they failures? If Jesus says that He appointed them to bear "fruit that abides" and they failed, then we must also say that Jesus failed [I feel like I need to wash my hands and sanitize the keyboard after writing "Jesus" and "failed" side by side in the same sentence!].

Every form of Protestantism (except Eastern Orthodoxy) would have to say that the Apostles failed. All of the anti-christian cults (like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) will say this outright. Although most of the more orthodox Protestants will not be so negative towards the Apostles, a few of them will say that the Apostles did not fully establish the Protestant faith (like some of the Baptist denominations).

There is not much else that can be said once one notices that the roots of today's Roman Catholicism are clearly found in the Church Fathers from the late first and early second century. If Catholicism is wrong, then the Apostles failed to bear fruit that will last, since it was apparently thrown out and replaced by Catholic tradition while some of the Apostles were still alive (many distinctly Catholic teachings were found in writings that were circulating before A.D. 100. If Protestantism is true, and if the Apostles had intended to promote some form of it, then it did not last very long at all, for by the end of the second century we can see clear signs of Roman Catholic belief and practises throughout all the Churches.

I recall speaking to a pastor from a certain Protestant denomination (that I will not name here), who told me that the Apostles actually were successful in what they wanted to do, and that they established the Catholic Church (!). Then he proceeded to tell me that the Apostles were wrong for doing so! I have never met anyone else who held this position, but I will at least give him credit for trying to deal with the historical facts. Dealing with history is something I had to do about twelve years ago (and I ended up becoming Catholic), and since then I have encouraged every Protestant to do the same thing.

As a Catholic I can answer the question easily. Yes, the Apostles were successful in the fruit they bore, and Jesus was successful in appointing them to the task. I pray for all my brethren who are still in the Protestant churches that they will consider this important question, and then be able to find the fullness of the faith that has been handed down to us.

Mass Selfies?

I recently had to purchase a new cell phone. For those of you who know me well, no, I did not break down and buy a smart phone; in fact, I actually downgraded. I bought a "flip phone" that did not have a camera on it. I had to search far and wide, but I found one. Why, you may ask, would someone do that? I am attempting to step away from the whole frame of mind that says we need to get everything on video or in a photo. I have had this new phone for a few months now and found it to be very liberating. I have stopped seeing things and saying "I need a picture of that" and started just enjoying what I am seeing.

It appears today like many people do not think that an event is real unless they have captured it in some kind of picture or video. I recall doing a baptism years ago and a family member missed the moment of the baptism because she was doing something with the camera on her phone. She actually asked if I could do it again so that she could get the picture; I said no. She was more upset that she did not get the picture than that she did not actually see the baptism. What is wrong with this picture (no pun intended!)? A baptism (or any event for that matter) is no less real because we did not get a picture of it. In fact, I might even say that if we remove the camera from the situation and just focus on the actual event, then it becomes more real since we are seeing it with our own eyes rather than through a lens (but few people think about that aspect).

This brings us to the issue of "selfies". It is not as though I want to condemn them outright; please understand (there is nothing inherently wrong about taking a picture of yourself). Yet, think with me for a minute about the concept of a selfie. Many years ago people on vacation would take a picture of the scenery, and maybe get one or two pictures with the family included. The primary focus, however, was the scenery itself, and not the family. It appears that we have reached the point that we believe we have to include ourselves in the picture; as though the scenery is not appealing enough unless we are in the picture. It has become more of a "look at me" rather than a "look at the beautiful scenery".

I have actually only taken one "selfie" in my life. It was about 30 years ago, and it was not a true "selfie" since it was not even taken on a phone, but with an old non-digital camera that was very difficult to hold at the end of my arm (and the photo was out of focus!). I think that the recent obsession with selfies stems from an obsession with self. We have been driven in our modern society to think that everything revolves around self. From the pagan enlightenment of the 18th century saying "man is the measure of all things" now we have further descended into the modern dark ages of the 21st century and we can say "I am the measure of all things". Our dark ages are darker than anything imagined about the medieval period.

It is this obsession with self, that has led us to have an even greater misunderstanding of how worship works. Is worship about us, or is it about the Lord? We all know the correct answer, but do we really live it out? How do we approach the worship of the Lord of all creation? Is it "look at God" or is it "look at me"? Priests are especially aware of this problem, since we are required to be up in front of everyone at every Mass we celebrate (one more reason why I prefer to say Mass ad orientem). A priest will either recognize that he is only a tool in God's toolbox, or he will degenerate into the very problem I am discussing: "look at me!"

The final question I want to ask (and which this entire post is really about) is for those of you who either wish to, or do, have a "ministry" at the altar (reader, server, etc.). "Why do you want to do that?" What is the reason? There are, after all, right reasons and wrong reasons to "do a ministry" during the Mass and we cannot assume that everyone has the right motivations. Although there are many right reasons to wish to have a duty in the chancel during Mass (devotion to Christ, interest in holy orders, genuine service to the Church), of all the wrong reasons to want to be up there (feeling useful, enjoying it, etc.), one of the worst is to create your own personal "Mass selfie". "Look at me" should never be in our hearts during Mass, but rather "look at Christ".

Appreciating Repetition

I currently serve as pastor in three different parishes; St. George Catholic Church, my primary parish, as well as St. Susanne's and St. Patrick's, my two parishes that I serve for Bishop Edward Rice, the Bishop of the diocese of Springfield/Cape Girardeau. Although it keeps me very busy, I appreciate serving within the local diocese at the same time that I serve in my own jurisdiction of the Ordinariate. I believe that this helps to show that even though there are a number of traditions that are different between the diocese and the Ordinariate, we are all part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Because of this mixture of my duties, there are times when I am saying Mass at one of the diocesan parishes (from the Roman Missal) and I "slip" into the wording or actions of the Ordinariate form of the Mass (from the Divine Worship Missal). In spite of a few significant differences between the two forms of the Mass, a number of places are quite similar and it is easy to get them switched, especially when there is only an hour between the times when I celebrate the two Masses!

Recently, I noticed something about the Roman Missal (i.e. Novus Ordo) Mass as I was saying the Divine Worship Mass, just an hour later. The "preface" is a prayer that is said in the both the Divine Worship Mass and the Roman Missal Mass right after the Sursum Corda where the priest tells the people to "lift up [their] hearts". In the Roman Missal there are five options for the "preface" during the Easter season. In the Divine Worship Missal, there is only one option. I assume that the choice for five options was made so that there could be a certain variety in the Easter season, and also that the choice for one option (for the Divine Worship Missal) was made because there was only one preface in the Anglican and English Missals (which itself probably stemmed from the practice of the Sarum Missal, though I have not confirmed this).

What is the big deal, you may ask? What does the difference in a pastor's choices have to do with you? Think of this: if you are used to hearing the same preface each Sunday (and a number of weekdays) for seven weeks in a row, and then not again for another year, then you think of it as "that is the preface for Easter time"; you get used to it, and do not think of it as repetition (if you think of this at all). It does not seem to be redundant because it is just "a prayer" that we say at this time of the year.

If, however, you are hearing a sequence of the five different options for a preface for seven weeks, then when you hear one a second time (and a third, fourth, etc. because you have to repeat some when you only have five to last for a span of seven weeks!) you will think, "I heard this one before, how about a different one?" In other words, a set of prefaces that have to be repeated every few days (not to mention all the other parts of the Mass that have a few different options) makes one desire more variation rather than less. It actually makes it harder to be content with just one "Easter preface", and causes the desire for a different Easter preface for each day of the seven weeks! In this situation we do not think of the repetition as "applying it more deeply to our souls" (the way the Church would want us to do), but rather as annoying redundancy.

So when I was standing up there saying Mass a while back, and noticed that the preface I had chosen for the day was the same one I used last Sunday (though none of my parishioners would ever actually complain), I even found myself thinking "I've read this one before". Whereas when I said the same preface in the Divine Worship Mass that I have used for the last number of weeks, I had the response of "ah yes, those comforting words that I have begun once again to memorize and make part of my own prayers." Two very different situations, and they will each effect our spirituality in a different way; are we hearing beautiful repetition, or annoying redundancy?

I am not saying that variety is automatically evil, nor am I saying that everyone who hears the same prayer repeated each Sunday will always be more holy than others. I am merely pointing out how multiple choices are prone to backfire and create more discontent rather than less. The solution that I have recently chosen when I say the Roman Missal Mass (with its multiple options) is to lessen them on my own. Sometimes I will do the same preface for an entire week (!), and then switch the next week. Sometimes I will just limit myself to one each year and allow it to do the work on our souls that it was intended for.

How do you respond to a prayer you have heard before? I have a number of favorite Mass collects (the opening prayer in the Roman Missal, and the second prayer in the Divine Worship Missal) for certain days of the year. I only get to hear and say them one week out of the year, but when I see them again each year they sound like old friends come home; like a book that I like to read every few years brought down off the shelf for another enjoyment. It stays for a week, is appreciated, and then returns to the book, to await another visit next year. What a joy to appreciate repetition!

Been to Confession? Are You Sure?

The priest was greeting people after Mass and one parishioner came to him with a question: "Father, why do you keep saying 'go to confession' in your homilies when everyone there in the mass is already doing so?" The priest asked, "I'm sorry, but what do you mean?" "We all say the 'confession of sin' in every mass, so what need is there for us to go to confession again?" the parishioner responded. "Whoa! you have made a mistake; the confession of sin in the Mass only covers venial sins but not grave sins. The Church assumes that everyone has gone to the sacrament of confession outside of Mass, and has likely only committed venial sins since that time, and then the confession that we recite together only covers those venial sins" said Father. The parishioner, as you might expect, said, "What!!!?"

I do not know exactly how many people actually have this opinion; I could only guess. The fact, however, that I have had discussions very much like the one above, tells me that there are likely many others with the same mistaken perspective. Although I assume that all priests are taught about this crucial distinction, with the drastically low numbers of laity coming to confession, there is clearly something that is making them think that they are "OK" with God in spite of this. What could be leading in this direction? I certainly do not think that this is the only reason, but there is one thing that might be contributing to it. In fact, this one statement can easily be misunderstood (particularly by people who are looking for a reason not to go to the sacrament of confession).

The Roman Missal introduction to the penitential rite says "let us confess our sins and so prepare ourselves for the sacred mysteries." Consider this statement with me for a moment, especially as it is being stated to large numbers of the faithful who have a very poor understanding of the Catholic faith. Taken out of context from the whole of Catholic theology, this could possibly make someone think that this is all the preparation they need; especially if they do not have a good grounding in the church's teachings on sin.

The Divine Worship Mass (which I use in my Ordinariate parish) is more specific, but still makes no clear distinction between grave and venial sin: "You who are in love and charity with your neighbor and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in His holy ways, draw near with faith, and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees." I am not faulting either the Divine Worship Mass, nor the Roman Missal, just stating how they can be misunderstood in today's context. It is possible that someone could come into the Divine Worship form of the Mass as well, thinking that the corporate confession of faith and declaration of forgiveness that follows both apply fully to grave sins. I am not advocating tinkering with the specific wording of the Mass (please do not assume that!). That will not truly solve the issue. Something deeper must be done.

What we need is first off a heavy dose of humility and secondly, a deeper understanding of sin. With these two things in our hearts we will be able to return to the proper practice of the sacrament of confession. Today there are many ways that people seek to avoid the sacrament of confession. Making excuses or simply ignoring it might well be the most common means, but for those who genuinely believe that the confession during Mass actually covers grave sin, I will at least give them credit for attempting to do something about their sin. The problem, however, is that this latter method is akin to taking a pain-reliever to overcome an allergy attack -- it is not intended for it, and will not have any effect.

As the Scriptures tell us many times, we cannot run from our sins. Adam and Eve tried it, and their son Cain took after them. So do we all try to avoid dealing with our sins. Yet, Christ's grace and forgiveness is so great that we should never think that we have a better method of dealing with sin. The Church's "bare minimum" of once-a-year confession is a rarity for most. I regularly encourage my parishioners to go to confession, so I will say it again. Do not come up with excuses; and make sure that you understand the Church's teachings in regard to our sins (we are dealing, of course, with your eternal destiny). Christ is waiting for you in the confessional, and He loves to give you His grace.

Mercy AND Truth

Which is more important, truth or mercy? Difficult question. The problem is, most people will answer either "truth" or "mercy" and both of those are the wrong answer. The correct answer is neither; for neither truth or mercy is more important. Truth without mercy is just cold calculated facts, and mercy without truth is just sentimentalism. So we cannot have truth or mercy, we must have truth and mercy. For anyone to criticize truth at the cost of mercy is misunderstanding both of these things, and for anyone to criticize mercy over truth is also misunderstanding.

In today's day and age, we tend to have an overemphasis on mercy and an under-emphasis on truth. This comes not just from pagans outside, but also from some of those within Holy Mother Church. That is not healthy and will never help the faithful to know how to grow in holiness. If we pit two godly things against each other, all we do is cause confusion. And, needless to say, we have more than enough confusion in the Church today; we certainly do not need any more.

So what is it that people are doing when they emphasize mercy over truth? This usually happens when someone is afraid (or intimidated) by a particular truth and they want to find a way to get a "free ticket" to ignore the truth. Hence, they press mercy (because it sounds pious) and denigrate truth. If one presses mercy enough, many will eventually forget about the truth that is being pushed out. An example of this is the man who claimed that it was all right for him to commit adultery because God was "merciful" towards him and his temptations. He was sacrificing the truth of the 6th commandment for the sake of his personal feelings.

That is not, however, mercy. Mercy does not say "go ahead and dig yourself deeper in your sin and ignore the fact of God's judgment." To use mercy in this way, as I have said many times, is actually hurting the individual. Mercy is often called upon when someone feels pressed by God's law, and it is thus used more to support moral compromise than to communicate the genuine tenderness of a forgiving God. With how many people make decisions based on sentimental ideas, we should not be surprised that this happens. Yet, we should be saddened by it, and we should do what we can to avoid it. The sentimental mind makes choices regarding what feels good, not what is correct (i.e. what is true). On the other hand, truth is able to guard us and keep us thinking clearly (regardless of our feelings). Truth is able to help us when we feel the need to make a decision solely by our feelings.

When someone sees the need to be merciful (which is a good and godly thing to do) it should be done within the boundaries of the truth. Likewise when someone feels the need to apply a particular truth, he should do so within the boundaries of mercy, for just as much as mercy can be abused, so can truth. To take a truth and use it in a way that causes someone genuine harm, means that we have abused truth; for "blessed are the merciful" (especially when they are applying the wonderful truths of God). Truth should never be sacrificed, and mercy should never be sacrificed.

When someone sacrifices truth for the sake of mercy, what have we done to mercy? He has made it into an idol (no matter who it is who does this). As we read in the first letter of St. John: "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." These words have always been important, but today they seem to have a special need because so few people know how to recognize an idol. There are various forms of idolatry today, and most of them look nothing like the idolatry of 2000 years ago. Whatever we give more importance, more devotion, or more commitment to than is proper is either becoming, or has already become, an idol. As has been said before, we humans are wonderful "idol makers" (sad to say).

A proper understanding of mercy will not lead someone to moral compromise, rather it will lead them to greater faithfulness and a deeper commitment to the truths of God (since all the moral virtues, like mercy, cooperate with and assist one another; they never compete with each other!). In the Psalms (130:1-4) we read the following:

Out of the deep have I called unto thee, O LORD; Lord, hear my voice. O let thine ears consider well the voice of my complaint. If thou, LORD, wilt be extreme to mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it? For there is mercy with thee; therefore shalt thou be feared.

Notice that? Precisely because God has mercy, does it lead the psalmist to "fear" Him. It does not make him lax, but rather makes him want more so to be faithful. The psalmist does not think, because God is merciful that he can go on sinning (for that would be mercy without truth!); no, he responds with "fear" and recognizes the awesome grace that comes to us because of God's mercy. This is the right understanding of mercy. Anything short of this, is a wrong understanding of mercy.

Those who put too much emphasis on mercy have lifted up mercy beyond where it is supposed to be, because it is never supposed to be raised "above" truth, but rather to meet perfectly with it. In doing this we make mercy into something that will do more harm (since it is divorced from truth) than good. We can never pit one grace against another; that is always unhealthy. God has revealed to us the beauty of both truth and mercy, let them never be separated. Let us have truth and mercy; mercy and truth.

Forgiving Yourself (?!)

Just exactly what does it mean to "forgive yourself"? I have heard the phrase used often, and have always been a bit confused by it. The technical aspects of "forgiveness" are quite easy to explain. Forgiveness involves a reconciliation between two or more people. One or more individuals have done something sinful against one or more other individuals, and the two parties need to reconcile (i.e. be brought to a peaceful state of harmony). The offending party needs to ask specific forgiveness for the specific sin(s) committed, and the offended party needs to grant the forgiveness that was requested, thereby reconciling the two parties to one another once again. This reconciliation is necessary because the relationship of the two parties has been damaged and it needs to be restored to holiness. Nothing new or surprising there.

As we consider this fact, we are led to ask the question, "what about the description of forgiveness fits with the idea of a single person 'forgiving himself'?" Has a person's relationship with himself been damaged by his sins? Do we even have a "relationship with ourselves"? Has he caused a breech in his relationship with himself? Are we speaking about the concept of a split personality (I doubt it!)? There is nothing, as far as I can tell, about the idea of "forgiving oneself" that fits with the technical definition of reconciliation. Admittedly, one can be upset with his own behavior and even be angry at something he has done, but that is not the same as being sinned against by another person. Furthermore, how would one forgive oneself -- "hello there me, I'm sorry for sinning against me, will I forgive myself?"

I do not believe that the phrase (or even the idea of) "forgiving oneself" ever occurs in Scripture or in any official Catholic documents (if anyone knows of a place I have missed, please write to me and let me know!). That, in itself, is a startling admission. Scripture, written over a span of some 1400 years by men in various circumstances, never once even mentions the idea of "forgiving oneself". The silence is deafening. Furthermore, if it does not show up in any official document of the Catholic Church or in the long history of approved Catholic theologians, we at least have to acknowledge that the Church does not consider it a primary concern in our spiritual well being.

Yet, in spite of this lack of reference in virtually all the areas that matter for us as Catholics, numerous people speak about it as though it were an essential factor of the Christian life. That alone says that we should make some kind of comment on whether we should be concerned with it. So then, what is it that people mean when they say that someone has to "forgive himself"? Although there are numerous times when I have been upset with something that I did, I cannot say that I ever felt that I needed to "forgive myself"; does that mean I am calloused (I hope not).

After many years of serving in the pastoral field (both in Catholic and Protestant circles), I believe that many (if not all) of those who talk about "forgiving oneself" are merely using the phrase inaccurately. I do believe that it is a genuine issue that they speak of, but that their terminology is off. Therefore, let me attempt to summarize what I believe is going on. It is my opinion that when someone says "he needs to forgive himself" that he is referring to the need to deal appropriately with the guilt he is feeling for his bad behavior. This may seem simplistic, but I think it goes to the heart of the matter; in addition, I believe most of those who say they "need to forgive themselves" would agree with this. It is their feelings of guilt that leads them to this claim.

The subject of guilt is one that the Church has very often discussed, and has a good deal of literature defining and explaining it. When someone is experiencing the burden of guilt, and does not know how to deal with it in the proper (and godly) manner, he can describe that by the terminology of "forgiving yourself" (despite the problems that entails). Personally, I would like to get rid of that specific usage. The phrase is confusing and a bit misguided. Furthermore, I have had a number of people say to me "I cannot forgive others until I forgive myself". If we, however, translate that into a more accurate terminology, they would be saying "I cannot forgive others until I deal with my guilt", which is decidedly false.

There is nothing about our personal feelings of guilt that prevents us from forgiving another person. In fact, it is often our guilt that is precisely what drives us to seek reconciliation with others (as when we realize how important it is to treat others the way we want to be treated by God). That would mean that large numbers of people who are saying that they "cannot yet forgive" someone are doing so for all the wrong reasons. I do not know every situation, but if someone is using their personal "guilt" as a reason not to forgive someone else, it sounds more like an excuse trying to mask itself as holiness.

So then, how does someone deal with guilt? I could, at this point, dazzle you with a complicated and technical explanation filled with psychological mumbo-jumbo. That will not happen. On the contrary, it is necessary for me to speak about the basics of our religion; the sacraments. Although I do not want to sound like a broken record, the right way to deal with guilt is in the confessional. Yes, I know many people say "I can't go to confession until I forgive myself (i.e. deal with my guilt)" but that is putting the cart before the horse. Our refusal to deal with our guilt properly may have the effect of sending us to eternal hell, but only when we come before God so that He may deal with our guilt does it have the effect of granting us eternal life.

Are you or someone you know struggling with "self-forgiveness"? If so, do not leave God out of the picture. He alone is able to deal fully with our guilt, and the feelings that go with it. I once knew a man who told me that he had to forgive himself before he would ask God to forgive. He died two weeks later; very unexpectedly. I pray that he was able to deal with his guilt properly before that day. Do not fall into the same trap and hold God at arm's length. Open yourself up to His grace and go to confession!

Spiritual Formation and the Priesthood

Recent blogs and articles in the press concerning an Ordinariate priest have raised a number of interesting questions about the situation of married priests. This has led many to begin to ask some hard questions (and a few to make some unkind accusations). I am not about to comment on what has been written. I do not have all the information, and it is not my place to deal with the situation; that is the responsibility of my Ordinary, Bishop Steven Lopes, and those whom he chooses to have assist him. I would, rather, like to consider the situation in a very broad manner to help those of my flock who are wrestling with the issues involved to be able to think clearly and in a godly manner.

In my opinion, what has happened shows that we need to look deeply at the process of spiritual formation. It is not merely a question of whether a married man can be a priest, it is whether a man can be a priest and be married at the same time. These are two different questions and we need to keep them separate. The first question only regards the possibility; the second regards one's ability. Receiving these two sacraments at the same time is extremely rare in the western Church, and when done the great responsibility that both place on the man make each of them harder to accomplish. A man could be a good husband and father, but a lousy priest, and another man could be a great priest but a lousy husband and father. One does not equate to the other. I know some married priests who have said that their abilities as a husband and father would enable them to be a better priest. I am not sure that is necessarily the case.

Furthermore, we have another factor in this that cannot be ignored. We are not asking these questions a thousand years ago; we are asking them in the midst of a "sexual revolution" that has resulted in what is possibly the greatest mass confusion about marriage the world has ever known. Thus, we cannot use old paradigms to consider whether it is a good idea to have married priests. We live in a culture that is oversexed, and under-knowledged. We live in a culture that has no idea what the Church means when it talks about men as heads of their homes, and that means that it is highly likely that many men (even those in the Church--which does not exclude priests, married or celibate) do not understand it either. Couple this with the fact that the family is under great attack right now, and we have even more potential for problems.

Contrary to what many have said, it is not any harder to be a good husband or wife than it was in the past. The issue is that it is more confusing today because of all the static that exists in society around us. Therefore, the fact that marriage is a relationship of self-sacrifice is not as clearly grasped by as many people today as it was just a couple hundred years ago when most understood sacrifice better than we do now. The role of husband as head of the home means a role of self-sacrifice for wife and children; the role of the priest as head of his parish is a role of self-sacrifice for parishioners. Each one makes the other more difficult because the man is required to sacrifice in two different directions at the same time, and in today's context it is even more challenging to accomplish both and do them well.

I am going to be bold and say that when a married man is being considered for holy orders, for him to have a "good" marriage is not sufficient. "Good" in a society where vast numbers of people are cohabiting and where divorce is rampant is not a very promising category. From my own experience as a married Catholic priest (for almost 6 years now) and a married protestant clergyman (for 16 years before that), if my marriage had been "average" we would likely not be together today. We have gone through some difficult things in our years, and joining the Catholic Church (though a decision we rejoice over) was incredibly stressful. Only an extra-strong marriage could endure those challenges. That means that anything less than an "well above average" marriage cannot hold through the increased stresses that come upon a man in priestly ministry.

This is why the Apostle Paul said in the first century context that married clergy needed to be more faithful and holy than most (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2-5, and Titus 1:6). The very fact that he has to point this out says that not every man was qualified to be called to holy orders, and that the holiness in his home has to be higher than average if he is going to be able to fulfill the tasks of priestly ministry "for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's Church?" (1 Tim 3:5).

There are many who say whenever a problem arises, "there's one more reason not to have married priests in the Catholic Church". Does marriage changes a man's susceptibility to temptations? Would we get rid of any problems if all priests were celibate or would the same sins be committed in another manner? Those who think that is the solution are showing a complete misunderstanding of what the subject matter really is. Bad things do not happen merely "because" a man is married. They happen because of a man's own inner spiritual formation (or lack thereof). If a man is prone to losing his temper, does he more easily lose his temper because he is married? No, it is just more noticeable because we sympathize more for a wife and children who are yelled at than we do for, say, a cleaning lady, or another priest.

It would be foolish for us to imagine that any sin is caused by the fact that a man is married (as though marriage necessarily prevents a man from resisting temptation to sin). We could compare this to the priestly sexual abuse of adolescent boys (which is what the majority of today's scandals involve!). Was their behavior caused by the fact that they were celibate? No, of course not. Therefore, if those same men were not priests, they would still have likely given in to their inclinations. It is not the situation of "being a priest and being married" any more than it is the situation of "being a priest and being celibate". It is, like I said above, an issue of spiritual formation, which cannot be rushed ("Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure" 1 Timothy 5:22).

I am not here seeking to criticize anyone in particular (and if you think that is my intent, you have gravely misunderstood what I have said); I am merely seeking to make sure that our thinking is clear when we struggle with news reports and blogger's claims, and giving some thoughts about how we can move forward. As is often my habit, I like to make sure that we are getting to the heart of the matter and not wasting our time with extraneous details. For those who can do something about this (especially my Bishop) I pray for you, and encourage others to do the same. May God be merciful to us as we seek to serve Him in all holiness.