Category: Moral Life

Posted on

DC Council Bill on Same-Sex”Marriage”

As you may be aware DC Council Member David Catania has introduced Legislation requiring the District to recognize so-called “Same-Sex Marriages.” Here is a statement from the Archdiocese of Washington. My own comments follow in RED below:

Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington on DC Council Bill to Redefine Marriage in the Nation’s Capital:

Marriage is a personal relationship with public significance. Marriage between a man and a woman transcends cultures, religions and all time. Marriage is about more than two people who love and are committed to each other.

 It also is about creating and nurturing the next generation. As natural law and biology dictate, this requires both a man and a woman. Men and women complement each other physically, psychologically and emotionally and each has distinctive gifts for a child’s upbringing. They are not interchangeable.

 Nature intends for children to have a mother and a father. Research tells us a healthy marriage with a father and mother provides the most stable and nurturing environment for a child. This is the reason that civil governments have given marriage special recognition throughout time.

 The bill introduced today by some members of the District of Columbia City Council to redefine marriage is at odds with marriage’s fundamental purpose. You cannot redefine biology.

 The “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009” is not about religious freedom. In fact, there are legitimate concerns that this legislation will result in a loss of religious liberty of the people of the District of Columbia. If passed, the bill could require Catholics to make choices between a “law” and the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church.

 This is the second time in six months that the DC City Council has sought to redefine marriage. In the spring, the Council pushed through a bill recognizing same sex marriages from other jurisdictions, without an opportunity for residents to give input.

 Today’s action by the DC City Council would put the District of Columbia in the minority nationwide. Forty states have constitutional or legislative protection of marriage, while only five states have redefined marriage. We urge our elected officials to respect the purpose of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for their mutual benefit and for the rights of children.

 A request for a ballot initiative to define marriage as between a man and a woman was filed by a coalition of groups in September. The Archdiocese of Washington submitted a letter supporting thatrequest before the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.

Learn more about marriage and the Catholic Church at www.MarriageMattersDC.org.

You will note that the Archdiocese in setting forth its objections has done so on the basis of Natural Law. Scripture is not quoted in the document. This is done in speaking to a secular world to make it clear that our objections are not on religious grounds only. They are also based on psychological, sociological and biological grounds. It is clear that nature itself intends that nurturing and raising a child is to be done under the influence of both a father and mother. Men and women are not interchangeable and both provide aspects of development that the other cannot simply supply. Men (fathers) have important things to teach their children. So do women (mothers). It is true that even in the world of nature, sometimes due to death, both parents cannot be present to raise the child but this is an exceptional situation and law should not be based on exceptional situations.

I am also pleased to see that the statement indicates the conception and raising of children to be “marriage’s fundamental purpose.” Many do not think of marriage in these terms today. They speak of it merely as existing for the happiness of the couple and the expression of their love. These purposes are not unimportant but marriage has its fundamental design from nature and God for the sake of children. Marriages should be heterosexual and stable (no divorce) for the better sake of children. Children are best served by a stable marriage where they are conceived and then nurtured by both a father and mother, receiving from their parents the complimentary witness of masculinity and femininity. This is what marriage is essentially and fundamentally about: the good of children. This is why the Church must oppose redefining marriage in this way. It also explains why the Church has opposed no-fault (easy and quick) divorce laws.

While it is true that the Archdiocese has spoken today on the grounds of Natural Law,  as seems necessary since not all share or agree to religious premises, many of you who read this blog do accept religious grounds as a basis for discussion. For that reason I might encourage you to read a previous post at this blog which discusses the biblical basis for opposing same-sex “marriage.” You can read it here: Same Sex Marraige is Contrary to Biblical Teaching I also preached a sermon on this topic that you can listen to or download to iPod here: Sermon on Same Sex “Marriage“

Please note that the Church’s position is both principled and respectful. There are bigots in our world today who may reject Gay Marriage from less than noble motives. But the Church is the servant of God’s Word and the Natural Law. We cannot be otherwise and we cannot thus remain silent on this matter. But we speak with respect and from a principled poosition that reverences what God has taught us an told us to proclaim.

Posted on

Street Cred on Healthcare

So many voices, so much disagreement, so many dollar signs, it’s pretty hard to stay engaged in the healthcare debate, yet we know it is really important—that it will make a difference in the lives of the people we love. You may be trying to figure out what questions are most important and what answers can be trusted.  I suggest you turn to the Catholic Church for answers—we are one of the largest health care providers in the United States

Street Cred

 We are a credible voice and a significant player in the debate. Where does our experience come from?

–624 Catholic Hospitals

–499 Catholic Long-Term Care Nursing facilities

–164 Home Health Associations

–41 Hospice Organizations

 In our facilities and through our healthcare professionals we have responded to:

–More than 16.9 million emergency room visits

— More than 92.7 million outpatient visits

— 5,542,314 admissions

 As an institution we are involved in all aspects of healthcare. As an employer we pay salaries and providing coverage. As a provider we stretch resources to meet needs. As a servant of the Gospel we respond to all those who come through our doors, always protecting the dignity of human life in all of its stages.

 Stay Informed and get involved – Make a difference!

 It’s important we participate in the debate and let our voice be heard.  It is an example where the voice of the Church has so much to offer the world—to be messengers of good news. To stay engaged in the debate, bookmark http://www.usccb.org.  (the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ website) and http://www.mdcathcon.org/(The Maryland Catholic Conference). Both of these organizations have professional lobbyists who follow the debate, read the fine print of the legislation, and reflect on it in light of the great tradition of Catholic social teaching. They are working hard to ensure that the healthcare reform legislation reflects a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity providing access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal immigrants. They advocate for the pursuit of the common good and preserving pluralism which includes freedom of conscience and variety of options restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

If you think about it, from the time of Christ, it has been the mission of the Church to share in the healing ministry of Jesus, in a spiritual way through the sacraments and in a temporal way through active participation in healthcare, we bring to the table 2,000 years of healing the spirit, mind and body.

You can make a difference.  Click on and get involved.

Posted on

Fitness Magazines and Hot Wings

man-on-futon-reading-magazine-200Once in a while my girlfriends and I get to talking about guys we’ve dated and the problem of pornography. Msgr. Pope discussed the main issue in his post about internet pornography, but I want to take the discussion a step further and explore some other places where porn lurks.

Pornography: material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement (Merriam-Webster)

A few years back I was dating a “nice Catholic boy” and one afternoon we were watching TV and he picked up a fitness magazine that had recently come in the mail. As he was thumbing his way through, he got to a page featuring a topless woman, arms strategically crossed across her chest.

“Now that’s nice!” he said.

I snatched the magazine, rolled it up, and smacked him over the head.

“What was that for?” he asked, surprised by my reaction.

I had to explain to him that while the female body is beautiful, this woman had unfortunately sold her body to the fitness magazine. (I wonder how much she thought her beauty was worth?) Now he was seeing a very intimate view of her that he had no right to, and the most respectful thing he could do would be to not take advantage of her vulnerability.

He thought I was overreacting.

In college, I dated another “nice Catholic boy” who informed me that he and some friends had gone to Hooters for dinner. The thought of scantily-clad waitresses leaning over the table to set down their steaming plates of hot wings was very upsetting, and I tried to explain my concern. It centered around the fact that as I was making an effort to dress modestly he decided to get around that barrier by pleasing his senses on women who voluntarily dressed immodestly.

He passed the situation off as “no big deal.”

Gentleman: Yes, these are big deals and no, we are not overreacting. It is very hurtful to be in a relationship with someone who does not respect your womanhood, your beauty, or your mystery.

Here is what I would ask:
1) pray for purity of heart and mind
2) cancel subscriptions to magazines featuring erotic pictures or advertisements of any kind
3) don’t go to Hooters (or other bars and restaurants featuring scantily-clad women)
4) call your friends out on this “small stuff” and support each other in respecting women

(Yes, we women have unhealthy fantasies of our own which I will address in a future post.)

Posted on

“Same-Sex Marriage”is Contrary to Biblical Teaching on Marriage

Marr_JamWr09_webThis week in most parishes of the Archdiocese of Washington, priests are being asked to review with their congregations some basic teachings on marriage and to explain why the Church opposes (so-called) “same-sex Marriage.”

The Archdiocese has issued a flyer to be placed in every bulletin and you can read it here:  MARRIAGE FLYER. But rather than repeat what is said there I would like to add some additional insights.

There are many good reasons to oppose same-sex “marriage,” some of them sociological, some of them psychologicalal. But, at the end of the day, the most fundamentalal reason that the Roman Catholic Church opposes a redefinition of marriage is that the Church is the steward and guardian of the truth God has given us in the Scriptures and formal Teachings of the Church. Many people want the Church to do what she simply cannot do. The Church is NOT ABLE to throw scripture and natural law overboard. We must continue to insist on what scripture teaches. We cannot nullify it. The Church has received the mandate to preach and teach God’s word whether in season or out of season. Whether popular or unpopular (2 Tim 4:2).

God established marriage in the Book of Genesis and we are taught the following essentials about marriage there:

  1. It was not good for Adam to be alone. He needed a “suitable partner.” (Genesis 2:18) Now notice the word “suitable”  a word which the dictionary defines as “apt, proper or fitting.”
  2. The suitable partner for Adam is first of all human – for none of the animals proved to be suitable for Adam. (Gen 2:20)
  3. The suitable partner for Adam was a woman. God created Eve, a woman, not Steve, a man. (Gen 2:22)
  4. The suitable partner for Adam  was one woman. For God did  not created Eve and Ellen and Jane and Sue. Hence polygamy is not of God’s design. True enough a number of the Old Testament Patriarchs DID have more than one wife. But what the Bible reports as a fact does not necessarily imply approval. Fact is, the Bible shows how polygamy ALWAYS leads to trouble. As Biblical  history unfolds, polygamy begins to disappear.
  5. Adam is to enter a stable relationship  with his suitable partner Eve for the text says that man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife (Gen 2:24). To cling means to adhere, to stick like glue. Hence, divorce and disunity are not part of God’s vision for marriage. Husbands and wives are to strive for unity and stability by God’s grace. The easy (no-fault) divorce of our culture is hostile to God’s plan for marriage. Couples should not seek easy ways out, they should do the work necessary to preserve union and stability in their commitment of marriage.
  6. Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28). Now here is the essential rationale as to why their marriage should be stable and heterosexual. In the first place marriage should be stable because that is what is best for children. Secondly, the procreation and rearing of children is an ESSENTIAL end of marriage. Some argue that gay couples can adopt. True enough, under civil law, they can adopt but they cannot procreate. Their ability to procreate is instrincally impossible. It is true that some older couples cannot have children and they are able to marry in the Church. But their infertility is due to a natural quality given by God. It is intrinsic to the feminine nature that fertility decreases with age and ultimately ceases. Homosexual union is intrinsically sterile an can never meet the requirement of being fruitful and multiplying. Adoption is not procreation.
  7. Jesus reiterates the teachings of Genesis in Matthew 5 and 19 (inter al.) saying that “At the beginning God made them, male and female….hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two  of them become one flesh.” Jesus does not say a man clings to his partner, rather his “wife.” Jesus then says with his own authority: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” This text surely forbids divorce but one might also argue a wider interpretation wherein Jesus forbids us to tamper with what God has established. (cf Matt 19:varia)

Here then is the data of Scripture. The Church is the guardian of Scripture. We are not free to tear out pages, cross out sentences, substitute words etc. Some claim we are simply bigots, homophobes, or whatever the latest name or label  they wish to attach. But in the end the Church can do nothing other than to uphold what God definitively teaches us. We are to do this in season and out of season. Right now, insofar as popular culture goes, we are “out of season,”  but faithful to the Word of God anyway we speak. We can do no other.

Posted on

An Heroic Life

  • For all things work together for good  
  • unto them that love God  and are called
  • according to His purpose
  • (Rom 8:28 )

Every now and then we hear of the concept of a “life not worth living.” Some people seem to have so many challenges. Sometimes these are known before birth. Maybe it’s Down Syndrome, maybe limbs are missing, perhaps other defects are evident in the sonograms. In such cases some people start to think of abortion. Later in life if tragedy strikes some think of  euthanasia, and suicide.

But it is an amazing truth that often God raises up before us those who are severely challenged but still love their life. Here is the story of a man who lives heroically, despite having no limbs. How is it possible you might say? Well, behold the Man:

Posted on

What Was A Prophet Like?

We often like to read from and quote the prophets. But if you’ve ever met a real prophet you know that being in the presence of a real prophet can be very disturbing. Prophets were famous for goring every one’s ox. No one left the presence of a prophet untouched. So troubling were the prophets of old, including Jesus, that most of them were persecuted, jailed, stoned, exiled and killed. Most of the Biblical prophets were beyond controversial they were way over the top. Prophets denounced sin and injustice in the strongest language announcing doom to a nation that refused to repent. Many Israelites thus considered them unpatriotic and downright dangerous. They justified throwing them into prison for their lack of patriotism and for the way their words questioned and upset the status quo and the judgements of those who held power. To many,  these were dangerous men who had to be stopped.

Jesus, though essentially our savior, also adopted the role of a prophet. Listen to these words as he denounces the people of his day for their rejection of his prophetic message. In this they are just like their fore-bearers who rejected the prophets:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you avoid being sentenced to Hell?!  (Matt 23:29ff)

Many of us today like to think that, had we lived in Jesus’ time we would surely be on his side. But, truth be told, prophets can be hard to endure and Jesus had “difficult” things to say for everyone. Honestly, most of us struggle with the truth to some extent. And especially we moderns who prefer a more gentle discourse with large doses of honey and very little vinegar.  We probably would wince as we walked along with Jesus. Jesus was more “plain spoken” than we are usually comfortable with. If we are honest, when we read the prophets and Jesus we will come away with much to repent of.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Consider this video clip. It is of a modern prophet named Vernon Johns. In the early 1950s he was Pastor of the Dexter Avenue  Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama. The Black Congregation that hired him was a rather sleepy congregation. In the face of rather awful racial discrimination, they preferred to remain silent and therefore safe. Vernon Johns tried to wake them from their sleep, but to no avail. They were too afraid (yet) to take a prophetic stand. Eventually Vernon Johns was arrested as a trouble maker and the Board of Deacons fired him. But Johns had laid a foundation for the next Pastor of Dexter Baptist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Within a few years Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and the Bus Boycott was on. The rest is history. This clip is of VernonJohns final sermon where in finest prophetic tradition he denounces racism. But NO ONE escapes his vivid denunciations. Watch this clip and behold what it must have been like with the prophets of old, even Jesus. Behold the prophet!  No one escapes! In the end of the  clip, his daughter who had stood against her Father’s zeal sings “Go Down Moses.” The choir director who had also opposed him likewise stands to sing. The seed is planted even as the prophet is led away by the police.

Posted on

Thoughts on 9/11 – On Turning the Other Cheek and Legitimate Self Defense

Most of us remember well that terrible  day 8 years ago when terrorists ruthlessly attacked us. Although that day is etched deeply in most of our memories, what may have slipped away is how we experienced September 12 and the days that followed. We wondered, was this the first of many more attacks? Was another shoe about to drop? How would we protect ourselves from new attacks? There was a lot of anxiety in the days and weeks that followed.  But most people agreed, this nation had to protect itself from further attack. We needed to identify our enemy and end the threat that enemy posed.

In the weeks, months and years that followed this Country undertook significant actions to end the threat posed to us by Al Qaeda. The problem was that this enemy did not live in a single region or country. The field of battle was difficult to define. The army we faced wore no uniforms and lived among non-combatants. Opinions began to differ widely as to the best way to address the threat posed to us.

Among Christians who reflected on what to do, Biblical teaching, the example and words of Jesus present definite challenges  to those who proposed a strong military solution. Jesus seems so clear and unequivocal when he teaches in this regard:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well….”You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, (Matt 5:38-44)

What a text! It is so radical as it seems to exclude self-defense. What does it mean to offer no resistance to one who is evil? When you are attacked Jesus does not say “defend yourself” he says “turn the other cheek.” So radical does this text seem to most that they are overwhelmed and simply turn the page. Is this a call to radical pacifism? Does it mean that a Nation should have no police force, no judicial system, no army?

Instead of turning the page, we might do well to reflect on the message of a text like this. Perhaps some observations and clarifications are due here:

  1. The text seems to be more about matters of personal dignity than actual physical attack. True, the strike on the cheek seems quite physical, but in the ancient world such attacks were understood as an attack on one’s personal dignity no so much a grave physical threat. This is true even today. Being slapped on the face is not a devastating threat to our physical well-being. Rather it is an insult. In the ancient world one who wished to humiliate struck (always with the open right hand) the left cheek of the person. This was an indignity but not the worst one that could be inflicted. The worst insult was to strike the right cheek of a person with the back of your right hand. So what Jesus is describing here is a question of dignity. His basic teaching then is that if some one tries to rob you of your dignity by a slap on the cheek, realize that your dignity is not in what others think of you. Realize that your dignity is given by God and no one can take from you. Show this by offering your other cheek. Don’t stand on your precious dignity, don’t retaliate to regain your dignity. The one who struck didn’t give you your dignity and they cannot take it away.
  2. Hence this text is not about defending from life threatening physical attack, it is a text about personal dignity. All the getting back at others because they offended you or did not praise you, or poked fun at you, or did not give you your due, all the revenge for stuff like that ends because it no longer matters to you, at least not when Jesus starts to live his life in you.
  3. So this text has a cultural context that would not necessarily require us to interpret Jesus’ words as an absolute exclusion of legitimate self defense in moments of serious physical threat.

But any distinctions I have made above by way of explanation cannot remove the core of Jesus’ message which is meant to limit our retaliation and remove from it anything “personal” other than the protection of life from imminent threat or significant injustice.

This then serves as background to the Church’s very careful and thoughtful approach to necessary self-defense. The Catechsim sets forth this teaching in its exposition of the 5th Commandment (Thou Shall not Kill). Here are some excerpts:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…. The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:  If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful….

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

2267 ….the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If however non-lethal means are sufficient…authority will limit itself to such means….the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity  are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However…governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 1- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3- there must be serious prospects of success; 4- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

So, some reflections on 9/11. How have we done? It seems we had a right to defend ourselves by discovering our enemy who so threatened us and removing this threat. I do not claim that we got it all right and that every action of ours was right. Indeed, if I can leave you with one “take away” from this reflection it might be this: Self defense and the ending of unjust aggression can never be something we do lightly and without reflection. The Lord and the Church require of us serious reasons for bringing lethal blows even to enemies and we should never undertake such measures without considering carefully other less lethal means. Respect for life means that it is right that I demand my enemy respect my life but also means that I must respect his. Recourse to war or other lethal means may sometimes be necessary but we do well to carefully consider our motives and means in such a serious undertaking.

Have we done this? I leave this to your prayerful consideration. Pray for also our leaders who have important decisions to make in the protection of this great nation of ours.

Posted on

Internet Pornography and Addiction

When I was first ordained the Internet was not yet a reality. But in these past twenty years it has surely exploded on the scene and it has become a dominant force in many people’s lives. Much of it’s effects have been good. Information flows more freely, and communication worldwide is almost instant. Remarkable “communities” of sorts have set up and ordinary people, showing great creativity can reach a worldwide audience. Remarkable really.

But one of the darker sides to the Internethas been the easy availability of pornography. As a priest I have had to help people who have fallen very deep into a kind of bondage around Internet pornography. There is a kind of addictive effect that sets up for many.

More than merely compulsive, Internet pornography is quite addictive to many. The difference between compulsion and addiction is that compulsiveness is a kind of “steady” bad habit but addiction requires more and more of the thing to satisfy. The many who struggle with addiction to pornography indicate that they cannot stop and that they need more exotic materials as time goes on. Stranger and stranger, deeper and deeper they go. Soon many find themselves drawn even to illegal sites featuring underage subjects and even children. This is usually where the law catches up with them.

Be very careful about your Internet habits. The danger of pornography on the Internet is that it is so easy to find, just a few clicks away. There is also the illusion of privacy. In the old days one had to walk into an “adult bookstore” and interact with people in order to get the products they desired. Today there is an illusion that viewing such materials is completely private. It is not. Do not be fooled. EVERYTHING you do on the Internet is public. Extensive records of your browsing habits are stored not only on your own machine but also out on the Web. New government laws now forbid the erasure of e-mails. There are newer laws coming in to effect each year requiring search engines such as Google and Yahoo to disclose browsing habits of individuals to law enforcement officials under certain circumstances. Those who routinely visit illegal sites are easily known to law enforcement officials who routinely monitor such sites. The main point is THERE IS NOTHING PRIVATE ABOUT THE INTERNET. When we are online we are out in public.

So be very careful about the Internet. Not only is pornography sinful, it is also very addictive to many and leads them down a very slippery slope. It demands more and more of their time. It devolves into stranger and more exotic appetites and often causes people to stray into unnatural and even illegal attractions. Addictions are also very hard to break once they are acquired. Don’t just avoid pornography, flee from it (cf 1 Cor 6:18). Take it from a priest who has had to help people deal with some very sad consequences. Pornography is not a “victimless” crime. It has many, many victims: broken lives, broken hearts, broken marriages, lost jobs, lost freedom, lost innocence.  Share this message with others!

Here is a sobering video that elaborates on the addictive quality of Internet pornography: