A "Pernicious Irenicism"

In addition, it is necessary to comment about ecumenism. The Apostolic See praises, undoubtedly, those who promote initiatives, in the spirit of the conciliar Decree on Ecumenism, that foster charity toward our separated brothers and to draw them to unity in the Church. However, it is regrettable that some interpret the conciliar Decree in their own terms, proposing an ecumenical action that offends the truth about the unity of the faith and of the Church, fostering a pernicious irenicism [the error of creating a false unity among different Churches] and an indifferentism entirely alien to the mind of the Council.

(Paragraph 10 of "Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences regarding some sentences and errors arising from the interpretation of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council" published by the CDF, July 1966)

What is "ecumenism"? The above paragraph says that many in the Church after the Second Vatican Council had seriously misunderstood it. I recall once telling someone that part of the mission of the Ordinariate was to help to bring protestants into full communion with the Catholic Church. The response I got was, "Why would you do that? If we are all Christians just with different traditions, then there is no need for that". The key word in "separated brethren" might seem to be "brethren", but it is actually "separated". They are separated from the Church, and not in communion with the Body of Christ. That is not a neutral issue.

The letter I quoted above was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome in 1966. That means it was only a year after the close of the Council. The very fact that it had to be published at all shows how far things had gone astray so quickly (and there are a number of other concerns that are stated in the letter that we do not have time to cover here). Notice the phrase "pernicious irenicism". The bracketed words that define what that is referring to are from the original (you can see them on the Vatican website page that displays this document). It is an "error" that creates a "false unity". Something that is "pernicious" causes great harm. Therefore, a "pernicious irenicism" refers to a false "peace" that leads souls into eternal danger.

To promote the idea that Protestantism and Catholicism are merely two different ways to practice Christianity is exactly what the CDF was aiming at condemning. Sadly, I must say that it does not appear that Rome was successful in combating this. I still meet devout Catholics who think that Catholicism is just another denomination in a sea of choices. This is why they often have no problem when their children marry non-Catholics (which the Church still says is not normally supposed to be done except in special circumstances and with express permission).

To pretend that there is a "false unity" between Protestants and Catholics is what leads to people frowning when Catholics seek to evangelize Protestants (which you should still do, by the way). I recall someone telling me that when he first visited a Catholic Church and said he wanted to convert, that the priest told him he did not have to do so since he was already a Christian, and there was no real difference between Catholics and Protestants (!). He knew that something was wrong, and so he kept searching around until he found a priest who would help him to convert.

Yes, our separated brethren do have baptism, and that is a wonderful grace. They do not, however, have all the sacraments, and therefore do not have all the grace that God makes available for us to help us toward salvation. Why would anyone want to keep their protestant brothers from receiving the fullness of grace? Protestantism has many errors in it (some of which can be detrimental to one's salvation) but it does have some truths (trinity, creation, etc). This is why it is best to view protestant teaching as a truncated form of Catholicism. They have lost some of the key elements that help us to come to Christ (and added in some things that keep people from Christ).

So, if you were not sure before, you should be sure now. Evangelize, teach, and guide people to come to Lord through His holy, Catholic Church. This means, most especially, our brethren who are protestant. They are so close to the faith and merely need to brought into the fullness of it. Help them by showing them that the amazing grace that God has offered is more than just some internal feelings; it is the fullness of the sacraments, and it involves the communion with all the Saints. They are very much like the prodigal son (I know, I was there for years) who needs to be pointed home. Let us be faithful to the Church's teaching, and reach out to those who are out of communion; without compromise.

The Value of Fear

There was once a 14 year old boy who was reading a scary story. One night he read a particularly frightening chapter right before going to bed and found that he was not able to sleep all night. The next day his mother scolded him for falling asleep at the breakfast table. He told her what he had done, and then asked whether it was a sin to read a scary story since the Bible says that "perfect love casts out all fear". Good question; it deserves a good answer.

Fear, in itself, is not wrong. What is wrong is when we let fear overcome us. After reading a book (for example, about zombies) that frightens us, how do we deal with the fear? If it keeps us up all night, then the fear is overcoming us. If we consider the situation, think it through, and trust the Lord to help us, then we are overcoming the fear. When we give in to fear (especially for things that we are not supposed to be afraid of) then it becomes our master and we are crippled by it. This is the fear that Jesus wants to rid us of.

There is actually a significant value in fear -- it is the natural response that God created in us to help us deal with dangerous situations. It alerts us to our need to deal with things, and if we protect children from any and all experiences of fear, then we will be preventing them from dealing with life. God does not want us to live life in terror--of course not--but He does want us to be able to deal with anything that this world sends our way. Fear alerts us so that we can turn to the Lord and overcome the fear. As has been said, bravery is not the absence of fear, but courage while one is afraid.

When we experience a trial or a difficulty in our lives, our Lord does not desire that we respond like we are living in a "Prozac" stupor. Fear is that internal response that tells us that we need to call upon Christ Jesus for help and then prepare ourselves for what is to come. If everything is "calm and peaceful" in our hearts when things are falling apart around us, then we will not be thinking clearly about what we are supposed to be doing. Even Jesus said there are things that we are supposed to be afraid of (cf. Matthew 10:28). To eliminate all fear from our lives is like eliminating smoke detectors from our homes; fear tells us that something is wrong. It is not this kind of fear that perfect love drives out.

No, this is not just a shameless plug for scary movies (as many of you know, I do like them, but I would write this even if I did not). Many "scary movies" are just blood and guts portrayed for sadistic people; that is not what I would ever encourage. The people who produce those have something seriously wrong with them. I do, however, encourage parents to expose their children (of course at age appropriate times) to "scary stuff". This does not mean that everyone should watch scary movies or read scary books, but it does mean that we each need to learn how to deal with a scary world. The fact is, though, that not all scary stories or movies are filled with hideous violence; some have great moral lessons, and some even come from true events that clearly give support to the Church's teachings on evil and the demonic realm.

I am one of those people who, oddly enough, thinks that boys and girls should be raised differently because they were created differently (no "co-ed" stuff in our homeschool). Because of this, I often (especially lately) encourage parents to be sure to "toughen up" their boys by having them learn how to deal with the scary stuff in life. Our children (boys and girls) should not be brought up in a sanitized, sterilized, secure bubble that prevents them from realizing the world is fallen.

One way to help children learn how to deal with this fallen world, is by exposing them to "safe" scary stuff (stories, etc.). A book is "safe" because you can actually put it down and consider what you would do if you were in the same circumstances as the characters (think of the Hardy Boys books). This is one of the greatest values of it; to train the mind in "what would I do" scenarios. Of course, you do not want to show them the movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" when they are 10 years old, so there is always supposed to be a clear discernment of what a child is ready for.

I know of a family who agrees with what I am saying in principle, but they have (in my opinion) ignored proper restraints. This same family allows their children to read and view things that are vastly inappropriate for the maturity level of the children (or maybe I should say, the lack of maturity). I warned them about it long ago, but they believe that "everything will be fine". Time will tell, but this is a common habit today. A deep discernment is required in this effort (I cannot say this too much!), so I do not encourage people to be haphazard in making these decisions.

Our family does not "do Halloween", but the principles behind a "playful scare" are exactly what I am speaking about. A "scary challenge" that makes the mind respond with "how should I deal with this?" is the way that we attune ourselves to being ready for when the challenge is actually life threatening. Consider children play-wrestling (what I call "wrassling"); they are just having fun, but they are also learning how to deal with real life situations that they may encounter someday (and should be guided by their parents in this).

As the civil governments continue to seek more and more laws to prevent every possible accident from occurring, we should realize that there will never be enough laws for that; and that is a good thing. God occasionally wants us to "skin our knee" so that we can better deal with how to respond when it is more than just skinned, but broken. All of these little challenges are the things that help children to grow into the wise and mature adults that their parents want them to be. Parents, will you give your children this extra help that they need?

Chastity and Modesty

This last week I was in Houston at the Ordinariate Clergy Assembly. We meet once a year to be with our Bishop, to reconnect with those who live far away, and to study a subject that our Bishop wants us to learn about. This year, not surprisingly, we spent the majority of our time hearing lectures about the Church's teaching on family, sexuality, and how to help guide those who struggle with the confusion that exists today surrounding these topics.

One subject that was touched on in more than one lecture was the impact that homosexuality has on society. This got me to thinking ("chicken and egg" fashion) on how homosexual thinking and society have mutually fed each other over the last few decades. Let me explain. Does society fall into various sins, and then encourage homosexuality, or does homosexuality rise up and then encourage other sins? It happens to be both, and it is almost impossible to determine which really comes first. There is one specific pattern, though, that we cannot ignore.

This pattern that I am referring to is almost universally the case whenever a society falls into the mortal sin of sodomy. Before sodomy can become accepted in a society, chastity must be compromised. It may sound overly simplistic, but let us consider this for a brief moment. As the Church clearly teaches, any deviation from the law of God is sinful, and homosexual practices are always gravely sinful. There are many sexual sins that exist, but sodomy is clearly contrary to nature itself; it is a rejection of the created order of God. Therefore, we should never accept the notion that sodomy is anything less than an extreme perversion.

How, then, does the devil accomplish the widespread acceptance of such an immoral act? It can only come about if he is able to loosen sexual morals on a broad scale. Once the basic idea of chastity (i.e. sexual self control) is doubted (by whatever means he chooses to do this), then it is just a matter of time before more and more sexual sin is practiced. Consider it this way: if theft is common in a society, then respect for personal property has been weakened; if hatefulness and anger are common in a society, then love of God and neighbor have been weakened; likewise, if homosexual behavior is common in a society, then chastity has been weakened. The devil has to beat down the good before he can promote the bad.

You may be asking yourself: how do we get out of this quagmire? There are three things that parents need to be teaching their children (and be doing so specifically before they hit puberty). The first is chastity, the second is modesty, and the third is chastity. In other words, do not allow them to get the slightest impression that the general perspective of the majority of Hollywood entertainment has any idea what sexuality actually is. We need to explain to children (once they are old enough to understand) that what Hollywood calls "romance" is closer to chimpanzees mating in the wild than to genuine godly love. They need to learn that God's laws of chastity are for the express purpose of granting us greater joy in sexuality rather than less!

How does one teach modesty in an immodest world? The easiest way that this is done is by teaching children how to dress in a manner that is becoming of a chaste heart and soul. Modesty is always beautiful (as G.K. Chesterton once said), and the habits of modesty must be ingrained into a child in his first few years of life. If you see a child that is dressing immodestly when she is 8, then that child will be dressing immodestly when she is 18. Parents, lost ground can always be made up, but it is always harder to do so. Furthermore, do not let Hollywood teach your children what is appropriate to wear; set a clear and holy standard for them and stick with it.

Chastity used to be an assumed part of a child's upbringing in the Church (maybe it became "too assumed" and people got lax about it?), now we must take extra steps to ensure that our children know what it means (remember, the world is going to try to teach them that it is bad). Boys especially must be taught how to respond to immodesty; what it means to "avert the eyes" rather than to gawk at something that is immodest. This also means that parents must exemplify modesty. Think about it Moms and Dads: do you dress modestly yourselves? How about the magazines that you allow in the home, or the commercials you ignore on the tv? This all comes into play when we are dealing with teaching our children to be holy. Either you will teach them to appreciate God's laws, or you will teach them to ignore them and accept the world's immorality; which will it be?

Washing the Dishes?

I once heard, second hand, about a comment that a priest made after a Mass wherein the celebrating priest obeyed the rubrics (gosh!). The comment was: "washing the dishes is not part of the liturgy". He was referring to the portion of the Mass after the distribution of communion where the priest (or deacon) purifies the sacred vessels (either at the altar or at the credence table). Aside from the fact that it is part of the liturgy (the rubrics define specifically how it is to be done), the manner in which he referred to it was crass and disrespectful of the celebration of the Mass.

The proper term for this purification is the "ablutions"; which means the "rinsing" or "cleaning". The reason we use a technical term like "ablution" is to separate this event from any other cleaning that occurs in common experience. The Church will frequently single out specific terms to signify holy things. We do not call them "liturgy clothes" but "vestments"; we do not call it "snack time" but "communion"; nor do we say "chief executive officer" but "priest". So terms really do matter (whether we like it or not).

In addition, there is another aspect of the ablutions that cannot be considered insignificant. What is going on in the ablutions is not merely getting things "cleaned up" (as though it were no different than sweeping the floor). The priest is carefully making sure that every drop of precious blood, and every particle of the body of Christ is properly tended to. They cannot just be "tossed out" (does any Catholic really think that it is acceptable to "toss out" Jesus?). The careful and meticulous purification may seem to be just a "housecleaning" item in the Mass (no pun intended), but it is much more.

As one parishioner once told me, "Father, watching you clean those vessels after communion is a powerful reminder that it is the actual divinity of Christ in the Sacrament". You may not have ever considered that part of the Mass to be of a devotional nature, but it was for that one parishioner (and that was someone who was referring to the Divine Worship Mass where I am not facing the people during the ablutions!). For those in parishes where the priest is versus populum (facing the people) you should be even more aware of this fact! It may seem like merely coincidental, but the fact that the laity are supposed to be praying at that time (which is made quite difficult when a hymn is being sung) is a helpful reminder of the reverence they are supposed to have regarding what they just received.

Although the rubrics do allow for a priest (or even an appointed lay minister) to do the ablutions after Mass "in a reverent manner", what does it say when the priest just scoots the vessels aside and will "get to it later"? I am sure that for many the motivation is to make Mass go quicker (where does God ever say that this is a worthy goal?). What does it teach people if this is how priests treat the celebration of the Eucharist? It says, pretty much, the exact opposite of tending to every single crumb and drop by carefully and respectfully cleaning the sacred vessels. One says "take it easy and relax, this will be over soon", while the other says "do not rush this, we are dealing with the things of God".

Taking the ablutions as one example, how do we properly show respect during the Mass? If you are participating in the Mass just hoping it will get finished soon (though the way many priests today say Mass, I can sympathize with the sentiment at times) then you are not approaching it with a godly heart. Whether you are a clergyman or layman, do not rush through the Mass as though the whole point is to make the people happy. The whole point of the Mass is to make God happy (which can only be done by obeying Him and His words). Take time with the Mass, do not rush it; take time with your spirituality and devotions to Christ. Nothing worth doing should be rushed through.

Broken Vows

(Although this post was written before Archbishop Vigano's most recent testimony, the content of this post remains the same since it merely confirms what I have said.)

Vows. Do you have any? Have you ever taken a vow? If you have been baptized, you took a vow (even if it was through your parents). If you were confirmed, you took a vow. Married people take vows. And of course, as we all know, clergymen take vows when they are ordained. In case there is any confusion, that means that deacons, priests and bishops take vows. Ordinarily today, priestly vows include a vow of celibacy, which I (especially as a married priest) highly respect and consider to be a non-negotiable custom of the Church.

So, as we consider the vow of celibacy that priests take, I (sadly) feel the need to make them clear. A vow of celibacy is just that: a vow that the man will remain celibate (no sexual activity of any kind, with anyone, ever). No, I am not being insensitive to my brother priests who are celibate (ask those who know me best). A vow is a vow, and it must be held. My vows are to chastity, and theirs are also to chastity. Because I am married does not make my vows "easy" and theirs "difficult". A celibate man must maintain his vows in the manner he was called, and I must maintain my vows in the manner that I am called (cf. 1 Cor 7:17).

This leads me to my point. As I have said before, when a priest breaks his priestly vows (in any area) it makes it easier to break his vows in another. If he has broken the rules in the liturgy or in personal counsel, then he is more susceptible to the temptation to break his vows of celibacy as well. Thus, when a priest falls into sexual sin, we cannot limit the issue to saying that he is a "pedophile" or even a "sodomite" in his behavior. He is a vow-breaker; that is the real issue before God. He has shown himself to have broken his priestly vows and cannot be treated the same as the priest who sinned by being mean to a parishioner. He has broken one of the most specific aspects of his priestly ordination (whether he is married or celibate!).

I cannot be clear enough about how tired I am about hearing that people are concerned with sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults as though the breaking of ordination vows is small matter. Yes, that is a grave sin, and I do not deny that for a moment. Yet, these sins are a by-product of the actual thing that we should be concerned about. The root sin is a disrespect for and a violation of one's vows to God. If we do not show a greater concern for clergy keeping their vows, then we will find even worse "clergy abuse" that what we are experiencing now! I know this might seem insensitive coming from me, but the vows that a priest takes on that day of ordination, are the vows he is bound by. Whether it would be a married priest with someone other than his wife, or a celibate priest with anyone at all, we are all required to be chaste.

While not neglecting the importance of protecting children and vulnerable adults (or non-vulnerable adults for that matter), we need to begin to work harder at taking all vows seriously. How serious are you about the vows of your baptism and confirmation? We all know that marriage vows should be taken seriously, but how often are those vows worked on beyond just issues of sexual purity ("for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health...I plight thee my troth")? The very concept of vows has been treated lightly for far too long. Parents: show it to your children, teach it to your children, live it for your children. While we are praying for the victims of abuse, let us also pray for broken vows to be restored and for greater faithfulness to our vows (especially in our clergy).

Good Fathers

What does a good father look like? Now, when you read that question, what type of "father" did you have come to mind? Were you thinking of a "biological" father or a "spiritual" father? Maybe both? There is a reason that the Catholic Church chose long ago to follow the example of St. Paul and use the term "father" for priests (e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:15--which, by the way, proves that St. Paul did not take Jesus' words in Matthew 23:9 literally). They wanted to acknowledge that the "fatherly" aspect of ecclesiastical leadership is essential.

So then, once again, what does a good father look like? It should be obvious that a good father will have similar traits whether we are speaking about biological or spiritual. There are four essential areas (not in order of importance) that I would like to propose as necessary behaviors for a good father. First, he will communicate to his family well. Second, he will show them how to reverence the Lord. Third, he will lead them firmly but gently. Fourth, he will prove to them that he loves them.

The first trait means that a priest will make sure that his homilies are clear, and helpful. He will spend time to prepare what he says, and never be satisfied with a cheap and careless personal commentary. For a dad, this means that he actually has to talk to his family. Yes, that may be a challenge for some out there, but imagine where we would be now if our Heavenly Father did not take the time to talk to us (!). Children whose fathers do not communicate well with them, are not going to be able to communicate well with others. I remember a child who was once falsely diagnosed with autism; it turned out that his "issues" were all due to bad examples he had learned from his father.

The second trait implies that a priest will celebrate a deeply reverent Mass for his "children". Only a proper understanding of our relationship with God will enable us to grow in righteousness. If we have a wrong view of the Lord (which will always be the result of irreverence) it will prevent us from relating to Him rightly. The manner that a priest celebrates Mass (which may be as simple as just obeying the rubrics--which seems to be rare today!) will determine how his people see the Lord. Likewise this means that a dad will choose a parish where the Mass is fully reverent and that he will also encourage that reverence in the rest of his family's practices (e.g. never allow children to say "oh God!" as an exclamation--it is taking the Lord's name in vain).

The third trait says that a priest needs to be a leader, not just a rubber stamp. One of the things that a priest is (supposed to be) trained to do is to guide a parish. His guidance must be clear (wishy washy priests are a plague on the Church) and his people must be able to have a good idea of what he expects of them. Yes, they will need to ask questions at times, but if they never know where he is at on any given subject, he is not leading; he is abdicating. Dads are no different. They should be firm and yet gentle in their leadership. Standing idly by while sin is going on and saying "what can you do?" is not what it means to be a dad. There are times when they need to rebuke, times when they need to correct, times when they need to encourage, but since (contrary to popular belief) the Catholic Church still says that the man is the head of the home, the dad always needs to lead.

The fourth and last trait is actually the hardest. Notice that I did not say that a father needs to "love his family" but that he needs to "prove his love" to his family. It is easy to say "they know I love them", but that is just a way of avoiding actually doing something that is directly loving in a way that they see it. Love is not something that we can just hold in our hearts. It is something shown by actions. For a priest, it means he will always be available for his people. He must be willing to sacrifice himself for their well being. A dad is no different. He is not called to be a dad so that he can make himself happy, but so that he can lead his wife and children to Christ, and they will not follow if they do not genuinely believe that he loves them unconditionally.

So, whether it is the father of a parish, or the father of a household, he must be a good father. Fathers have been attacked by the devil, and many of them are absentee fathers (both priests and dads!). It is time for a change in this pattern, and if dads in the home will work to be godly fathers as I have described above, then their sons will feel encouraged to be priests who will also be good fathers. We have our share of "bad fathers" in the clergy; those men who have harmed (physically and spiritually) their parish children (adult and minor) have created even more confusion about the priesthood than already existed. Let us turn the tide and work to return to holiness.

Don't Change Anything!

The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

These are the words of Pope John XXIII in his opening address for the Second Vatican Council in 1962 (the official title of the declaration is "Gaudet Mater Ecclesia"). It should be apparent that what he wanted, and what actually happened, are not the same thing. He said the purpose of the Council was to "...transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion..." If that had actually happened, where would be we today? The SSPX might never have been formed! The catechetical disaster of the 70's, 80's, and 90's might never have happened! The vast number of liturgical abuses of the 50's and 60's might never have taken root and been grandfathered in! What a world that would be.

Alas, however, it was not to be. Here we stand, struggling with all the doctrinal error, abuse, immorality, and compromise that has escalated over the last 40 years. Pope John XXIII essentially said, "don't change any doctrine, just figure out how to communicate it better" and what happened was almost the exact opposite. Many proclaimed doctrine changed, and most of the rest communicated the truth quite poorly. Think of the deeply heretical "catechism" published by the Dutch Bishops in 1966. Pope Paul VI spoke against it, but did not accomplish eradicating it (and I will not comment on how much effort he put into that task). People tried to change the truth. Even Bishops came out and admitted that they did not hold to Catholic dogma. They did not use such words, of course, but they did say things like "the Church doesn't teach that anymore" (as though that were possible).

I know that there are some who have said that Vatican II should not have happened in the first place. It had one intent, was seemingly "hijacked" in the middle, and ended up without a clear direction for the future. When various Bishops came back, they seemed to have given a "personal interpretation" to the documents and directives (quite a "protestant thing" to do, but then many of them did say that they wanted things more protestant in the Church). This leads me to believe that one of the biggest problems that occurred with what John XXIII and Paul VI wanted from the council was that they did not have all the Bishops on board with them.

Let me describe it another way. Imagine a priest who has a good idea for a parish (like restoring the tabernacle to its proper position in the center of the chancel). Imagine also that his Bishop is behind him one hundred percent. Should he move forward with it? Many may say yes. I would put a qualifier on it: he should not move forward until he has his people with him on it. You can make a small division into a big division if you press an issue prematurely; every clergyman should know this. It is possible that John XXIII thought he had that when opening Vatican II. I cannot say what Paul VI thought, but it should have been clear that he did not have that by the end of Vatican II.

Add into that mix the media influence (which Benedict XVI lamented) and you have a perfect setting for discord. In essence, I would say that the Church's Second Vatican Council although it intended to be pastoral in its focus, it failed. What failed was that it was not pastoral in its implementation. What would have happened if Paul VI had insisted on unity before ending the council? I suppose it is possible that it would still be going on today (Rome really knows how to drag things out!). Better, however, to have likemindedness (especially among clerics) than to allow for errors to be fostered.

Hindsight is 20/20, and I am not sure that what I have said is even that. I do know, however, that the manner in which truth is implemented is vital in its reception. I learned that from reading the documents of Vatican II! Yet, the manner in which the truth of God was sent out in the late 60's and early 70's was not very pastoral. Bishops who clearly disagreed with the authoritative documents (and John XXIII's desire "not to change any doctrine") were allowed to disseminate their errors. Many who did so were not even called to account for it or ever disciplined.

What can we learn from this? Only time will tell, but we are reaping the fruits of this lack of pastoral care. At the very least, let us learn what real pastoral care is. It is not to stand idly by and allow error to be taught. It is not to hide the hard truths and talk only about nice things. It is not to do nothing when sin is happening right in front of us. We should have learned that long before all the recent scandals (and maybe they happened precisely because we did not learn it!). May God have mercy on us.