Does the Church support St. Mary's Catholic Academy in St. Mary, KS and their banning women referees?

This question was an informed question and I can clear it up rather quickly. First, the St. Mary's Academy is not a Catholic school. The Pius X society, which owns and runs the school, is not in communion with the Catholic Church. They do not accept the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and do not recognize the authority of the pope. As such, they have be in schism with the Catholic Church. Secondly, the Catholic Church has no beliefs or teaching whatsoever that would suggest that women shouldn't be involved in the activities of boys in any way.

In answering that question, I have finished responding to the questions asked by our school children and the adult organizations. I did have a chance to talk to another couple of our school classes since I began responding to the first set of questions. In going to these classrooms I realized that our school children are really smart!!!

I discussed the 10 Commandments with the 3rd grade class and their understanding of the depth of the commandments was outstanding. For each of the 10 Commandments, they were able to give me some concrete examples of things that might break that commandment that are not explicit to the commandment. For example, they gave many examples of breaking the commandment, "Thou shall not kill" that did not include physically killing a person. I want to share a few of these examples from some of the commandments with you.

1) Thou shall have no other gods besides Me

The children came up with so many examples of other 'gods' we put before our God. Money, toys and other stuff were the two most common ones brought up. But one child said that TV was something that could become a 'god.' Another child said that school could become a 'god' and I thought that was funny so I asked how school could become a god. His reply surprised me. He said that he had a sister in college that studied so much that she didn't even go to Mass on Sundays. I imagine that at 9 years old he didn't know that, in all likelihood, his sister's 'studying' at college probably occurred at the bars or campus parties. But, he had the understanding that putting other things before Sunday Mass was a sin against the 1st commandment. I did point out, however, that school was important for them as long as they didn't skip Sunday Mass to do their homework.

5) Thou shall not kill

Although 3rd graders know what killing is they do not yet understand killing in the adult sense. Their answers to how they might sin against this commandment were well though out, however. They said that hating others 'killed' another person feeling. Being mean to someone else because they were mean to you was another one. Hitting others was a sin against this commandment. Playing violent video games could be a sin against this commandment, they said, because it promotes violence against others. This last one really surprised and impressed me that they'd realize that many video games promote hurting others.

6) Thou shall not commit adultery

Their responses to this commandment surprised me. They said that adultery was when someone broke their promise to someone they should love: a good definition for a 3rd grader. Then I asked them how we might break this commandment. One girl said that once when her best friend was sick and wanted her to bring her homework home to her that she didn't because she wanted to play at the park instead. She said that playing was more important than being a true friend. If only we could have such an understanding as these children do.

These are just a few examples of how the 3rd graders really do understand the 10 Commandments and how they can sin against them even if they aren't breaking that commandment literally. Their teacher did a wonderful job in helping them learn them and learning that it is important to think about what we do and how it hurts God when we do bad things. Good advice and teaching for us adults too. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:30 | link | comments (5) |
blog

What is the Church planning to do about the priest shortage: Part 2

I want to return to our discussions regarding questions I have been asked in some of my visits to classes and organizations at our parish. I want to continue with the second part of the question I was asked about solving the priest shortage. Some of the persons indicated that ordaining women priests would go far to eliminate the priest shortage and would finaly give equality to women in the Church. There are a number of reasons brought forth whay women should be ordained so I am going to respond to each that was pointed out to me that night.

1) The reason Jesus didn't ordain women is because women were subordinate in society at that time.

First, Jesus didn't conform to society throughout his teaching so why would he change that when establishing the role of priest in the Church. Related to that is the fact that nearly all the pagan religions had priestesses so it would not be extraordinary to choose women as priests if he chose to do so. Lastly, if we believe that Jesus simply went with the times then we are admitting that Jesus, the Son of God, did not foresee the change in equality of women in the future and we deny God's omnipotence.

2)There is no scriptural basis for excluding women

This objection turned out to be more about the theology of the Church rather than scripture but it finds its source from scripture. Basically, the objection was that there was no evidence claiming that Christ saw the Church as only ordaining men. The truth is that Jesus gave some of the most concrete evidence of this and he did this numerous times. Jesus referred to the Church as the bride. He also referred to himself as the bridegroom. Jesus as the bridegroom is found in each of the four Gospels. The Church has also been recognized as being the bride of Christ because of the teaching of Christ himself. The ordained priest acts in the Person of Christ. The very theological teaching of Christ and his relationship to the Church is evidence of the male priesthood.

3) Not allowing women's ordination denies the equality of women

So many people believe equality means identical. Equality does not mean identical. The first and most fundamental example of this is our biological differences. As a male I cannot have a child. Does that make me less equal to a woman because I cannot bring new life into the world? Different does not mean unequal. A male priesthood does not make women subordinate in the Church. Even scriptures stresses that. St. Paul says:

"Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,' it does not for this reason belong any less to the body." (1 Corinthians 12:14-15)

He goes on to say:

"Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?" (1 Corinthians 12:27-29)

Scripture itself makes it clear that equality does not mean identical as well as clearly stating that God designated various persons to serve the Church in different ways. The role of women in the Church is just as important as that of men. We need religious sisters to pray for the People of God, to teach the faith to our children and to be that ideal example of Christ's command to do unto others as you would have them do unto you through their care of the sick, the poor and the needy. Wasn't that one of the most important elements of Christ's ministry on earth? Women religious do act in the Person of Christ in fulfilling his ministry to the teaching and care of others just as men act in the Person of Christ by ministering the sacraments of Christ.

These were the three objections to the Church not ordaining women that were brought up in my talks. On the surface, each objections seems to have merit. However, when you examine each objection, and compare it to the teaching of Christ and his Church it becomes obvious that these objections are not reasons the Church won't ordain women rather why Christ chose to ordain only men to the priesthood. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 10:26 | link | comments |
blog

Visit of Pope Benedict XVI

I will return in my next blog to answering the questions we've been discussing. Today however, I wanted to touch upon the visit of Pope Benedict to the U.S. and highlight some of the things that will impact our country and especially Catholics.

Overall, his trip was an overwhelming success. He endeared himself to the American people by simply being himself. He was friendly, caring, very interactive with the people, non-judgmental and presented the perfect picture of a shepherd to the flock of nearly 70 million Catholics. However, he didn't back down from the tough issues facing the Church and society today, either. That combination of likeability, endearment and leadership of the People of God made his visit one of great accomplishment and progress for the Church in America. I want to point out a few issues he touched upon:

The priest scandal: While he was still on the plane during the trip to the U.S. he responded to a question by one of the on-board reporters who asked about what his thoughts were on the scandal. His response was, "I am deeply ashamed, and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again." This was not his only comments or actions about the scandal while here in the U.S. Benedict also met privately to pray with a group of victims abused by priests. He also spoke on the scandal at most of his visits and repeatedly stated that we need to continue to develop our policies and increase our response to acts of abuse. Yet, spokespersons for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) still bashed the pope and basically dismissed him. One spokesman, speaking about the pope's response to the scandal during his visit, said, "He could have done more, actions speak louder than words." Another person commented that the popes "pedophile-shame is a large serving of puerile-papist-pabulum (to the best of my ability it would be synonymous to 'childish moronic Catholic babbling') Such an unbiased and impartial comment will certainly help to respond to and eliminate sex abuse by priests (heavy, heavy sarcasm intended here!!!)

I agree that the Church must continue to eliminate sex abuse by priests. However, I feel I must also point out that many in SNAP have one ultimate goal: massively damage or destroy the Catholic Church in the U.S. For example, a person who posted a comment on a blog site stated that any priest even accused of abuse should "rot in prison until they can prove they are innocent." And that, "All priests are guilty. They don't deserve any mercy." A grotesque and delusional comment as well as unproductive toward legitimate solutions to the continuing crisis.

Justice and human rights: In his U.N. speech, the pope spoke on justice and guaranteeing human rights for all times and all peoples. There are so many places in the world where human rights are severely violated. He made the comment that we must protect the human dignity of "all times and all peoples" which was a reference to a wide range of issues in the world: violence, war, hatred, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Ecumenism for the good of the world: He often focused on how the world must strive to promote the universal morality that is inherent to our world. He pointed out that moral and ethical actions are rooted in the definition of a human being. It is not limited to the Catholic or Protestant church. It is not restricted to Buddhists, agnostics or atheists. It is part of humanity.

The impact he had on the American people during his visit was phenomenal. I only hope that is isn't a short-lived and fleeting impact that is quickly buried by society and its negative, unchristian mindset. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 08:08 | link | comments |
blog

What is the Church planning to do about the priest shortage?

This question was made in very general terms but you can see right away that there are a number of facets to the question. Coupled with the first question was, "Will they change the criteria for being a priest?" The first question seems to focus more on how are the dioceses going to respond to the spiritual needs of the faithful with fewer priests. The second part of the question, however, seems to infer that maybe the Church needs to change who can be priests and the way priests live because this is significantly contributing the the priest shortage. It's going to take me three blog entries to answer these questions, so let's explore the latter question first.

The question of changing priest criteria comes down to two things: married priests and women priests. It is important to understand the Church teaching of each of these. The teaching that priests are to be celibate and unmarried is a discipline of the Church. This means that the Church has made the decision that unmarried, celibate priests benefit the faithful and best advance the Kingdom of God. A discipline is something that can be changed by the Church if it chooses. For example, the Church does allow ministers of other faiths who are married and convert to Catholicism to become Catholic priests. The Eastern Catholic Church has many married priests. I am not going to go into the misbelief that married priests would eliminate the problem of pedophile priests (the majority of pedophile cases in our country are committed by a family members and not by priests or strangers). I do want to discuss in this blog how married priests would change the landscape of our faith.

A married priest would be unfair to both the family and the faithful. Let's say that I am a married priest. I have a responsibility to my family to be a devoted husband and father. However, I also have a responsibility to be a devoted pastor to my parishioners. Married couples will immediately recognize where I am going here. As a spouse and parent, you give yourself 100% to your partner and kids. EVERYTHING is centered on their well-being and your love is totally dedicated to them. As a priest, I am called to give myself 100% to the well-being and care of my parishioners. As a married priest, I cannot give 100% of myself to my family and I cannot give 100% of myself to my parishioners. It is unfair to both my family and my parishioners. I know a number of married priests who were ministers of another faith, converted to Catholicism and were ordained. To a person, they all say that while they love their wife and children more than anything in the world, they're not nearly as effective of a spiritual shepherd to their people than if they were an unmarried priest solely dedicated to their care. They also say that their family does suffer because of the conflict that exists.

In my next blog, I will discuss the notion of women priests. We'll look at this both from the Church view and the historic view. One last note: I have begun updating my Catholic Quote of the Week section on the left side of this page. I will endeavor to change the quote at least weekly so take a moment to read the wisdom the Church has given us. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 08:03 | link | comments (2) |
blog

Why did the Vatican come out with 7 new mortal sins?

This question was asked and the way the question was worded inferred that not only was their questions about these new sins but also questioning the authority of the Church to just add new sins out of the blue. I say this because part of the question was, "It was God who gave us the original 7 mortal sins in the bible. Why did the Vatican think they should be able to create more?"

I will cover each of these individually because there are misunderstandings on each of these questions. First, the Vatican did not publish these 7 sins. Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary at the Vatican (the person in charge with reconciliation in the Church) brought up these sins in an interview. The media made it sound like these 'new' sins were proclaimed from the mouth of the pope. The reality is that they were taken out of aqninterview the bishop gave to the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, by an Italian reporter who saw a way to make a 'headline story' from the comments.

The second issue is that the 7 mortal sins were not definitively spelled out in the bible. While they are certainly all sins and do appear in the bible, they are not listed as the '7 deadly sins' nor are they even listed all at one time in the same book of scripture. The 7 deadly sins as we know them actually were not listed as such until in the 6th century by Pope Gregory the Great and were popularized in the Middle Ages by Dante in "The Inferno."

If one examines these 7 'new' sins they will see that they are not 7 new deadly sins rather examples of the existing 7 deadly sins. The 7 deadly sins are: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride. Now, look at the sins listed by the bishop: Bioethical violations such as birth control, morally dubious experiments such as stem cell research, drug abuse, polluting the environment, contributing to widening divide between rich and poor, excessive wealth & creating poverty. It is immediately recognizable that while the 7 deadly sins are a list of sins the list the bishop gives are examples of sins. The 7 deadly sins are very broad. The sins stated by the bishop are very specific. For example, the sin of gluttony could be excess food, alcohol, television, sex or a number of other things. Drug abuse, however, is very specific and defines a particular means of committing a sin.

Lastly, if you look at these 7 social sins, which is what the Vatican is titling them, they are examples of the 7 deadly sins. For example, excess wealth is a sin agains both gluttony, avarice and pride. Polluting the environment is a sin against sloth.

Being concerned over the Vatican's authority to be able to come out with a list of modern sins seems to go beyond these sins. It seems to be a sign of questioning the Vatican's authority to interfere in our modern world and our lives. That, however, sounds like a topic for a later blog entry. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 08:05 | link | comments |
blog

Is divorce a sin? What is an annulment and what are the reasons for getting an annulment?

This is an interesting question that both the 4th graders and 7th graders asked. I imagine that most of them either know someone who is divorced or are living in a family in which their parents are divorced. As with any questions regarding sin the answer is multifaceted.

Divorce is a sin against the indissolubility of marriage. Yet, the sin is committed only by the person willingly seeking the divorce. For example, if a husband files for divorce and the wife tries to salvage the marriage the wife are not culpable for committing the sin of divorce because she did not have control over the will of the other.

Divorce in itself is not a grave (mortal) sin, however. Jesus says, "...whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery" - Matthew 19:9. It's not the divorce that is a grave sin rather someone engaging in another relationship after the civil divorce. The Church does not recognize civil divorce and believes that the bond of marriage is for life. When someone divorces, they may believe they are separating themselves civilly from their spouse but the Church says that the marriage still exists. If one civilly divorces and remains unmarried and chaste no grave sin is committed and the person is not prevented from receiving the sacraments. The Church emphasizes, however, that the sacramental vows of the marriage still exist. If one civilly divorces and then remarries without an annulment then that person has committed a grave sin and continues to commit that sin by remaining in the invalid marriage in which they are committing the act of adultery. That person is barred from receiving the sacraments except in danger of death.

An annulment is NOT a Catholic divorce!!! The Catholic Church states the a marriage, when celebrated lawfully according to the Church, is absolutely indissoluble. An annulment, or declaration of matrimonial nullity which is the proper title, is an official determination by a Church tribunal that what appeared to be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church was in fact not. There are only a few reasons that an annulment can be granted. An annulment is granted when, at the time of the marriage:

• one or both persons lacked sufficient capacity for marriage (i.e. mental or emotional defect)
• one or both persons failed to give their proper consent to marriage. In other words, someone being forced to marry. (i.e. marrying solely due to becoming pregnant or due to pressure by parents or others)
• one person did not intend the marriage to be for life or did not intent to be faithful to their spouse

The final grounds for an annulment is when at least one person is Catholic and they violated the Church's requirements of canonical form in getting married. Canonical form entails the couple exchanging their vows in the presence of a priest who is delegated by the bishop to celebrate the marriage. This must occur in the presence of two witnesses and in a Catholic Church. If one person is non-Catholic the Catholic person must obtain permission from the Church to marry.

It is only after an annulment has been granted that a person can enter into marriage with another person. The Church does not say that they can remarry because She does not recognize the first marriage as having truly existed. Finally, an annulment, when granted, has no bearing on the status of any children born from this marriage. The children do not become illegitimate because at the time of their birth it was truly believed that the marriage existed.

Annulments are very complex and can be hard to understand, so this is simply a quick overview and is certainly not meant to cover all the issues surrounding it. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 08:57 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Is it a sin to kill someone in self-defense?

This question is similiar to the question posed concerning a soldier killing in a war. However, this was directed more toward the everyday person who may find themselves in a situation in which they may need to defend their life.

The Church states that we must respect the dignity and right to life. This applies the protecting the life of others but also applies to our own lives. This means that we have a responsibility to protect the dignity of our own life. That is why suicide is such a grave sin: it violates the dignity of all life including ours.

Self-defense is when a person is protecting the dignity of their own life. The person has a right to defend himself against a threat to his own life. This threat must be real, immenent, and proportionate. Let me give a couple of examples. The person threating your life must have the means to do so. Simply making threatening remarks to you is not a real threat. A person threatening you with a gun is a real threat. An immenent threat must be one in which an immediate response is necessary to defend oneself. A person calling you on the phone and threatening to kill you does not mean you can go over to their house and kill them claiming self defense. A person with a gun or knife standing in front of you constitutes an immenent threat. A proportionate threat means that the threat must require self-defense to protect your life. You cannot shoot a person who is attacking you with a sharpened pencil. You can shoot a person threatening to shoot you. Also, the self-defense must halt when the threat is no longer there. You can legitimately shoot a person once who is threatening you with a gun. If the shot wounds the person, he drops his gun and falls to the ground, you cannot continue to empty your gun into the person and claim self-defense.

The morals of self-defense are meant to protect one's life. It should only result in the death of the attacker when absolutely necessary and when no other options remain. The taking of another's life is never a good thing but it can be a necessary thing that does not violate the Commandment "Thou shall not kill" as well as the Jesus' command to "love onself." Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:30 | link | comments (1) |
blog

Is it a sin for a soldier in Iraq to kill an enemy?

This was the first question asked by the kids in each class I visited. I think they are concerned about this because they probably have someone (brother, uncle, family friend, etc.) who is in Iraq. The answer, as with most answers regarding the committing of a sin, depends on the circumstances.

The Catholic Church recognizes that war brings with it evils and injustices. It states that war should be used only as a last resort. At the same time the Church also admits that they are situations in which war is justified. Lasting suffering inflicted by the aggressor, all peaceful mean of avoiding war have been exhausted, there is a high probibility or success and the use of weapons cannot produce evils greater than those being committed by the aggressor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2307 - 2310).

With that being said, the Church also recognizes that whether a war is justified or not, soldiers have the right do legitimately defend themselves from the enemy. This defense of oneself must be proportionate to the attack. The self-defense does not have to be specifically on that individual rather can be the defense of others. In war, soldiers are often defending other soldiers, civilians or societal necessities such as food, shelter, infrastructure, etc. (CCC, #2263 - 2265).

The term proportionate defense means that the response to the aggressor cannot be extreme beyond that necessary. Take that example of a group of Iraqi rebels in a building who are attacking U.S. soldiers. Using a rocket launcher or grenades on that building is proportionate. Calling in an air strike that will take out the whole city block is not.

In nearly all cases, soldiers are doing their duty to defend other soldiers or Iraqi citizens and although this results in the death of many Iraqi rebels it does not the Commandment "Thou shall not kill."

War is always a sad and disturbing situation. We know that people will die because of the war. We know that there will be destruction and disruption of life in the war zone. Yet, we also know that God wants people to live in justice, freedom and peace and sometimes war is necessary to reach this goal. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 08:01 | link | comments |
blog

I have issues...

In the past few week I have given a number of talks here at Prince of Peace. I had a Q&A with both the 4th and 5th grade SOR classes (CCD classes). I have had a Q&A with the 7th grade Prince of Peace school class. I have had a Q&A with the PoP Moms group (Prince of Peace Mothers of Ministry). In all these Q&A talks there have been a number of questions that were asked by each group concerning the Catholic faith. I thought that over the next few posts I would tackle some of these questions and the answers I gave that reflect the views of the Catholic Church.

I want to point out that I haven't forgotten the suggestions that were posted and welcome more suggestions. I want to get to those as well, but since these same questions kept coming up in the last few days I thought I'd blog on them first. So, to give you an idea of these questions posed to me this past week, I thought I'd post them in this blog entry and then respond to each in the coming blog entries.

One of the most common questions asked by the kids was:

• Is it a sin for a soldier in Iraq to kill an enemy?
• Is it a sin to kill someone in self-defense?
• Is divorce a sin? What is an annulment and what are the reasons for getting an annulment?

The PoP Moms asked:

• Why did the Vatican come out with 7 new mortal sins? God gave us the original 7 mortal sins in the bible.
• What is the Church planning to do about the priest shortage? Will they change the criteria for being a priest?
• Does the Church support St. Mary's Catholic Academy in St. Mary, KS regarding their banning women referees in boys sports?

These are all excellent questions and I will respond to each in the coming blogs. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 19:18 | link | comments (2) |
blog