Holy Innocents and St. Francis Xavier: The Story of a Divided Church

Holy Innocents Church, NYC, threatened with closure

There is now an update to the situation with Father Justin Wylie who gave a very controversial sermon at Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan. As Pat Archbold reported on his blog [HERE] in a post entitled, "Traditional Priest Kicked Out of New York":

Now it is being reported [by Christine Niles] that Fr. Wylie has had his faculties in NY revoked and he is being sent home [to South Africa].

Traditionalists are in an uproar across the Internet, and see this as a complete injustice against a good and holy priest and a proof of how they are persecuted by the "Church of Nice", a term coined by one of their heroes, Michael Voris. They see themselves as loyal Catholics who just want to worship God in the same way the Church has done for 2000 years, and it is the evil, demonically inspired Church hierarchy who is conspiring to destroy them. This is seen loud and clear in the comments left on Archbold's post.

A few examples:

schmenz
Here in Milwaukee we suffered under the reign of the blowhard comedian, Timothy Dolan, who seemed to prefer being looked upon as Santa Claus rather than a Catholic Bishop. Now he is in New York, and I can only pity my fellow Catholics who have to sit there and endure him.

Susan 
The Pseudo-Cardinal Dolan is a joke and the bishops support pro-abortion organizations and pro-sodomy organizations with parish money. They are frauds and evil, Satan's spawn, except for the Traditional priests, like above. God Bless him. And Dolan's just a pathetic pillsbury boy, a "leader" in America who is destroying the Catholic Church from within, intentionally--like Fr. Oko writes, in his Homoheresy Report, for the Vatican.
Dolan just glad-hands abortionists and Satanic sodomites like Biden and Obama, acting like Mortal Sin is not "mortal"---just a joke. There is no Good and Evil in Dolon's America. Satanic Ethics are better than Thomistic Theology which he threw out.
There is no God, really, is there, Dolan, and Jesus Christ was just a lover of everything and all behaviors. He loved sin. Marx and his buddies (Dolan's buddies, too) are smarter than God.
Dolan is part of the Postmodernist "Kill God" group. He should be dumped by the Church---but the guy at top may be no better. We will see.

codephined 
All we can do is as Card. Dolan told the Muslims, "keep the faith!" Even when Card. Dolan doesn't, or any other pastor of the Church for that matter--dare I say even the supreme pastor.

Karen Hall 
We seem to be in an era where believing and teaching what the Church has believed and taught for 2,000 years is now frowned upon by ... the Church. I do NOT know what to do with this. Will I eventually be kicked out of Catholicism for being too Catholic?

Alphonsus_Jr 
Where's the news? Dolan is a proven wolf, yet another shameless Judas Council scumbag.

There was one person who did not agree with the majority opinion, and voiced his differences thusly:

Josephtheworker
You misunderstand. I am not a dissenter or a liberal. Think the opposite. But to rail on in a homily about schism doesn't help Catholics in their holy struggle to sanctity the world or to intensify their prayer and interior life and sacrifice. To do so is to give in to weakness and to grow schism. It nurses resentment.
A great priest calls for great sacrifice from his parish. He doesn't give in to whining. He encourages a sporting spirit among his flock in the spirit of the very early Christians.
A smiling, stout "we can work with this mess You've given to us, as You wish Lord! Thank You for the confidence You have in Your struggling children!"
Not a nanosecond of doubt, despair, complaint, worry. The homily, in the excerpt given, was just a big whiny complaint, in my opinion. It was not the stuff of hardy Catholicism.

He was, of course, attacked by the others, but the one who really came out swinging was Christine Niles, our favorite Michael Voris acolyte. Her response in part:

Christine L. Niles 
Let me ask you something, Joseph, since you seem intent on defending the archdiocese here:
How does it sit with you that a gay-friendly parish like St. Francis Xavier Church in Manhattan (not far from Holy Innocents), whose pastor noted just last week in his bulletin that the Church "should evolve" on the issue of same-sex relations, and which just had a celebratory Mass for "21 years of LGBT ministry," complete with a rainbow flag runner up to the High Altar, gets NO INTERFERENCE from the archdiocese for its heterodoxy, while it swiftly brings down the iron fist on a good priest who spent 5 minutes mildly calling for justice and charity for the Traditional community at Holy Innocents?
If you're ok with that, then I will assume you either work for the archdiocese, or you're a progressive troll pretending to be orthodox.

Christine's talking points are taken directly from her leader, Michael Voris.  Notice how Niles dismisses Joseph's call to not give in to "weakness and schism" or "nurse resentment" but instead be willing to sacrifice.  She declares this humble and submissive attitude  as a sign that Joseph is somehow in league with the evil Archdiocese of New York ("assuming" he is working for them) or he is a "progressive troll pretending to be orthodox."

Niles then picks up another Voris talking point when she brings up the "gay friendly St. Francis Xavier parish."   Voris, with Christine Niles' help, has started talking points against the NY Archdiocese that have spread around the internet, and together they have started an active campaign against the parish of St. Francis Xavier in Manhattan.

I freely admit that Niles and Voris are correct when they say that St. Francis Xavier Church is a very gay friendly. The church is in Chelsea, a large homosexual community in NYC, and has an active LGBT ministry. They marched in the infamous New York City Gay Pride parade for many years proudly carrying their church banner, as seen here:

Voris and Niles are making the case that the fact that this "pro homosexual" church is being allowed to stay open while Holy Innocents, a church filled with good, faithful and traditional Catholics who only want to worship God as the Church has always done, is proof that the evil Cardinal Dolan really hates faithful Catholics and wants nothing more in life than to destroy them.

In his efforts to prove Cardinal Dolan's bias and even hatred against traditional Catholics, Voris makes the absolutely false claim that Cardinal Dolan supports the gay and lesbian lifestyle. To make his case, Voris points to a video which he claims shows His Eminence specifically cheering on the LGBT ministry of St. Xavier Church in 2010. Voris has made this charge many times against Cardinal Dolan in the past.

Voris brought up this false charge again with an interview he did with a parishioner from Holy Innocents (whom I have never personally met) on his "Mic'd Up" program. Below is the video of the interview.



Voris begins to talk about Cardinal Dolan and St. Francis Xavier at about the 13:00 mark in this video. Voris prefaces his remarks by stating that there is a "radical animosity" by the Church authorities against anything traditional.

"It's beyond disturbing. We have reported on these things for a number of years and many other people have reported many more years than we have. We have the advantage of having television so it's sometime in this day and age a better form of communication in getting the message across. But the idea that there is just this radical animosity towards anything in tradition, even . . . All of this stuff came out . . . Cardinal Dolan went to St. Francis Xavier parish three years ago.  The parish videotaped the event. It was the . . . They just spent $10 million fixing it all up and they invited him to come say the Mass. He is at the Mass. Many of our viewers may not remember this or may not know it, but he goes to the Mass. And at the Mass, in the middle of the Mass, they start bringing up all the different parish groups, the Alcoholics Anonymous and this and that. Those are all fine works . . . people need help and that's wonderful. Then they brought up and introduced to him the LGBT group and said, 'The Parish lesbian and gay group.' And they brought them up, and he sat there in the chair. He had his glasses in his hand like this. He was slouched over. We've got the video. He leans over. They make the announcement and he goes like this [shaking his glasses in his hand], gives them the big handshake, big cheer."

At this point, they switch to the actual video showing this moment.  Following is my explanation of this video from a previous post entitled, "Michael Voris Declares War On Timothy Cardinal Dolan" which you can read HERE:

At 5:30 to 6:00 in the [original] video, you will see the "Catholic Lesbian Group" and "Gay Catholics Men Group" being introduced. The camera is focused on Cardinal Dolan who looks very serious. His face lightens up considerably when the speaker says, "These groups helped LGBT Catholics return to the sacraments and find an adult place in the Church of their youth." That is what Cardinal Dolan was "cheering", the fact that these men and women had returned to the sacraments, which would imply that they have left their sinful lifestyle. Right after this we see Cardinal Edward Egan, former archbishop of New York, praising St. Francis Xavier Church. Why doesn't Voris attack Cardinal Egan as well?

St. Francis Xavier Church, NYC

You will see this same moment of Cardinal Dolan "cheering" at approximately 14:30 into the above video. You will see very clearly that Cardinal Dolan does not smile until he hears the words, "These groups helped LGBT Catholics return to the sacraments and find an adult place in the Church of their youth." THAT is the moment when he waves his glasses and nods in approval at what is being said. Voris is being incredibly deceptive when he tries to convince us otherwise. Please look at the video and you will see this for yourself.

After the video of Cardinal Dolan is shown, Voris then goes on a rant, designed to turn Catholics against His Eminence:

"Can you imagine St. Athanasius, Bishop Sheen, who is buried under the Cathedral, St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, standing there and giving a little cheer to people who have perverted sex and are placing their immortal souls in danger? [Voris then gets apoplectic] It's mind boggling how far off the tracks the Church of Nice, the Establishment Church has gone. It's beyond the pale. "

The interviewee responds to this rant by agreeing and supporting the agenda of turning Catholics against Church hierarchy by basically blaming the Church for all of the evils in our society:

"Absolutely. This entire incompetence and irresponsibility - it wouldn't be so perilous for souls except for the fact that we're living in this, as you say, this toxic environment. There are almost as many abortions in the City of New York as there are live births. We're witnessing State sponsored attacks on the family and the Federal Government trying to get involved in all aspects of our personal lives including the education of our children. Where is the Church? Where is the hierarchy? They're missing in action."

The truth is that Cardinal Dolan, as I have previously reported, is a board member of Courage, the Catholic ministry which helps gays and lesbians turn away from the homosexual lifestyle, and His Eminence has many times spoken out in support of this ministry. In addition, one week after appearing at St. Francis Xavier and "cheering them on" as Voris would have you believe, Cardinal Dolan forbid the people of that parish to march in the Gay Pride Parade carrying the banner of their church. Somehow, neither Voris nor Christine Niles ever seem to mention these facts.

Further, Cardinal Dolan has spoken out many times about the dangers of same sex marriage and abortion.  He has celebrated Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral with Msgr. Philip Reilly, the "pro life apostle" as we in New York call him, whose entire ministry has been to stop abortion.  There are many other examples I could give, all of which Voris and his supporters conveniently disregard.  

Unfortunately, as I pointed out, many Catholics bloggers and Catholics in general have bought into this deception by Michael Voris.

From A Blog for Dallas Catholics talking about the removal of Father Wylie:

It seems Cardinal Dolan and/or someone in the Archdiocese of NY really, really did not like that sermon. But sodomizing St. Francis Xavier parish is OK. I am certain Holy Innocents will be shut down, Dolan seems to have little love for the TLM.

From The Eponymous Flower:

There’s no word as to what plans there are for St. Francis Xavier parish and its amazing outreach programs, and "loyal opposition” to the Archbishop and Catholic teaching. At this point, the Cardinal seems enthusiastic about what’s happening there, and less so about what’s happening elsewhere, if these closures are any indication.

Les Femmes - The Truth posts one sentence and an interview Christine Niles did with the same Paul McGregor:

Pray Holy Innocents Stays Open and St. Francis Xavier Closes!

From a blog entitled, "East Side Hunky's Klobasa Club":

Maybe Dolan would spend more time keeping a solidly Catholic parish open and closing down the Michael Sam wannabees at the sodomite parish of St Francis Xavier? 

So why close Holy Innocents, which is filled with "obedient and loyal" Catholics and leave St. Francis Xavier open when that church is so lax in following Church teaching? Don't such actions reveal a true bias on the part of Cardinal Dolan?

As I mentioned, St. Francis Xavier is in the heart of New York's gay community. I agree that this church is definitely not orthodox in its approach to church teachings, especially in the area of sexuality. There is the now infamous picture of the gay flag leading up to the altar in the church. This church sees homosexuals as people who need to be loved and accepted on their own level. They, like so many of us, have great difficulty with separating the sin from the sinner. With many of us, the problem is that we condemn the person as well as the sin. With St. Francis Xavier and many parishes like them, they accept the sin with the sinner, no longer recognizing that such actions are sinful.

In other words, St. Francis Xavier is in need of evangelization. But this is a very tricky situation. The people who attend this church, for the most part, live in a community where homosexuality is considered completely normal. It is just another way for people to love one another. They truly do not understand why homosexual acts are condemned by the Catholic church.  However weak it may be, St. Francis Xavier is able to draw those who would normally reject the Church.  If St. Francis Xavier Church was closed, many who attend there would not go to any other church. They would be completely cut off from any contact with the Catholic Church and be even further away from the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, those in the Latin Mass community at Holy Innocents pride themselves on being good, strong Catholics.  If the worst happens and Holy Innocents is closed, they will not leave the Church but, for the most part, will find other Catholic churches where they can practice their faith.

But, you say, people have also worked hard to make Holy Innocents their home where they can feel safe and secure, giving of their own time and treasure. Why should they be turned out when all they have done is try to worship God as best they can? Why should they be "thrown to the wolves", as Father Wylie characterized it?  The answer:  for the same reason Our Lord allowed men to destroy His physical body - for the salvation of mankind.

Holy Innocents and St. Francis Xavier, even though they are both Catholic churches within city blocks of one another, are worlds apart and hardly seem like the same religion.  Those who attend Holy Innocents would never go near St. Francis Xavier and vice versa.  Is this the work of the Holy Spirit, that Catholics be divided into their own little churches that have absolutely nothing to do with one another? Or are we instead to be part of the one Mystical Body of Christ whose mission in life is to spread the saving message of the Gospel?  How can we go out to the world with the message of Jesus Christ when we can't even agree among ourselves?  Catholics are so busy fighting among themselves and with Church hierarchy that they give little notice to the spiritually wounded in their own midst much less those outside of the Church.

So how can we unite Catholics with Catholics? Michael Voris and his supporters would have you believe that Catholics who will not accept orthodox Catholic teaching, in this case the teaching on homosexuality, are not even Catholic and should be cast out and not allowed back unless and until they come to their senses. Let them lose their church and be thrown to the wolves. They don't deserve a church.

At this point, I think we need to remember just what our mission is as Catholics, we who have been graced with the Holy Spirit and brought into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Our Lord did not literally pour out His Life's Blood on the Cross so that we can just sit back and be comfortable. He gave us a command, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" [Mark 16:15]. In past ages, this often meant missionaries leaving their homes and traveling thousands of miles to unknown lands and sacrificing their lives to bring the saving message of the Gospel to others. This task was mostly left to priests and religious. Vatican II, however, tells us that we are all involved in this evangelization, no matter what our state in life. And in our post-Christian age, the missionary fields are no longer thousands of miles away but our own neighborhoods and cities. This, sadly, includes many who call themselves Catholics.

What does this have to do with closing Holy Innocents and keeping "sodomy loving" St. Francis Xavier open?  Everything.  

When Jesus Christ came to this earth 2000 years ago, He came to restore Life to mankind. As He said, "I came that they may have life, and have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). In order to accomplish this, He gave himself to us without reserve. He, so completely perfect and righteous, held nothing back. He went out and walked among the lepers, and that means the physical and, more importantly, the spiritual lepers of society. He never turned anyone away.

As Jesus told us in John 3:17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Our Lord would often go out of his way to search for the outcasts, as He did with the Samaritan woman at the well who was not allowed into "proper" society. There is no doubt in my mind that if Jesus Christ were physically walking this earth today, He would be at St. Francis Xavier Church in Manhattan, among many other places, reaching out to those in need. He would not barricade Himself off in His own world as so many of us have done.

In the book of Exodus we are given the story of how God led the Israelites out of Egypt and brought them into their own land, physically separating them from the rest of the world. The Lord commanded the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the land they were given and to keep themselves separate from all those who surrounded them.

However, as referenced above, when Jesus Christ came to earth He gave a completely opposite command to His followers.  Our Lord did lead us in an exodus out of sin, but in a total reversal of the command given to the Israelites, Our Lord told us to "go into the world and preach the Gospel to all creatures."  He led the way by doing this Himself, and was condemned for His actions by the Pharisees.  Many were scandalized when Christ allowed his feet to be washed by the prostitute (thought to be Mary Magdalene).  The Pharisee who had invited Jesus to his house said, "If Jesus were a prophet, he would know that the woman touching him is a sinner!"  We need to ask ourselves if we are more like Jesus or the Pharisee.

Those who understand and accept Catholic teaching need to reach out to evangelize their brother and sister Catholics who do not have such understanding.  They need to do so with love and compassion, showing the same mercy as we have been shown by Jesus Christ.  If we believe that the parish of St. Francis Xavier has lost its way, then we need to do as Christ taught us in the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14):

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

St. John the Baptist Church, NYC, threatened with closure

The closing of Catholic Churches is a tragic situation, no matter how you look at it, and this is especially true in New York City.  One of the great things about being Catholic in New York City is that there is a Catholic Church every few blocks, almost all magnificent structures. These churches have served their communities, in some cases, for more than 100 years. They are physically beautiful churches which are impossible to replace in today's market.

But how did these churches come to be? Many, if not most, of the Catholic churches in Manhattan were built by poor immigrant Catholics in the 19th and early 20th Centuries. And how did so many immigrants come to America when they did? In the case of Ireland, approximately one million Catholics came to our shore because of the potato famine, with 600,000 in New York City alone. Others came because of persecution in their countries, or others just looking to give their families a better life because of the terrible poverty in their own land. And they brought their religion with them. Our Lord used the tragic circumstances in these countries to bring His Church to the new world.

St. Michael's Church, NYC, threatened with closure

This, I believe, is exactly what is happening in New York City and other dioceses around the country.  But, you say, why would Our Lord allow so many beautiful churches and spiritual communities to be destroyed?   The churches are beautiful works of art and great spiritual oases in this hectic city, but there is something more important than this.

I believe that Our Lord is using the closing of churches to bring us spiritually and physically closer together and make us a stronger tool for evangelization to our fallen away brothers and sisters and those outside the Church. With so many souls in the balance, we cannot afford our petty differences and grievances against one another. We are like people fighting with each other on the river bank while others are drowning in the river. We have to stop fighting with one another and turn our attention to those who are drowning.  

There is actually a higher percentage of Catholics in New York City than at any time in our history. In the borough of Manhattan, which is where Holy Innocents and St. Francis Xavier are located, 52.5% of the 1.6 million Manhattanites are Catholic. Yet, Catholic churches are being closed because the vast majority do not practice their religion.

New York City, along with much of the United States, is missionary territory. Our Lord said He did not come to condemn people and neither should we. We need to recognize sin for what it is, but just as a doctor sees his patients separately from their diseases, so we should see people separately from their sin. It is not our job to stand in judgment of them. It is our job to bring them to Christ. I believe that the church closings are going to force a lot of people to venture out to places where they would not otherwise go to spread the message of Jesus Christ, just as tragic circumstances motivated Catholics in the 19th century to leave everything familiar and, as a result, Catholicism was brought to America.

One of the main reasons I love going to Holy Innocents is the great reverence shown towards the Blessed Sacrament and the prayerful attention given during Mass.  The servers and priests all genuflect each and every time they pass in front of the Tabernacle.  During Mass, when their hands are not otherwise occupied, they hold them in prayer.  Most people in the pews follow their example.  People come to Mass and prayerfully participate in the entire Mass, completely focused on what is happening at the altar.  They are truly aware that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is being re-presented to the Father in heaven.

If the worse happens and Holy Innocents is closed, the people there need to take what they have learned and share it with others.  Like Abraham, the father of the faithful, they will be sent from their spiritual home to what may seem to be a hostile world, but it is a world that desperately needs what they have to give. I do hope they will go to places like St. Francis Xavier and lovingly and compassionately share their great love for Christ and His Church. 

To all those at Holy Innocents, I say this.  Stop playing the victim and looking at church authority as your enemy.  Stop listening to people like Michael Voris who are trying to turn you against those who are in charge of your souls.  Prove to the authorities that you are not self righteous and rebellious.  I know how important the Latin Mass is to you, but try to remember that as beautiful and important as the Mass is, it is not our goal but the means to achieving our goal, which is salvation, both for ourselves and others.

Realize that this is not your fight, but that Jesus Christ fights for you, and therefore no matter what happens, you will be the victor.  But this will only be true if you follow our gentle and compassionate Savior who said He came not to judge but to save mankind.  

Genesis 12:1:

The Lord had said to Abram, "Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you."

Hebrews 11:8-10:

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Father Justin Wylie and Holy Innocents

Father Justin Wylie

Father Justin Wylie is a priest from South Africa who is an Attaché of the Holy See to the United Nations. I have personally met him and attended Masses in which he has been the celebrant and listened to several of his talks. He is a good, holy priest, and tremendously loyal to the Catholic Church. He is also a great devotee of the Traditional Latin Mass, and celebrates it beautifully.

Father Wylie recently celebrated Mass and gave a sermon at Holy Innocents Church in Manhattan. Holy Innocents, along with dozens of other churches in the Archdiocese, is facing potential closure in the next couple of months. This is a very traumatic time for Catholics in this area, and emotions are running high. Many at Holy Innocents feel that church is being targeted because there is a very strong Traditional Latin Mass group there with the only daily Latin Mass in the entire tri-state area. Judging by his sermon, Father Wylie is among those who feel that Holy Innocents is threatened with closure because of the Latin Mass. His sermon has gotten a lot of play on Traditional Catholic blogs and websites, all of which applaud his remarks.  Father Z wrote about it and entitled his post, "MUST READ: Fr. Wylie’s hard-hitting sermon at Holy Innoncents [sic] (Manhattan, NYC) – How traditionalists are treated by priests and bishops."

Holy Innocents, Manhattan

(For the record, I have been attending Holy Innocents for many years, first going there to hear Father Benedict Groeschel, and then to attend the TLM.  I don't go as often as I once did, but I try never to miss the monthly all-night prayer vigils.  The potential closure of Holy Innocents is a very emotional issue with me as with many others.)

Father Wylie spoke about the potential closure of Holy Innocents and what it means to the Traditional Catholic community there.  Anyone who reads my blog knows I never seem to agree with the majority of my fellow Catholic bloggers, and this is no exception.  As much as I like and admire Father Wylie, I don't agree with the general assessment of his sermon.  [If you would like to read the entire sermon, it can be found on the Facebook page of "Forward Boldly", run by a Michael Voris accolyte, Christine Le Niles, HERE.]  

Father Wylie started his sermon urging his listeners to stay true to the Church:

Dear friends – and mark well that I speak to you now from the prophetic heart of my sacerdotal paternity – Dom Prosper Gueranger has something important to say also about threes. Hear it well:

“[T]he sacraments, being visible signs, are an additional bond of unity between the members of the Church: we say additional, because these members have the two other strong links of union – submission to Peter and to the pastors sent by him and profession of the same faith. The Holy Ghost tells us, in the sacred Volume, that a threefold chord is not easily broken [Eccles. Iv 12]. Now we have such a one, and it keeps us in the glorious unity of the Church: hierarchy, dogma, and sacraments, all contribute to make us one Body. Everywhere, from north to south, and from east to west, the sacraments testify to the fraternity that exists amongst us; by them we know each other, no matter in what part of the globe we may be, and by the same we are known by heretics and infidels. These divine sacraments are the same in every country, how much soever the liturgical formulae of their administration may differ; they are the same in the graces they produce, they are the same in the signs whereby grace is produced – in a word, they are the same in all the essentials” (pp. 228-9).

...
Dom Gueranger writes these words for us under his entry for precisely this Fourth Sunday after Easter, when in this parish, as I understand, you will meet to discuss a path forward for the precarious existence of your own worshipping community. Will this be the path Christ charts or will we make of ourselves instruments of the evil one for division and derision? The test of this, as in all things, is charity. Deus caritas est; et ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est. Where there is a breakdown of charity, there also is the spirit of the antichrist. I urge you, therefore, to be obedient and to be charitable with your legitimate superiors in all this, as well as with each other. Be firm and clear, also, and just; however, let charity always be the litmus test of whom it is you serve.

This, of course, is excellent advice from Father Wylie. Strong negative emotions are never the work of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we start acting out of a feeling of victimization, we are not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No matter what persecution we may face, no matter how dire the circumstances may appear, we must remember that we are already victors because Christ has won the battle for us. This was the message of St. Paul in Romans 8:

31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us,who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

Unfortunately, Father Wylie's sermon then began to deviate from this positive message.  He talked about his experience when he first came to New York and how freely the Latin Mass was celebrated here.  However, he has since changed his opinion:

As I said: during the dark days of prohibition, New York seemed to be a happy place to be for you because of the indult-masses at places like St. Agnes, but in the fresh juridical freedom Summorum Pontificum brings, New York has become, in my view, a less felicitous place for traditional Catholics: because nothing is structured, nothing acknowledged. Who takes responsibility for you pastorally?

Father Wylie then took swipes at the Administration of the New York Archdiocese:

Pastores dabo vobis, the Lord promises Jeremiah: I will give you shepherds! Fundamentally – and this is something about which I urge you to think well and pray much about – as a priest, I have to say: I worry about the situation of traditional Catholics in the Archdiocese. Yes, the archdiocese 'permits' a traditional mass here or there -- but responsibility for the matter continues to rest upon the initiative and resourcefulness of the laity, who with enormous difficulty have to source priests hither and thither as though we were seemingly still living in Reformation England or Cromwellian Ireland. Isn't it high time for the Church to take pastoral responsibility also for these sheep? Do they not deserve a shepherd? a parish? or at least some sense of juridical security? What happens to you when the parish you are harbouring in closes its doors?

As you can see, Father Wylie is comparing the situation of traditional Catholics in New York City to those in "Reformation England" when the Catholic Church was outlawed and priests had to be literally smuggled into the country. Father Wylie is, in effect, accusing the Archdiocese of waging war on traditional Catholics, and I know many who are in complete agreement with that. And it probably is true to one extent or another. But would our Lord want us to, in turn, do battle with those in Church hierarchy? 

This is what Jesus told the people of his time regard to their religious leaders (Matthew 23:1-3):

Then Jesus spoke to the people and to his followers. Jesus said, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees have the authority (power) to tell you what the law of Moses says. So you should obey the things they say. You should do all the things they tell you to do. But their lives are not good examples for you to follow. They tell you to do things, but they don't do those things themselves."

St. Padre Pio

We have a wonderful example of this in St. Padre Pio.  St Padre Pio was the victim of persecution early in his ministry when the stigmata started, and he was basically stripped of almost all his priestly duties, including hearing confessions and public celebration of the Mass.  His response:

"God's will be done,"...then he covered his eyes with his hands, lowered his head, and murmured, "The will of the authorities is the will of God."

Notice what he said: "The will of the authorities is the will of God."  Do we believe that?  It certainly wouldn't seem so from a reading of many Catholic blogs and websites.

Our Lord will often, and in fact usually does, allow great persecution and hardship into the lives of His followers.  We see this beginning in the Old Testament.  In the Book of Genesis, the patriarch Joseph was sold as a slave by his own brothers to the Egyptians.  Then he was falsely accused of rape by Pharaoh's wife when he rejected her advances, and he spent many years in prison.   He calmly accepted his circumstances and waited for God to work things out.

Later in the book of Exodus, God comes to the children of Israel and says he will free them from slavery to the Egyptians.  But first things are made much harder for them, with even more persecution from the Egyptians.  When they are finally freed, God leads them right to the Red Sea with Pharaoh's army behind them, a sure death trap.  This, of course, was done to show them that God will always fight their battles for them, as Moses told them, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord."

We see the example of King David, who was anointed King of Israel, and then spent the next many years being hunted down like an animal by King Saul.

The prophet Daniel refused to bow down to false gods and as a result, was thrown into the lion's den.

And of course, there is the great example of the father of faith, Abraham, who waited years for God to make good on His promise to give Abraham a son. When Abraham is finally given a son, God tells him to sacrifice Isaac. Does that make any sense? Isaac was the one through whom the promises would be given. Everything depended on Isaac, and yet here was God telling Abraham to slit his son's throat. But because Abraham was willing to do it, he became the father of the faithful, the living definition of faith.

What all of these examples have in common is that none of these great biblical figures tried to work things out their own way. They let God fight their battles for them.

Am I saying that those at Holy Innocents should do nothing? Absolutely not. The Church has a process whereby they can challenge the closing of the Church, and they should follow this. But they should be very careful not to get into a spirit of victimization and resentment towards those in authority. Those attitudes are never from the Holy Spirit, and will only lead to bad consequences.

Unfortunately, the next statements of Father Wylie do not support patiently waiting on God:

What will become of the priestly vocations aplenty I see in these numerous young men of such quality as we have in abundance serving here at Holy Innocents, St. Agnes and elsewhere – remaining as they do at the mercy (and sometimes, caprice) of 'landlords' who, for one reason or another, 'permit' their presence in their parishes? Doors everywere seem closing to them. Our Saviour has closed its doors to them. St. Agnes, for its part, guards its doors vigilantly to make sure they don't enter the building 5 minutes too early or don't overstay their welcome by 5 minutes more. Now, it seems, the doors of Holy Innocents will be closed to them, too.

Taken together, this is, in my view, a clear instance of exclusion: an injustice which you should bring to the attention of your shepherd, I think. You are fully-fledged members of the baptised Faithful, for heaven's sake: why are you scurrying about like ecclesiastical scavengers, hoping for a scrap or two to fall from the table for your very existence? The precariousness of your community cannot hinge on a church building being available to you as though you were a mere sodality or guild. The days of renting space in hotels and the like must surely be over. You are not schismatics! Are you schismatics?

I am not challenging the veracity of Father Wylie's statements. But he is presenting these facts in such a way as to agitate those who are listening almost to rebellion. He is telling the people to rise up in self-righteous anger against those in authority. This is not the example we see in the Bible or the saints.

He continues:

Whatever happens to Holy Innocents – and this will be the decision of your chief-shepherd here, who will base his decision on more information than any of us has at his or her disposal – you need to assert that you belong to the Church as fully as any other community. You have found a home here, largely through your own hard work and perseverence: no good shepherd could dispossess you of your home without providing safety and good pasture elsewhere. Parishioners of a Novus ordo parish closure might easily find another 'home' nearby; but what of you?

Where is God in this statement? Father Wylie says: "You have found a home here, largely through your own hard work and perseverence." Father Wylie gives no credit to God for the accomplishments of Holy Innocence, and as a result, he does not turn the people to God to work out the solution. Everything is centered on the people. This is a sure recipe for disaster. Wouldn't it have been much better to say, "The Holy Spirit working through you has created a vibrant community, and no matter what happens, He will not desert you. As we are told, God's ways are not our ways. We need to trust that He will work things out just as He has always done."

From Father Wylie:

You have a right to find the Mass (and not only on Sundays); and not only the Mass, but the other sacraments and rites of the Church. Closing this parish is more akin to closing a linguistic parish or a Oriental rite parish. What becomes of you?

Father Wylie puts the emphasis on the "rights" of the people:  "You have a right to find the Mass (and not only on Sundays); and not only the Mass, but the other sacraments and rites of the Church. Closing this parish is more akin to closing a linguistic parish or a Oriental rite parish. What becomes of you?"  St. Padre Pio had a right to exercise his priestly duties, but when this was taken away from him by Church authorities, he humbly submitted.  And as a result, he became one of the greatest spiritual giants of our time.    

Father Wiley also asks:  "What becomes of you?"  St. Paul gives us the answer:  "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?"  

What becomes of us?  We are in the safe and loving arms of Jesus Christ who promises never to leave us.  Maybe things aren't the way we want them to be.  Maybe we have to give up what we have worked for and suffer through great loss.  But does that mean we are abandoned?  

Father Wylie ends his sermon as follows:

No longer, I say, should you think of yourselves as squatters in the mighty edifice of Holy Church, nor should you find yourselves turned out like squatters. Shepherds must needs make difficult decisions, such as the erection or suppression of parishes – that is their onerous duty and in this they must have our obedience, charity and prayer: but never should they throw open the sheep-fold and allow the uncertain dispersion of their sheep into a world full of wolves. Charity, of course, is a two-way street.

Return Crucifix at Holy Innocents

Charity is a two-way street? Really? Was that the philosophy of Jesus Christ when He said, "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." (Mt. 5:43-44). Was charity a two-way street when Christ was hanging on the cross surrounded by those cheering on his death, and his response was "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"? A Christian does not say I will love you only if you love me. A Christian loves because that is the great commandment of Jesus Christ. Whatever else Christian love is, it is NOT a two-way street.

I am also deeply disturbed by Fr. Wylie's characterization of the New York Archdiocese throwing traditional Catholics "into a world full of wolves."  Why doesn't Father Wylie remind the people that our Lord has promised never to abandon them?  As the "Imitation of Christ" tells us, quoting from Proverbs 16:9, "Man proposes, God disposes."  God is the one who makes the final decision.  Are we willing to trust Him?  

And is Father Wylie characterizing the rest of the Catholic Church, the "ordinary form" of the Church, as a "world full of wolves"? If the worst does happen and Holy Innocents is closed, the Latin Mass Community will have to assimilate into other CATHOLIC churches (not a "world full of wolves") which may not offer the Latin Mass, but are nonetheless as Catholic as they are.  Does Father Wylie see that as being thrown to the wolves? Is he saying, as I have heard far too many Traditionalists say, that the only true Catholic Church are those who attend the Latin Mass? Traditionalists often complain that they are persecuted in the Church, but it is statements like this that bring on distrust by others.   

It is obvious that the purpose of Father Wylie's sermon was to instill fight into those who were listening to him.  However, no where does he talk about taking this in prayer to God, and humbly and patiently waiting for an answer.  He tells the people that they are victims, that they have rights which are being violated, that no one in the New York Archdiocese really cares about them and they better look out for themselves.  

With all due respect to Father Wylie, whom I greatly respect and admire, this sermon is an example of why so many in the Catholic hierarchy are suspicious of traditional Catholics. This kind of sermon will not help their cause at all. This sermon represents traditionalists as self righteous and rebellious. It hurts me to characterize it in this way because of my great attachment to Holy Innocents Church and respect for Father Wylie. But I feel that Our Lord is giving them an opportunity to prove just how much they love and trust Him in the way they accept this heavy trial they have been given. If this sermon by Father Wylie is any indication, this great opportunity is being squandered.

To quote Father Justin Wylie:

Will this be the path Christ charts or will we make of ourselves instruments of the evil one for division and derision? The test of this, as in all things, is charity. Deus caritas est; et ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est. Where there is a breakdown of charity, there also is the spirit of the antichrist. 

Deception in Catholic Websites: Caveat Emptor

I have found it very disconcerting and disheartening to see the way in which many Catholic blogs and websites report on news concerning the Catholic Church. I expect secular sites to report on events regarding the Catholic Church in a way that will suit their own agenda. However, I would think that a truly Catholic blog or website would report and comment on anything Catholic with integrity. But to believe that, unfortunately, is to live in a fantasy world.

Following is one very concrete example of the skewing that can be found on "Catholic" websites. Pewsitters.com is a Catholic news website that tends to support an ultaconservative, traditionalist Catholic viewpoint. It is modeled after Drudge Report in that it links to various websites and blogs to report on news affecting Catholics. They seem to love to link to anything that shows Catholic hierarchy, including Pope Francis, in a bad light. The latest concerns Bishop Leonardo Steiner of Brazil. This was the link, the last headline at the bottom of this screen shot, "Brazilian Catholic Bishop backs legal gay unions":

Clicking on the link leads you to a Filipino website, GMA News [HERE]. Here we are given a few quotes from an unlinked to interview with the bishop. And it doesn't sound good:

There needs to be a dialog on the rights attached to shared life between people of the same sex who decide to live together. They need legal support from society," Leonardo Steiner, the secretary general of the National Confederation of Brazilian Bishops, said in an interview with O Globo newspaper published on its website Thursday.

The Church isn't the same through the ages. It seeks answers for the present time, using the Gospel as the illuminating force of its action," the bishop said.

The Church is always seeking to read the signs of the times, to see what must or must not change. The truths of faith don't change.

I did a little internet research and found Lisa Graas, who entitles her post "False reports that the Catholic Church in Brazil supports homosexual unions".  Lisa writes:

There is some reporting (AFP via Yahoo) that the Catholic Church in Brazil now supports same-sex unions. The reports are false. They are based on remarks made by Bishop Leonardo Steiner in an interview with O Globo. Bishop Steiner refers to supporting the basic human rights of homosexual persons, such as the right to employment and the right not to be physically assaulted. He did not say that the Church supports their unions. As Pope Francis has done, he refers everyone back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the basic teaching we must all hold to.

Lisa then quotes directly from the original interview:

GLOBE: Recently, Pope Francis said: “Who am I to judge a homosexual who seeks God?”. Today, the Catholic Church is open to accept his homosexual believers?

Bishop Leonardo Steiner: You could say that the Pope echoes the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the gay people: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Avoid it-will [ill will] towards them [and] every sign of unjust discrimination. ” We welcome with respect, compassion and sensitivity means walking and living with the homosexual person and help her understand, deepen and manage their condition. [That each is a] son and daughter of God is understood.

[...]

GLOBE: The Pope also wants to study homosexual unions to understand why some countries have chosen to legalization. This represents the beginning of a dialogue on marriage between persons of the same sex?

Bishop Leonardo Steiner: It is important to understand the unions of persons of the same sex. Is not a concern when it comes to any people. It is necessary to talk about the rights of ordinary life between persons of the same sex, who decided to live together. They need a legal support in society.

The reason this reads in such a clumsy way is because it is Google translated from the original interview, which is in Portuguese. You can find that interview link in Lisa's post and HERE.

Lisa summarizes the interview:

In other words, though the union itself cannot be supported, we must support the “rights of ordinary life” (basic rights that are natural to all human beings) that each of these two persons have a right to. They need a legal support in society in terms of their basic rights. This is not an approval of their union, but only of their individual rights even though they live together in an illegitimate union. For instance, I cannot assault a person just because I object to his being in a same-sex union. I cannot, however, show approval for that union.

Bishop Steiner is a member of the Order of Friars Minor.

As Lisa has pointed out, His Excellency is not in any way supporting same sex unions. He is pointing out that homosexuals should be protected from those who wish to do violence against them and other discriminatory practices, and reminding us that we need to treat homosexuals and all people with dignity and respect. With regard to changing Catholic doctrine, as Lisa points out, Bishop Steiner points to the the Catechism, which in no uncertain terms denounces homosexuality activity.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Notice that the Church separates the person from the acts. We can never accept homosexual acts, but we must always accept those with homosexual tendencies. As can be seen, Bishop Steiner was quoting exactly what we find in the Catholic Catechism. To accuse him of wanting to change church doctrine is truly disingenuous. I expect this from secular websites, but from a website that purports to be Catholic?

 
Is there any chance that Pewsitter will link to Lisa Graas? Yes, and that will be when pigs fly.

Please do not accept everything you read on the Internet on face value, no matter where you find it. Always do a little more checking. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Yes, there have been and will continue to be rogue elements among the hierarchy of the Church, but be very careful when you see this kind of reporting. The Church is founded on a solid Rock, and He will always make sure that we stay on that Foundation.

The Spiritual Dilemma of Divorce and Remarriage

This will be a pure stream of consciousness post for me because I really can't come to a personal conclusion on the subject of divorced and remarried Catholics receiving communion.   The easy answer is that those in such a situation cannot receive the sacraments because they are living in adultery.  They are responsible for the situation they're in - no one forced them to remarry - so they can do what's right or face the consequences, which is separate from their current spouse or deal with separation from Holy Mother Church and her life-giving sacraments.  It's time for the rest of us to move on.  I have to admit that has been pretty much my gut reaction to this issue.

But then I remember Jesus' parable about leaving the 99 and going after that one lost sheep. Matthew 18:12-14:

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.  In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

And when it comes to divorce and remarriage, we are not talking about one sheep that has gone astray. This situation involves millions of souls who no longer have access to the Holy Eucharist which, as Our Lord told us, is so essential for eternal life: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53)

Cardinal Walter Kasper has become the de facto spokesman on behalf of those who want to see some arrangement made for divorced and remarried Catholics to come back into communion with the Church. Others, such as Cardinal Raymond Burke, have said this is impossible, that this goes against the very words of Jesus Christ.  Confessing the sin of divorce and remarriage is not enough to be absolved.  The Church requires that you legally dissolve the second marriage and live apart from your second spouse whether there are children or not.  This, of course, imposes an extreme hardship and emotional trauma on all involved, including and most especially the children.

There is an interview with Cardinal Kasper on the Vatican Insider which you can read HERE, which gives us Cardinal Kasper's reason for wanting to explore this situation. The article starts out with this quote from Cardinal Kasper:

There are those who believe the church is for the pure. They forget that the church is also a church of sinners.

There is certainly no denying the truth of that statement. If Charlie Manson were suddenly to come to a revelation and repent of the evil in his life, the Church would willingly take him into her embrace. The people he killed and the lives he destroyed would not be made whole in any way, but nonetheless he would be completely forgiven of his sin and enter into a state of grace. And that is how it should be. Isaiah 1:18 says:

"Come now, let us settle the matter," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool."

And yet, unless someone is willing to tear apart his family because it is not a true marriage as the Church defines it, he cannot be absolved of his sin. Please understand, I am certainly not arguing with the Church's stance on marriage at all. Marriage is a covenant made by two people before and with God, and it cannot be broken. Marriage is indissoluble, and those who have divorced and remarried have committed a grave sin which cannot be overlooked. But as Cardinal Kasper says in the interview:

“I cannot think of a situation in which a human being has fallen into a gap and there is no way out. Often he cannot return to the first marriage. If this is possible, there should be a reconciliation, but often that’s not possible.”

Just as Charlie Manson could never make things right for his victims, a person in a second marriage most times has no way of turning back the clock and making things right in his or her first marriage.  Yet Charlie Mason can be forgiven, but the divorced and remarried person cannot receive the same forgiveness.  Is the answer to just leave them hanging?

Cardinal Kasper asks some important questions which really do need to be considered:

“In the Creed,” the cardinal said, “we say we believe in the forgiveness of sin. If there was this shortcoming, and it has been repented for—is absolution not possible? My question goes through the sacrament of penance, through which we have access to Holy Communion. But penance is the most important thing—repentance of what went wrong, and a new orientation. The new quasi-family or the new partnership must be solid, lived in a Christian way. A time of new orientation—metanoia—would be necessary. Not punishing people but a new orientation because divorce is always a tragedy.”

Kasper then went on to ask a rhetorical question: “My question—not a solution, but a question—is this: Is absolution not possible in this case? And if absolution, then also Holy Communion? There are many themes, many arguments in our Catholic tradition that could allow this way forward.”

In past ages, most cultures were on the side on the Church in that divorce and remarriage were considered social stigmas. It was very rare for people to leave their marriages and remarry. But we live in a post-Christian world where marriage is no longer considered sacred. The only really important issue is that we be "happy." If your marriage doesn't make you "happy", then get out and find someone else who will make you "happy." Sadly, many Catholics have been taken in by this evil philosophy and the result is that millions are now unable to receive Holy Eucharist.

Cardinal Kasper made a very controversial statement in this interview regarding the state of many marriages in the Catholic Church:

The cardinal dealt with the problem of the lack of faith when a religious marriage is celebrated. “That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith. And if the couple only want a bourgeois ceremony in a church because it’s more beautiful, more romantic, than a civil ceremony, you have to ask whether there was faith, and whether they really accepted all the conditions of a valid sacramental marriage—that is, unity, exclusivity, and also indissolubility.”

Canonist Ed Peters jumped on this statement by Cardinal Kasper as being extremely irresponsible.  He feels that making such a statement will only add to this problem because it will cause people to doubt their own situations:

[B]y what right does the cardinal casually tell laity that 50% of their marriages are invalid—even if the pope did say it? Does turmoil among married persons in the wake of such a remark not matter to any except those who suffer it? As I said, I am stunned that such a remark was made, even if it was a mere repetition of another’s views.

I do not have the experience of working with married couples as Dr. Peters has, but I do live in the world and know many married couples, and it is my experience that a good majority of people have no idea what they are doing when they get married. They don't realize that marriage is a profound, life long commitment. Too many of us have been poisoned by Hollywood's version of marriage which is "happily ever after." When life gets real and people start realizing there is no "happily ever after", they decide this is not what they signed up for, and they want out.

Cardinal Kasper says we must deal with this problem BEFORE people get married:

“Many canon lawyers,” Kasper continued, “tell me that today in our pluralistic situation we cannot presuppose that couples really assent to what the church requires. Often it is also ignorance. Therefore you have to emphasize and to strengthen prematrimonial catechesis. It’s often done in a very bureaucratic way. No, we have to provide catechesis. I know some parishes in Rome where couples have to attend catechesis, and the pastor himself does it. We must do much more in prematrimonial catechesis and use pastoral work and so on because we cannot presuppose that everybody who is a formal Christian also has the faith. It wouldn’t be realistic.”

But what happens when people decide to walk away from a marriage?  How can the Church deal with this?  Do we just leave them to their own devices, to sink or swim on their own?  Is that how Our Lord dealt with the one sheep who went astray?

Cardinal Kasper:

Kasper then answered directly to the criticisms made by the Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, who put the following question to his German confrere: “What happens to the first marriage?”

“The first marriage,” Kasper answered, “is indissoluble because marriage is not only a promise between the two partners; it’s God’s promise too, and what God does is done for all time. Therefore the bond of marriage remains. Of course, Christians who leave their first marriage have failed. That’s clear. The problem is when there is no way out of such a situation. If we look to God’s activity in salvation history, we see that God gives his people a new chance. That’s mercy. God’s love does not end because a human being has failed—if he repents. God provides a new chance—not by cancelling the demands of justice: God does not justify the sin. But he justifies the sinner. Many of my critics do not understand that distinction. They think, well, we want to justify their sin. No, nobody wants that. But God justifies the sinner who converts. This distinction appears already in Augustine.”

Does anyone really believe we can force people back into a marriage they have walked away from? How do we put trust and commitment back into such a relationship? It is like trying to put shattered crystal back together.  Yet, it is imperative that the Church help these people to realize that they have committed serious sin and to lead them to repentance of that sin.  

From Cardinal Kasper:

“I do not deny that the bond of marriage remains,” the German cardinal explained. “But the fathers of the church had a wonderful image: If there is a shipwreck, you don’t get a new ship to save you, but you get a plank so that you can survive. That’s the mercy of God—to give us a plank so we can survive. That’s my approach to the problem. I respect those who have a different position, but on the other hand, they must see what the concrete situation is today. How can we help the people who struggle in these situations? I know such people—often women. They are very engaged in parish life; they do all they can for their children. I know a woman who prepared her daughter for First Communion. The parish priest said the girl can go to Holy Communion, but not mama. I told the pope about this, and he said, “No, that’s impossible.”

Cardinal Kasper then deals with those who have entered into an invalid second marriage:

As far as the second marriage celebrated in a civil ceremony is concerned, Kasper says: “The second marriage, of course, is not a marriage in our Christian sense. And I would be against celebrating it in church. But there are elements of a marriage. I would compare this to the way the Catholic Church views other churches. The Catholic Church is the true church of Christ, but there are other churches that have elements of the true church, and we recognize those elements. In a similar way, we can say, the true marriage is the sacramental marriage. And the second is not a marriage in the same sense, but there are elements of it—the partners take care of one another, they are exclusively bound to one another, there is an intention of permanence, they care of children, they lead a life of prayer, and so on. It’s not the best situation. It’s the best possible situation. Realistically, we should respect such situations, as we do with Protestants. We recognize them as Christians. We pray with them.”

In other words, Cardinal Kasper says we have to deal with the reality of families who are involved in invalid marriages.  As His Excellency said, "The second marriage, of course, is not a marriage in our Christian sense," but "there are elements of it—the partners take care of one another, they are exclusively bound to one another, there is an intention of permanence, they care of children, they lead a life of prayer, and so on."  My problem with this is, we now have the problem of "same sex" marriage, which is also not real marriage in any sense of the word.  Yet, many of these couples also have elements of marriage such as commitment, children, etc.  If we give any kind of recognition to second marriages, will that open the doors to somehow recognizing same sex marriages?  What happens if the Church decides to walk down that road?   Wouldn't this weaken the whole concept of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman?  Would this end up doing much more harm than good?

Cardinal Kasper ends this interview with this statement:

“In no way,” Kasper clearly stressed during the interview, “do I deny the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage. That would be stupid. We must enforce it, and help people to understand it and to live it out. That’s a task for the church. But we must recognize that Christians can fail, and then we have to help them. To those who say, “Well, they are in a sinful situation,” I would say: Pope Benedict XVI has already said that such Catholics can receive spiritual communion. Spiritual communion is to be one with Christ. But if I am one with Christ, I cannot be in a situation of grave sin. So if they can receive spiritual communion, why not also sacramental Communion? I think there are also problems in the traditional position, and Pope Benedict reflected a lot about this, and he said that they must have means of salvation and spiritual communion. But spiritual communion goes very far: it’s being one with Christ. Why should these people be excluded from the other Communion? Being in spiritual communion with Christ means God has forgiven this person. So the church, though the sacrament of forgiveness, should also be able to forgive if God does it. Otherwise there is an opposition between God and church—and that would be a great problem.”

I think this argument, saying that because such people can receive spiritual communion so why shouldn't they be allowed to receive sacramental Communion, has great and dangerous potential for become a slippery slope. Yes, spiritual communion does allow us to become one with Christ, but to equate it with sacramental Communion is just wrong. Sacramental Communion is the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church has rightly said that one must be in a state of grace to receive this great Sacrament. If we open the doors to those who, as Cardinal Kasper admits, have engaged in serious sin because of divorce and remarriage, how can we ensure that it will stop there? Will we then allow anyone and everyone to receive the Sacrament of Communion just because they receive spiritual communion?

Is divorce and remarriage the "unpardonable" sin?  Can there be no mercy or forgiveness shown to those who are in this situation?  Is there really no way to bring them back into the sacramental life of the Church?  I honestly don't have any answers to these questions, but I think it is important that these issues be raised.  

We don't need to be sitting in judgment of people like Cardinal Kasper who wish to show mercy to those separated from the Church. We need to be praying for him and for all Church authority that they will be open and submissive to the Holy Spirit as He guides and leads the Church. Every soul is important to Jesus Christ, and so every soul should be important to us.

I truly appreciate that Cardinal Kasper is showing such great concern for those separated from the Church because of divorce and remarriage, and I think he does so in sincere concern for their souls. Further, I think it is vital that this issue be explored at the upcoming Synod. The Church cannot just turn her back on all those millions of souls who are spiritually separated because of their marital status. We must minister to them in some way. We must do everything we can to bring them back into the Church. 

In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish

Despair Is A Tool Of The Devil

Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report recently did a blog post entitled, "Do You See What I See?" [HERE] in which he wrote of his anxiety and outright despair over what he sees as the current condition of the Catholic Church.  He started out with the usual "there has never been a bigger crisis in the Church than we currently face" approach:

Having been born in the 60s, I have no strong recollection, beyond some overheard conversations, of what it must have felt like to witness the tearing down of everything. It must have felt to many that all was ending and that God must surely act to defend His Church from the destruction.

Alas, it was not to be and the destruction continued, most people just cared less.

. . .

I also wondered why so many people, at that time, failed to see it for what it was. They smiled and called it the new springtime even as everything died around them. They called it opening the doors and letting fresh air into the Church, as everybody inside choked on the smoke of Satan. How did they not see what was happening?

I have often wondered what it must have felt like to live through that era. I wonder no more. In fact, I think that perhaps today's high speed death spiral may be worse in some ways. Having never been through it before and unable to see its logical end, many well meaning Catholics perhaps opened themselves up to the false optimism of that era.

Mr. Archbold then writes these statements filled with despair:

I have often pondered this question. Will I live long enough to see the Church fully transmogrified into syncretistic modernized mess it seems hellbent on becoming or will the Church be rescued by the Lord.

As I said, I have often wondered what it must have felt like. I don't wonder that anymore, I know now. The only thing I wonder now is when God will choose to act and rescue us, His Church, from us, His Church.

Such an attitude reminds me very much of those people in the Gospel accounts who surrounded Our Lord. Here was Jesus Christ telling them He was the Savior come to save the world. The people who followed Jesus witnessed miracle after miracle - sight restored to the blind, the deaf healed, the lame walking, demons cast out, dead raised to life - and yet, the disciples of Jesus were constantly doubting Him. This included those closest to Him. The Gospel of John relates the story of Lazarus, who had died, and his sisters, Mary and Martha, who felt that Jesus could have healed their brother, but Jesus delayed His coming to them and Lazarus died. The two sisters did not hesitate to show their disappointment in Jesus.

John 11:17-24:

17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18 Now Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, 19 and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.

21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

Both Mary and Martha felt Jesus had really let them down. When Mary was told that Jesus was there, she ran to see Him, but the first words out of her mouth were, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." (Verse 32)

Jesus Wept

The next verse tells us that when Jesus saw how mournful the people were, He was "deeply moved in spirit and troubled." (Verse 33). What troubled Jesus? Verse 35 is the shortest verse in the Bible, but it speaks volumes: "Jesus wept." Why? What moved Jesus to tears? He knew what He was about to do. He knew Lazarus would soon be walking among them again. Our Lord did not weep out of pity for Lazarus or for those who mourned him. Our Lord wept because of the unbelief of the people, as shown in His statement to Martha in verse 40:

Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?

Why did the people so quickly forget what Jesus had told them? They took their eyes off of Jesus and let their physical circumstances dictate their beliefs. The worst had happened - Lazarus had died - and Jesus had let them down by allowing it to happen. 

Another biblical story that I find very similar to the story of Lazarus is that of Mary Magdalene on Easter morning at the tomb. She had gone to the tomb of Jesus in order to finish anointing His Body. However, Jesus' Body was not in the tomb, and her first thought was that someone had stolen the body. Even though Jesus had said many times that He would rise from the dead, Mary was so overwhelmed by the shock of what had happened three days before and by her own grief at losing Jesus that she never gave a thought to Jesus' statements. As far as she was concerned, Jesus was dead and the dream was over. Even though Jesus stood right next to her in the garden, her unbelief was so profound that she did not recognize Him. I wonder how often we allow ourselves to be so overwhelmed by despair that, like Mary Magdalene, we cannot recognize Jesus even though He is right next to us.

Later that same day, Our Lord appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus.  These disciples were filled with grief and despair at the death of Jesus Christ. Jesus came right up to them and asked what they were talking about (Luke 24:17-18).

They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

Again, like Mary Magdalene, these two disciples allowed themselves to be so overwhelmed with grief that they did not recognize Jesus Christ when He was literally standing in their midst and talking with them.

The disciples and Jesus on the road to Emmaus

Many look at the current condition of the Church and of the world, and despite their professed belief in Jesus Christ, they tend to despair, as expressed by Patrick Archbold.  We stand in the garden with Mary Magdalene with Jesus Christ right beside us and wail, "Where have they taken My Lord?"  We need to read and re-read the words of St. Paul, who suffered persecution and setbacks far beyond what we have experienced.  This is what he wrote:

Romans 8:5-6:

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.

Verse 15:

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again.

Verses 31-32:

What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

St. Paul is telling us that as long as we are in Christ, we can't lose.  The trick is to keep our eyes on heaven and not on things of the earth.  Patrick Archbold would do well, instead of wringing his hands in despair, to instead look to the words of Jesus Christ who said, "The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church."  (Matthew 16:18)  Our Lord promised never to leave us.  (Matthew 28:20)  He also sent the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, to guide and lead us into all truth.  (John 15:26).

We know every time we enter a Catholic Church that Jesus is in the tabernacle waiting for us. We know that His Blessed Mother is constantly interceding on our behalf. If she was willing to ask Her Son to save a wedding party when they ran out of wine, can we doubt for a moment that she is constantly asking her Divine Son to save our souls? All she asks of us is "Do whatever He tells you." And what does Jesus tell us? He commands us to trust Him and believe His Words.

Our Lord literally poured out His Life Blood for us, facing the worst cruelty of men so that we could be saved from sin and spend eternity with Him. His love for us is so big the universe itself cannot hold it. How can we insult Him by wondering, as Patrick Archbold did, "Will I live long enough to see the Church fully transmogrified into syncretistic modernized mess it seems hellbent on becoming or will the Church be rescued by the Lord." How can Patrick Archbold or anyone else look at Christ on the Cross and ask such a question?

Pope St. John Paul II once said,

“Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.”

St. John Paul II lived through the horror of World War II.  He saw death and destruction on a massive scale.  He himself came close to death many times.  And yet he told us never to despair but to always trust in the Lord.  Our despair will blind us to Christ and that could be deadly to our souls.  St. John Paul II wrote this prayer:

Jesus, I trust in You! With God nothing is impossible! What is especially possible is conversion, which can change hatred into love and war into peace. And so our prayer becomes all the more insistent and trusting: Jesus, I trust You!

Despair is actually a form of pride. Despair says to God, you're just not big enough. This storm that we are facing is too big for you to handle. The great sin of Judas was not his betrayal of Jesus Christ. St. Peter also betrayed Jesus and he went on to become the first pope. Peter owned up to what he did, received the great mercy and forgiveness of Jesus Christ, and became a great saint. Judas looked at what he did and gave into hopelessness. Who knows what great things Judas could have accomplished if he had not allowed despair to destroy him.

I have to say that I find most Catholic blogs and websites to be extremely depressing. Instead of spreading the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, we are mostly given the news about the great sins of the church and how it is all pretty much hopeless. We act as if this was the first time in Church history that we have ever had to contend with sinful human beings. If Our Lord had wanted the church to be run by perfect beings, He could have put angels in charge. We would never have to worry about any sex abuse scandals or wayward priests or bishops. Angels would always have the courage and wherewithal to stand up for the truth, never flinching, never backing down. They would always do and say the right thing.

Instead, Our Lord gave us weak sinful men and said, listen to them and do what they tell you to do. Further, Jesus tells us that He takes very personally the way in which these men are treated:

Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me. (John 13:20)

And:

Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me (Luke 10:16)

We all have our own ideas of how the Church should be run. When things don't meet our expectations and demands, we whine and complain and, like Chicken Little, declare that the sky is falling, even though Jesus promised such a thing will never happen in the Church.

The next time you feel compelled to sit in judgment of those who have been put in authority in the church, remember that Jesus Christ says you are sitting in judgment of Him. Oh, I know all of the arguments that we have a right and even a duty to criticize our prelates. But this should be done only after deep, prayerful consideration and learning as much as we can about any situation, and not just believing every word we read on some website or blog. It should also be done in charity and with great regard for the soul of the person we are criticizing and if at all possible, it should be done in private. The devil is a cunning foe, and he knows just how to ensnare us. The enemy feeds on negativity, and anytime we give in to and act on negative thoughts, we are giving into Satan himself.

Patrick Archbold concluded his post with the following comment:

**Note. If you don't sympathize or understand this post, that's fine. Just let it go please. Anyone who chooses to use the comment box to mock me and my fellow travellers will be deleted and likely banned. So again, just let it go please.

I am certainly not trying to mock Archbold or anyone else.  But I have to say that I do get very tired of all those who see nothing but negativity and destruction in the Church.  This is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, who is the Chief Cornerstone.  This Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.  The gates of hell have certainly stormed the church over and over again down through the centuries, but have never once prevailed.  The Church is indestructible.  Never believe anyone who tries to tell you differently.  As I John 4:4 tells us, He who is in you is stronger than he who is in the world.

Patrick Archbold says that he cannot understand those who persist in optimism at this time in church history.  I think the optimists are the only people we should be listening to.  That is not to say that we should not acknowledge and admit our problems and the challenges facing us.  But we should never let that govern our actions or thoughts.  Our two most recently canonized saints - Popes St. John XXIII and John Paul II - were always optimistic and based their papacies on this optimism and faith in Jesus Christ.  We need to listen to them.

In the 1960's Leslie Gore sang, "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to."  Well, this is NOT your party and if you want to cry, you are going to find yourself on the outside.  Despair will often knock on our doors and demand to be let in. We need to immediately take that to our Lord and ask Him to cast it out of our hearts.  There is no room for despair in the life of a follower of Jesus Christ.

This is from one of the greatest optimists in Church history:

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (St. Paul to the Romans, chapter 8:37-39)