Considering A Sacrament- You're Not As Prolife As You Think

It's funny that I've struggled so much lately over challenges I've had lately with my new faith considering how much investigation and research I did about Catholicism long before even joining RCIA. But problems I've had lately relate to two of the Church's more controversial positions, which go hand-in-hand with each other: Sanctity of life and prohibition of contraception.

I say these are struggles for me because I agreed with the Church's teachings about them and because of that, I thought I understood them. But I'm coming to learn that I don't. Which isn't to say I disagree with the Church. It only means that I didn't completely understand where they were coming from.

Take abortion, for example. To me it was human life. Simple as that. And since we don't know exactly when "life begins", the cautionary principle we should proceed from is that life begins at the moment of conception.

And while I suspect the Church agrees with that sentiment, it doesn't go far enough in describing the fullness of the person or the problem. My problem, though, was that I didn't feel any great intellectual compulsion to proceed from there. And that's why the reasons for the Church's teachings have caught me so off-guard.

From the Catechism:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Pretty straight forward, right?

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

...

Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

So in a nutshell, that tells us what the Church teaches concerning abortion. But it doesn't tell us the fullness of why things are the way they are. This is more or less where I'd always stopped with the formation of my pro-life views. "It's murder". Pure and simple. And, again, it is. But there are other factors at work in this far beyond even that. My problem was that I thought the above was enough by itself. And as Anglican (as I used to be), it might've been. But the Church always has two or three reasons (at least) for believing what they do. So what are the other reasons in play here?

It relates to the life and purpose of the sacrament of marriage. A man and a woman, once married, are to bond in the marital union. Their love for each other and this sacrament given from above are powerful. So powerful, in fact, that (in ordinary circumstances) the end result can be new life.

The purpose of marriage isn't to do whatever you want, if you catch my drift, with your spouse. Your wife is not a sex object. She's your wife. She has the full dignity of being made in God's image. As a man, you're to cherish her, protect her and love her as Christ loves the Church.

From the Catechism...

2249 The conjugal community is established upon the covenant and consent of the spouses. Marriage and family are ordered to the good of the spouses, to the procreation and the education of children.

Again, the purpose of marriage is in the majority of cases the creation of new life, which carries with it the inherent responsibility of educating the children in the faith. Push comes to shove, this is what the two of you are here to do.

1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

And let's be realistic, that may not always fit into your game plan. If the two of you already have your hands full with a little one who's still in diapers and want to space the next child out, there's nothing wrong with consummating only during non-fertile times. You're both open to procreation but your preference is to wait at least a while.

Here's the thing. You will most assuredly feel the desire for each other during fertile times. But you can't act upon it. That's a sacrifice the two of you have to make. Again, your spouse is not a sex object. The minute you don't respect how powerful the marital union is, you may end up with an unexpected pregnancy.

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

Now, this policy has been treated as an authoritarian power play by the secularists. "They only want women to be wombs with feet!" Well, let's be realistic for just a moment. Which worldview objectifies women? The Catholic viewpoint that says both husband and wife should respect each other's souls and bodies at all times and never treat one another like a piece of meat because their union is so powerful it can create new life? Or the secularist view that says you can do whatever you want with whoever you want as often as you want with absolutely no commitment whatsoever as long as you remember to take your Pill?

You cannot use contraception without in some way or another cheapening what the sacrament of marriage is supposed to be. Consequently, there may well be times when you have to sacrifice the pleasure of your physical union with your spouse. But that's a sacrifice you must be willing to make.

Besides, if the Church truly wanted to reduce women to "baby factories", they would not forbid in vitro fertilization. But they do. Infertile couples don't miss out on the fullness of the marital union simply because they don't have children. But they're still called to sacrifice by not having children.

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

But you never hear that argument in anti-Catholic rants in the media. All anybody seems to remember is the Church's prohibition against using contraception. But if the Church truly viewed women as baby outlets, they would not forbid artificial fertilization procedures.

So much for women's rights!

Ultimately it comes down to the dignity of marriage, which is inextricably linked to the dignity of the human being which is itself inextricably linked to the value of human life. And that leads us right back to abortion.

Considering the reverence the Church manifestly has for marriage as a sacrament for procreation, is it any wonder then that the Church views abortion the way it does? If one's view of marriage is as high-minded as the Catholic Church's, the only logical conclusion must be that abortion is a wicked practice of barbaric moral evil.

I thought I was prolife, pro-marriage and anti-contraception before but it took the Church to show me understand just how right and yet how far away I was.

The Future of the Church

I've written about my time among the Anglicans before. So I won't retread too much of it here. But it is interesting how and in what ways liberals want the Catholic Church to change.

The main reason I never joined up with the Episcopal church is because, first and foremost, the liberals had made a wreck of the place. At the time you couldn't readily identify a liberal wackadoo parish from a more traditional one. At least not by looking at it. That was the main reason I ultimately fell in with the Southern Baptists for all those years as I say. By and large, a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention could be assumed to be faithful and orthodox (by SBC standards, at least). The Episcopal church, meanwhile, was a lot more of a gamble.

As I type that, I'm remembering the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which, as discussed here, I and others interpret as the beginning of the SBC doing an about-face on LGBT issues. So in the future, you can generally be certain of most Episcopal parishes you come across while the future is very likely to be shaky and uncertain for the SBC. No, the irony of all this is not lost on me.

But I digress. The one thing that's clear is that the Episcopal Church has been completely remade in the liberal's image. This, we're told, is the gateway to Christianity's future. And, as the prevailing liberal sentiment goes, until the Catholic Church embraces these things, "young people" will continue abandoning her in droves.

But like anything else, the numbers tell a different story. Current polling figures are either unavailable or else are colored by ideologues from both sides. But as a preliminary, the Church appears to be stable in the United States even though news media are constantly presenting anecdotal data indicating people are leaving. Thus the stability could be from disaffected Protestants crossing the Tiber, an influx of immigrants (whether here legally or not) or other factors. But the currently numbers are either holding fast, and are possibly increasing.

I recently had occasion to meet with my priest and discuss the final details of my being welcomed into the Church. During our conversation, we veered off topic and he ended up mentioning that the pastors of most Catholic parishes are insanely outnumbered by their parishioners.

Father didn't mention specific numbers but he said that the Novus Ordo parish at which his FSSP parish is temporarily headquartered has something like 50,000 people attending. He said that a priest is supposed to be like a father to his parishioners (thus the title "Father"). But the situation a lot of priests are facing now is more akin to being the mayor of a small town. This, he says, is why most Catholic parishes have several priests on duty. There's simply too much to do for any one priest to hope to keep up.

This isn't a problem that erecting new parishes will necessarily solve either as there is a priest shortage right now. Demand far outstrips supply.

Meanwhile, if current social issues are anything to judge by, the Episcopal church is apparently the zeitgeist of American Christianity right now. It embraces everything the liberal naysayers argue the Church should. Less hierarchical authority, ordination of gay, female and married "clergy", acceptance of non-heterosexual unions, abortion on demand, birth control, divorce and all the other liberal sacraments.

With a formula like that, you'd think the Episcopal church must have nigh uncontainable growth. But the truth is it lost over 30% of its parishioners between 2001 and 2008. Fully one million people left the church during that time. And all signs so far indicate that it has lost even more in recent years as the old guard continues dying out.

During that same period, the Catholic Church posted growth of 7 million new members. In other words, they not only made up for what the Episcopal church lost, they had an additional 6 million new members as well.

Are the Catholic Church's numbers stable? Will they hold? We'll have to wait for newer and more objective polling data. But what's virtually certain at this point is that the Episcopal church (and Anglicanism in general) is in its death throes in the United States. In ten years, I think it's very unlikely that the Episcopal church as we know it will even exist anymore. Their "clergy" are still relatively young though so there's every possibility that the "too many chiefs, not enough Indians" problem the Episcopal church is currently facing will only get even more lopsided as time goes by.

Meanwhile, one has to wonder how long it will be before Catholic priests feel like the mayor less of a small town and more of a major metropolitan area.

Evangelicals Love the Catholic Church

Man, am I nailing multiple updates this week or what?

Anyway, so something that's captured my interest ever since I first started the process of joining the Catholic Church is the concept of Protestants making the switch. I think this is rather natural inasmuch as I was a Protestant. And I was making the switch.

Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of the term "convert" because I'm not switching from one brand name to another. In my mind, I've embraced the fullness of the Christian faith as expressed in and revealed through the Catholic Church. I'm filling in gaps that were always present in my religious acumen. Such an act isn't a "conversion"; it's a "completion".

What I've noticed though is a tendency to assume that "young people" joining the Church do so for the liturgy. I have no particular expertise on that subject. First, these are the same "young people" who support same-sex marriage in numbers approaching the ridiculous. So clearly they can't be too overly concerned with the Church's teachings. Second, I can't quite shake the suspicion of their fixation for liturgy as strictly novelty.

To wit: to whatever extent they're churched, they're predominantly familiar with worship services that are similar to U2 concerts. Any type of liturgy might be interesting to them because of the novelty factor. That doesn't necessarily make for an enduring conversion

In any case though, I came across an article less about the all-important Millennials and more about joining the Church point blank, particularly as it concerns older people in leadership positions within evangelicalism.

We dare not underplay the importance of that.

Do clergy leave the Church? Sure. Happens fairly regularly, I'm sure. But what's interesting to me is the concept of married evangelical pastors switching to Catholicism. In most cases, Catholic priests cannot be married. It's already costly for an evangelical to "convert" to Catholicism because implicit in that is the acknowledge that his previous affiliation was in error.

But the deeper issue is that many evangelical leaders and pastors and teachers who convert do so in the full knowledge that they'll have to find a new career, different ways to service in the Church and very probably live in a higher level of poverty than they might be accustomed to as relatively well to do evangelical ministers.

The importance of this is not to be underestimated. True, it may not be as flashy and impressive as refusing to recant the faith on pain of martyrdom. But I think we should bear in mind the prospects of a loss professional prestige, reduced income, unemployment and possible harassment when we consider what some evangelical leaders face in joining with the Church.

The other thing the article makes a special point of mentioning though is the intellectual reasons many converts to the faith have. I'd be the last one to deplore liturgy since I've written about it on many occasions. But at the end of the day, my reasons for joining the Church are because of history, reason and logic.

This is the Church founded by Christ. You can trace today's bishops in an unbroken line back to Our Lord Himself. The Church Fathers were CLEARLY Catholic. Catholicism offers the only intellectually coherent and logical case for salvation. Numerous other reasons too.

However, the same is not true in the inverse. Sure, evangelicals may join the Church for intellectual reasons. But Catholics leave the Church for evangelicalism for emotional reasons. It has nothing to do with the Protestants making a better case or presenting a stronger argument. In fact, you could reasonably guess that perhaps Protestantism itself isn't even the issue. Many Catholics leaving has more to do with the Church itself than it does evangelicalism.

So, to put it another way, evangelicals join the Catholic Church because of the Catholic Church. Catholics leave the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church.

I find this very fascinating.

More to follow.

Of Commissions and Synods

The end of RCIA draws ever nearer. I've only got just a bit more to work through with Father, not least of which is a one-on-one meeting to, I assume, work out the finer details of my baptism. True, I've been baptized before but (A) I can't prove that as I don't have a certificate and (B) I truly can't remember if it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So a conditional baptism it is!

There have been a few teachable moments in recent months though. I haven't had much chance to write about it but it's interesting to me to compare the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission conference on the LGBT movement over and against the Church's Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

In the case of the SBC, many people have interpreted comments made by a lot of their high muckety-mucks as a new direction in SBC policy. Change comes from the top and comes slowly but, so the expectation goes, in ten years, we might be looking at a very different SBC. This is based on remarks such as these by Dr. Albert Mohler:

"Early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation I repent of that."

And why not, the SBC is losing tens of thousands of members every year. These are predominantly those under the age of 35, for whom "LGBT rights" border on a sacrament. Push comes to shove, they're perfectly willing to turn their backs on Christianity in solidarity with their LGBT friends.

Compare this to the Church's Synod, where some bishops might've wanted to open the door a bit more for the LGBT community but the Church's Magisterium asserted itself and, in the end, the most you could say is that the Church repeated the existing policy of treating LGBT's with dignity and respect but not even coming close to "accepting" them in the ways that Protestant denominations have.

To be sure, this approach isn't necessarily winning the Catholic Church admirers in that same under-35 demographic either. But the difference is that the Church won't change their policy to fit the climate of the times. Homosexuality is a sin and, rise or fall, the Church will stand by her historic teachings in this regard. Nothing has changed. Indeed, nothing can change.

Think of this as another in a long list of things that Protestants have compromised to keep the lights on. For as big a deal as they make over it, it seems that scriptural authority is capable of being overruled by popular demand.

Who knew?

Hatred

Been thinking.

Obviously gay marriage is making a lot of inroads right now. And it doesn't matter what I think about that. It doesn't matter that it's completely artificial. It doesn't matter that what little "momentum" it has comes from a Presidential election where a major part of the electorate was repressed and kept away from polls.

What matters is that it's coming. And this genie isn't easily put back in the bottle, however illegitimate its origins.

This same group is basically openly at war with any semblance of organized religion. They've been less successful here, thanks primarily to a Supreme Court obsessed with freedom of speech. Under other circumstances, nobody's qualified to say what might be happening to America right now.

This is all mostly pushed by people who only love liberty and democracy when it suits their purposes. Otherwise, both are obstacles to their agenda. Obstacles to be eradicated.

And I'll be bluntly honest that it's hard to obey Our Lord's command to love those who hate me and do good to those who persecute me. My natural inclination is to be an absolute gadfly. If I have a chance to ruin a liberal's day, all too often I'm guilty of taking it. Even if it's something as petty as cutting somebody off in traffic with an Obama/Biden 2012 bumper sticker on their car. As long as it doesn't violate the law or result in physical injury, odds are it'll be a pleasure to completely screw some liberal over.

But Our Lord doesn't say to do that. He says to love those who hate me and do good to those who persecute me. This is what the Church did back in the first century when the Romans were using Christians as tiki torches in Caesar's garden. This is the approach that ultimately transformed Rome from barbaric paganism to enlightened Christianity.

This is the approach that changed the entire world.

But hate. Hate comes so easily, doesn't it? I see liberals everywhere destroying everything that makes this country great. And not only are they destroying it, they're reveling in their victories and successes. And I hate them for it. I regularly refuse to give them any measure of forgiveness, patience, kindness or, worst of all, Our Lord's love. I declared them enemies and never even attempted to reach them.

And my hate isn't restricted to liberals either. A fair amount of it is directed to evangelical Christians, obsessed with their little imaginary apocalypses; the ones who stayed home in 2012 and gave control over this country to a tyrant because they didn't like Mitt Romney out of some idiotic "principled stand".

This same principle didn't keep them from voting for President Bush back in 2004, mind you; it's only when Obamacare is set to destroy what's left of freedom in America that these fools decided to be conservative purists.

I say all of this to my shame. Because for as resentful, angry and downright hateful as I've been to those people, they're ultimately just PEOPLE who need Our Lord's love and sacrifice in order to be forgiven. And I've made absolutely no effort to be the light that shines the way.

Understand, in most respects I consider myself a sexual libertarian. I don't care who does what with whom as long as all parties consent to it. My opposition to same-sex "marriage" comes exclusively from the certainty that part of "marriage equality" necessarily entails putting the Church under liberalism's boot.

NOBODY can guarantee when gay marriage is the law of the land, priests, pastors and other religious leaders won't get sued into oblivion for refusing to perform "same-sex marriage" ceremonies.

That is where my opposition to same-sex unions begins and ends. Otherwise I couldn't care less about it and am amazed that things have gone as far as they have.

But that hasn't stopped me from anything. I originally didn't care about "same-sex marriage" supporters or their kooky cause. But now that they're in spitting distance of their goal, I not only hate them but the people they're advocating for.

And again, that's the complete opposite of what Our Lord intended.

Through this entire mess, I've come to realize that there's a better than average chance that this could result in a serious persecution, possibly up to and including martyrdom. And through it all, I've steadfastly refused to count the evangelicals as allies. By definition they've already rebelled against the Church's authority.

Why would they be counted upon to stand up for REAL truth when they've already rejected so much of it already by separating themselves from Rome?

But Our Lord said we should make peace with our brothers. I've never even attempted to do this. I've just assumed they're pompous, ignorant, proud and unreliable pretenders to the REAL faith.

There's a lot here that I've failed to handle properly. I've returned the favor (with interest) when liberals treat me like enemies. I've smugly dismissed any legitimacy of conviction (if not purity of doctrine) among the evangelicals and categorized them as misled sheep; simpletons and fools too stupid to crack open and read the writings of the early Church fathers to understand their supposed faith's TRUE origins.

I will do all in my power to repent. The hour is late. Probably too late to reverse any of this. But that's no excuse for not recognizing my error and working to repent and correct these problems.

Married Priests

Pope promises 'solutions' to priestly celibacy

Vatican City (AFP) - Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift the interdiction on married priests.

Speaking to Italy's La Repubblica daily, Francis also condemned child sex abuse as a "leprosy" in the Church and cited his aides as saying that "the level of paedophilia in the Church is at two percent".

"That two percent includes priests and even bishops and cardinals," he said.

Asked whether priests might one day be allowed to marry, Francis pointed out that celibacy was instituted "900 years after Our Lord's death" and that clerics can marry in some Eastern Churches under Vatican tutelage.

"There definitely is a problem but it is not a major one. This needs time but there are solutions and I will find them," Francis said, without giving further details.

The interview was the third in a series with the 90-year-old founder of the La Repubblica daily, Eugenio Scalfari, a famous journalist and known atheist.

This is one of the most awkward news pieces I've ever seen from any major news source. From a strictly journalistic standpoint, it changes subjects too often. It sets the context of the Holy Father discussing priestly celibacy, switches gears to talk about the pedophile issues, returns to celibacy and then mentions with whom the interview was conducted.

I've studied journalism enough to understand the inverted pyramid. You introduce your main subject in the first paragraph, you then begin resolving it and work your way down to more granular issues as you go and you conclude the piece with utterly irrelevant matters such as, in this case, the name of whoever conducted the original interview.

Therefore I'm not sure what to think of this piece interjecting the pedophile scandal where it doesn't belong. One way to look at it is that this sloppy, unprofessional writing. And certainly that's not to be underestimated.

A different, nastier way of looking at it (and people have certainly picked up on this) is that Francis is linking pedophilia with unmarried priests when he might not be. I've long believed the new media's love affair with Francis not only can't last forever but is likely to end. It'll end badly and it'll end SOON. So maybe this is the opening salvo?

Another way of looking at it is that the writer is determined to associate pedophilia with unwed priests. I have no way of knowing if that's what he's trying to do. I also have no way of knowing if there even IS a link there. My gut instinct is to doubt it because married people molest children too.

But apart from all those things, I remain skeptical that permitting priests to marry will solve anything. Pope Francis has been expected (by leftwing media) to fundamentally transform the Catholic Church. He was (supposedly) going to "change" the Church's teachings about abortion, gay marriage and other Democrat Party sacraments.

Obviously he's done none of that so far. But permitting priests to marry would probably be the biggest shake-up the Church has experienced in decades, possibly centuries. And I'm not convinced it'd be a positive development.

Sure, the media would finally believe themselves vindicated for viewing Francis as The Great Reformer. But would allowing priests to marry really improve anything? I just don't think so.

For one thing, by definition it couldn't be retroactive. Anybody expecting to see their priest hanging out at the singles' bar is probably in for some major disappointment because that priest MADE A VOW to not take a wife. The Church changing their policy on the matter wouldn't absolve him of his promise.

The other thing though is that right now, Catholic priests can make a decent living because the Church provides for so many of their needs. But I just don't think the Church has the resources to financially support globe-trotting priests and their families.

As an example...

Catholic Priests & Their Wives

These five Fathers are husbands and fathers. Huh?

Father Jim McGhee won't hear his wife's confession. That would just be... awkward. Other than that, Ann McGhee is a parishioner like any other at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church in Keller, Texas, where her husband says three or four masses a week. Who sanctioned this scenario? Pope John Paul II. Back in the late seventies, an Episcopal priest from South Carolina named James Parker decided he'd had it with the leftward drift of his church, which ordained its first female priest in 1977. So Parker sought full communion with the Catholic Church, and the Church embraced him. In 1980, the pope issued a special dispensation allowing Episcopal priests who were theologically simpatico with Rome to "come home" -- i.e., convert to Catholicism -- and bring their families with them. Today there are seventy-nine such priests in America and at least a score more who've converted from other Christian denominations (Lutheran, Methodist, et cetera). Here are five of these men with their wives, children, and grandchildren.

Jim and Ann McGhee, Keller, Texas

Father McGhee, 66, and Ann, 68, were both raised Methodist: he in Kennett, Missouri, and she in Jumpertown, Mississippi. They met in 1956, just before Jim joined the Air Force, and married the next year. Their son, Robert, and daughters, Mary (center) and Renée, are pictured here with all seven of Ann and Jim's grandchildren. From left: Courtney, Jameson (upside down), Jeremiah, Ashley's feet, Bryant, Matthew, and Emily.

Twelve years ago, when Ann McGhee would tell people that her husband was planning to enter the Catholic priesthood, people would say," 'Well, what's he gonna do with you?'" she recalls. "And I would say, 'Well, he's going to keep me!'" The McGhees' conversion to Catholicism was the latest turn in a meandering spiritual journey that goes back almost 50 years. Father Jim became a licensed Methodist preacher in 1962, an Episcopal priest in 1972, and a Catholic priest in 1995. "I had become convinced in my own head and my own heart that Jesus had established a church, not churches," he says. "And when I looked at the evidence of history, it was so clear to me that it was Canterbury that had left Rome. Rome did not leave Canterbury."

Steve and Cindy Anderson, Grand Blanc, Michigan

High school sweethearts from the town of White Lake, Michigan, the Andersons met when he was 16, she was 15, and they were both Presbyterian. Thirty-two years and two Christian denominations later, Father Steve, 47, and Cindy, 46, have three sons. From left: Steven, 11; Austin, 20; and Christian, 7.

"A lot of people become Catholic because they don't like what's going on in their denomination," says Father Steve Anderson, the associate pastor of Church of the Holy Family in Grand Blanc, Michigan. "That wasn't my story." In 1999, Anderson was the pastor of a Charismatic Episcopal parish that mixed High Episcopalian elements like incense and vestments with a Pentecostal flavor. "At our church, you might get a prayer book, and you might get a tambourine." He loved that experience, but the more he read the "early church fathers," the stronger he felt the tug of Rome. So on April 3, 1999 -- Holy Saturday -- he and Cindy converted. "People were delighted," says Cindy of their reception at Holy Family. "The best part is, they can connect with me. They're so excited to have a priest and his wife, and I come with loving arms back to them. God's just planted me here, and I fit."

Bob and Ginger McElwee, Frontenac, Kansas

Two important things happened to Bob McElwee when he was a high school kid in Wichita, Kansas: 1) He met Ginger, and 2) he rode his first motorcycle. More than four decades later, the McElwees, both 58, have six children. They were photographed at the 65th annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota.

Father McElwee doesn't think Catholic priests should be married. He didn't think so before he became one; he doesn't think so now. The Lord, however, had other ideas. Two days after resigning as an Episcopal priest in 1980, McElwee was in his car, "talking out loud to Jesus, asking what I'm supposed to do next," when he heard a report announcing the pope's provision for married Episcopal converts. "And I still didn't want to do it," he said. "It was my wife who said, 'Well, God opened this door. Give it a try.'" That was 22 years ago, 19 of which have been spent in southeast Kansas. Recalls Ginger, "The bishop told us, 'You'll only have to explain yourselves once. The gossip will take six months to move around the area, and then you'll be done with it forever.' And that's exactly what happened."

John and Burgess Ellis, St. Cloud, Florida

John Ellis was a 24-year-old sales manager working for the J.C. Penney Company in DeLand, Florida, when he met Burgess, an undergraduate at Stetson University, in 1961. They married the following September and had a son, Thomas, in December '63. Father Ellis, 68, and Burgess, 65, are pictured here with their daughter, Ruth, and her five-year-old twins, Jordan (left) and Zachary (right).

"The official doctrine is that celibacy is not going to be changed," Father Ellis says. "But I think most of the clergy are looking at us as pioneers, the big experiment." The Ellis's experiment began in 1989 when John, after 20 years in the Episcopal priesthood, was ready to leave his church and join the Catholic laity. Then he heard about the Vatican's loophole for married converts. "There have been married clergy in the Catholic Church longer than there have been celibate clergy," he points out. "Celibacy wasn't mandated until the Middle Ages. Even our first pope was married." So should celibacy be optional today? "Well, there are places for celibacy. Religious orders, for instance. But there is no reason why a diocesan priest shouldn't be married. Being married or being single has nothing to do with being a priest."

Allan and José Hawkins, Arlington, Texas

Allan and José (pronounced Josay) Hawkins met in 1963 at St. George Anglican Church in Stevenage, England, where Allan was a priest, and married in 1964. They moved to Texas in 1980. Father Hawkins, 71, and José, 63, are pictured here with their two children, Sarah and Giles.

Father Allan Hawkins didn't bring just his family into the Catholic Church when he was ordained in 1994; he brought his entire flock. "The decision to seek unity with Rome was pretty well unanimous here," he says -- "here" being St. Mary the Virgin Catholic Church in Arlington, Texas, which used to be St. Mary the Virgin Episcopal Church. "It was the same building, the same people, transferred in toto, so all that you might say changed was the sign on the street." This made the transition a nonissue for José; unlike the other wives on these pages, the other parishioners already knew her as the priest's wife. "As long as Anglicanism was moving toward -- however slowly -- some kind of rapprochement with Rome, we could just wait it out," Father Hawkins says. "But once that became impossible, we had to act for ourselves."

I realize this is a cutesy story filled with cutesy anecdotes but the fact is that they ALL hint at the difficulties of having married priests in the modern era. The Catholic Church is an inventive institution gifted with wise, talented men who can invent ways of coping with the problems married clergy would bring. But isn't the simpler, cheaper and lower risk way to continue not permitting them to get married? Once the decision is made to allow them to marry, it's not easily unmade. And it was first made for a reason.

Far be it from me to criticize the Holy Father on this, especially when I have absolutely no skin in the game, but I just don't think this is a wise idea.

Pope Francis and the Media

Crazy times. That's partly the reason for the lack of updates.

The other thing though is there hasn't been a whole lot to say lately. But there have been a few interesting developments. A couple.

For one thing, my firm belief is the American leftwing media had no real choice but to show admiration for Pope John Paul II. He reigned for nearly thirty years, he was instrumental in the undoing of a major American enemy and he oversaw the implementations of major parts of Vatican II.

I won't discuss Vatican II, you understand. That's above my paygrade as an Inquirer. I'm just talking about Blessed John Paul II's legacy here and why the leftie media had some sympathies for him.

So they HAD to show admiration for him, especially on the occasion of his death. Even the leftie media aren't (or weren't) of such poor taste that they'd bash too much on him after his passing. Their rank and file sure did (check archives of their blogs and news article comments; it was the most ugly viciousness you can imagine) but the media themselves didn't.

And among liberals, some of the grief may well have even been sincere. I saw a picture of former-President Bill Clinton standing next to then current President George W. Bush. President Bush looked serious and solemn while Clinton looked completely overcome. Put another way, you could tell that Clinton had pretty much lost it over Pope John Paul's death. So if he was upset about it, I'll allow others might've been as well.

Pope Benedict XVI was an easier target for their abuse and vitriol. He was more of a traditionalist in some of his views, he was clearly not going to somehow change the Church's more aggravating policies (aggravating to liberals, that is) and all around I think the only reason he didn't have an even worse time is because President Bush was a much more interesting target. But under other circumstances, I shudder to think how the media might've treated Pope Benedict.

Pope Francis is different. Or different to liberals anyway. They fell in love with him because of the perception that he was friendly to liberal pet cause, even though he CAN'T change the Church's teachings regarding female clergy, abortions, same-sex unions and other things.

Everything is politics to the media. Add to that a fondness for deifying human beings as well as a complete ignorance of how the Catholic Church operates and you've got a recipe for them to believe that Pope Francis would be the answers to their prayers if they believed in prayer. They believe that, why, the right Pope at the right time could drag this old fuddy-duddy institution into the modern day, ordain female clergy, bless same-sex unions, permit abortions and other liberal sacraments.

This delusion comes in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

But now the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to fall into place. Pope Francis has said time and again that he cannot and will not "change" the Church's teachings about whatever the liberals are going nuts about this week.

On top of that, top Vatican officials are echoing the Holy Father's remarks.

"[President Obama] appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies. Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago. It is true that many faithful Catholics, with strong and clear leadership from their bishops and priests, are reacting against the ever-growing religious persecution in the U.S."
-- Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke
(Source- http://washingtonexaminer.com/cardinal-burke-criticizes-obamas-anti-life-and-anti-family-policies-ahead-of-vatican-visit/article/2546191

Maybe the leftie media will be content to continue living in Liberal La-La Land about this. Maybe they'll take possibly the most scathing criticism the Vatican has ever made against an American President's policies in my lifetime lying down. I admit it could totally happen.

I just doubt it will.

No, I think this will be the beginning of the end of the American liberal media's love affair with Pope Francis. Sooner or later (sooner, I always thought), they'd realize that Pope Francis hasn't "changed" anything, the Church's policies remain as they always were, Pope Francis is unapologetically maintaining the faith as it has been handed down for millennia and he's not the superhero/reformer he was first thought to be by the American media. The above quote from Burke may be their wake up call.

After that, my hunch is that the only thing that might save Pope Francis from being totally pilloried in the media will be his ethnicity. They may be slightly reluctant to bash too much on the first South American Pope in history. But maybe even that won't be enough.

Now, to address a little conspiracy that's made the rounds, a lot of people think the media have simply adopted Pope Francis as a posterboy specifically to create chaos and disunity in the Church. If the media love Francis, surely that'll tick off the conservatives and traditionalists in the Church, which is precisely what the media want. That may irreparably harm Pope Francis and his pontificate. If that happens, if the conservatives turn on a Pope perceived by the media to be more friendly to liberal wackadoo causes, mission accomplished!

Personally, I don't buy that. That would require the leftwing media to realize how most people view them, and that's something they're fundamentally unwilling to do. They have to believe not only that they're the smartest people in the room but that everyone else believes that too. So this theory that they're intentionally causing problems doesn't work for me because it would require the liberal media to acknowledge things about themselves they've historically been unwilling to acknowledge.

No, being as they tend to view the Catholic Church as just another political organization that can change direction if enough pressure is applied, they've genuinely taken Pope Francis to heart... which is why hell will have no fury greater than theirs when they realize Pope Francis is just another Pope who can't and won't "change" the Church's teachings about anything.

THAT is when the claws will come out and I suspect we aren't too far away from that happening.

More to follow.

My Religious Text

I suspect that a lot of Christians feel really aggravated and talked down to when some non-believing liberal tells them what the Bible says and how it should be interpreted. And many of them aren't afraid to admit it either.

That's where we are right now. Several liberals are perfectly willing to tell Christians who Our Lord would be willing to bake and sell cakes to and just how loving and affirming He'd be to anybody and everybody. I've seen a lot of my friends from the evangelical world have meltdowns over that patronizing stupidity on Facebook and various blogs I keep up with.

"Who do these people think they are telling ME what MY Bible says?"

"It's gotta take a lot of [testosterone] to use my Savior for your own purposes like that!"

"Where do YOU get off dictating to me what the Bible does and doesn't say and how it should and shouldn't be interpreted? We have centuries of study and interpretation reinforcing our point of view."

My heart bleeds. But at least now the evangelicals know how the Catholics have felt since 1517.

Gay Marriage and the Lessons Learned

I hope the Republican Party learns their lesson from all this same-sex "marriage" nonsense going on right now. There were opportunities to deal with this decades ago with a Constitutional amendment. But the left (and their rubber-stamp media) all said that it wasn't necessary, it was overkill, don't overreact, etc.

Let this be a lesson to you too: Any time a liberal says ANY kind of legislation is unnecessary, pass it anyway.

In 1995, we were told that opposing civil unions is bigoted. They exist only to create a legal framework for gays to have a relationship recognized by the state. That's it! Nothing more! So there's no need to amend the Constitution to strictly define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Why, that's the whole reason we have DOMA! Constitutional amendments are overkill! So don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2004, we were told that opposing the Massachusetts Supreme Court's ruling is bigoted because it only extends benefits to gay couples that everybody should have! Besides, this is one ruling in one state! There's no need to amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman! It doesn't mean marriage is being redefined so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2013, we were told that the Supreme Court did the right thing by striking down part of DOMA and saying anything to the contrary was bigoted! It's not like the Court ruled that gay "marriage" is legal and required by all 50 states so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

In 2014, we're being told that refusing to do business with gay couples is bigoted because the crazed liberal mob says so. After all, it's not like the Constitution say that marriage can't mean something other than one man and one woman. This is perfectly legal and Constitutional. But don't worry, nobody's saying that churches will have to participate in same-sex ceremonies if they don't want to so don't overreact, you paranoid rightwinger!

At the rate things are going, does anybody still think this won't eventually end with priests, pastors and other clergy being jailed for refusing to officiate gay ceremonies?

When a liberal says not to pass a piece of legislation because it's overkill, it's redundant, it's unnecessary or whatever else, pass it anyway.

The Gay Lobby and Painty-Waist Libertarianism

Yeesh, this is just not my week for sticking to my original plan. I wanted to talk about lay ministries today. But apparently, like the Messianic Judaism entry originally scheduled for yesterday, it just wasn't meant to be.

Okay, big doings in Arizona as Governor Brewer may or may not sign a bill into law that will, GASP!, permit businesses to associate with whomever they want to associate! That's antigayhomophobicbigotedchristofascistgodbaggery!

This has led a few people from the right and the left to call for marriage privatization. That is to say "get the government out of marriage".

Now, my views on most political issues are "cut government, cut taxes, privatize it". That applies to just about everything. Just about. But not everything. Marriage is a good example of my "just about everything" clause.

Whether anybody likes it or not, marriage is a spiritual union between one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. But marriage is also a legal union between two people (for now) recognized by the State. It must be this way. Be it for taxation, inheritance, visitation, legal testimony and other things, the government has a role to play. Whether anybody likes it or not

It's well and good to argue that the government has no business being in the marriage business. And in a world where divorce is rare and would be adjudicated exclusively through churches or private arbiters, privatization even makes some amount of sense. But this isn't a perfect world. The Left has done all it can to enshrine divorce as an institution in this country. Property laws being what they are, the government has to rule on these things.

It's not "fair", it's not "right", but it's the way things are.

I really wish the panty-waist libertarian wing of the Republican Party would adopt a consistent line on when the government should or shouldn't take action. They pipe up everytime one of these "same-sex marriage" issues comes along but somehow their commitment to constitutional government stops short of little things like cutting entitlements and balancing the budget.

This is a contentious issue. One side wants marriage to be legally defined the way it has been for millennia in western civilization. The other side wants to redefine the word and entire concept.

One side will win and the other will lose. It's that simple.

And honestly, I don't really even care about it very much. When it comes to the "gay agenda", I don't care about the "gay" part. The "agenda" part... that's something else.

What people do with each other behind closed doors doesn't affect me. Therefore it doesn't concern me. It's not my job to "rescue" people from these things. What I care about is being free to practice my religion in peace.

Now, The Secular Chorus always sings that our priests, churches and religious organizations will "never" be forced to perform unions they have a religious objection to.

Right now though, people are getting dragged into court and sued into oblivion because they don't want to do business with gay people, usually on religious grounds. So I hope the marriage-redefiners can at least see why I and others are concerned here.

Considering the Magisterium

In a previous entry I questioned how Evangelicals or, really, any non-Catholic tradition can know the Bible is God's Word considering that much of the Bible's authenticity comes from sources Evangelicals don't adhere to and has been administered and protected by institutions the Anglicans and the Orthodox don't recognize as primal authorities.

But specifically with respect to the Evangelicals, I pointed out that their Sola Scriptura dogma (and yes, it IS a dogma, even if they choose not to use that word) is a sort of logical dead end in many respects.

I stand by it too. But I'll be continuing that theme somewhat today, this time by singling out the Anglican church.

Now, before I even get into this deeper, I must say that I have a tremendous regard for the Anglican church. Had it not been for them, I would never have given liturgical worship a chance. It would've been a bridge too far for me to switch from the Southern Baptist Convention to the Catholic Church. As much as I've always respected the Catholic Church, I would never have made that drastic a change in my faith. I needed the Anglican church to serve as a middle step for me. So, again, don't think of this as me picking on the Anglicans. I'm only trying to make a point here.

The Magisterium for me was initially a big problem for me when I began considering joining the Catholic Church. Partly because of the aforementioned Sola Scriptura doctrine, I was reluctant to place my trust too much in men. For my part, my error was in not correctly interpolating promises made by Christ.

In Matthew 16, Our Lord gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom. That which is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven. That which is loosed on Earth will be loosed in Heaven. The gates of hell and the power of death will not prevail against the Church.

Historically the Catholic Church has interpreted that as Our Lord ordaining Simon as Pope Peter and enacting the Magisterium. Superficially, it's a lot to ask to believe that ANY institution can be supernaturally protected from egregious spiritual and moral error. Why, that's crazy talk and anybody who claims Divine Guidance and Infallibility belongs in a looney bin, right?

But let's check the records, shall we? Let's compare what other traditions have done. It's a little tricky to do because none of them have a 2,000 year history comparable to the Catholic Church. But in the end I suspect that will only strengthen my argument.

Every ten years, the Anglican Communion assembles for the Lambeth Conference. The purpose of the conference is to express "the mind of the communion". There's no authority or obligation for the various territories to abide by opinions expressed at the Conference. Which is another problem all by itself but I'll spare you. Suffice it to say, Lambeth is useful for at least understanding what the Anglican Communion is thinking at any given time.

In 1948 the issue of ordaining women was addressed and "authoritatively" put to bed. It was considered that the ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi "would be against the tradition and order of the Anglican Communion". The bishops in attendance said that this eliminates any need for further examination of women's ordination.

If you know ANYTHING about the Anglican Communion, odds are you're already laughing your head off. But please bear with me.

Lambeth 1968 recommended that women be ordained the diaconate and then recognized deaconesses appointed to those offices BEFORE official permission was ever even granted.

Think about that for a minute. The Anglican Communion cried foul when Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained to their priesthood back in 1948. They then opined that the matter had been settled permanently. No need for further consideration. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

But ONLY twenty years later they somewhat reversed that decision that needed no further consideration by not only officially permitting women to be ordained to the diaconate but also decided not to pursue any disciplinary course of action takes by bishops who ordained women as deacons before that was technically permissible. As best I can tell, there wasn't even any sort of official reprimand!

As if that wasn't enough, the bishops also decided that assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (you know, the Church of England entire reason for being) was no longer necessary.

It doesn't get much better from here though. The worst is yet to come.

Lambeth 1978 recognized the autonomy of member churches to make their own decision as to ordaining women to the priesthood. So, again, the issue which was supposedly put to bed once and for all back in 1948 is now completely optional for members of the Communion. Thirty years.

You've come a long way, baby!

At Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10 declared that homosexual acts (but not homosexuality itself) are not compatible with the clear teachings of Scripture. This was enough to inspire 182 BISHOPS to apologize to gay and lesbian parishioners the world over for the Communion's "insensitivity". Of course, that statement came in an amendment that was only narrowly passed.

And keep in mind here that all we're talking about for the moment is calling a sin a sin. That's it! This conclusion had never been controversial anywhere in the history of orthodox Christianity. Lambeth 1998 broke new ground for the Communion.

So let's recap everything up to this point. In 1948, the "ordination" of Florence Li Tim-Oi was considered absolutely unacceptable and completely outside the Anglican tradition. The matter was "definitively" settled, never to be revisited.

In 1968, female "deacons" were permitted as a matter of course. Female "priests" were permitted just ten years later in 1978. And just twenty years after that, the Communion can't even coherently condemn homosexuality as a sin without bishops issuing apologies for some of their number communicating simple Scriptural truth.

Lambeth 2008 was controversial before it even started. Rowan Williams, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to permit Resolution 1.10 to be revisited. Things were already tense enough what with four primates boycotting Lambeth because of the Episcopal Church USA's blessing of same-sex unions and more controversial figures like Gene Robinson, ordained bishop of New Hampshire in spite of the fact that he's openly gay.

The best the bishops could manage at Lambeth 2008 was to issue a report that expressed every point of view of the attendees concerning homosexuality and then call for "a season of gracious restraint" and humbly, politely, respectfully request that the Episcopal Church USA not ordain any more gay clergy or preside over any further same-sex union blessings. The report was in no way binding, it had no teeth and no penalties were called for in the event that the Episcopal Church USA continued on their present course.

Think about that! In sixty years, the Anglican Communion had gone from a fairly orthodox brand of traditional Christianity to being theologically and politically unrecognizable by its founders!

The Anglican Communion is the worst but they're by far not the only offenders. In 1968, key figures from the Southern Baptist Convention were quoted by mainstream news magazines not only permitting several forms of contraception but also permitting abortion under many circumstances. These days you'd have to go a long way to find a more faithful fellow traveler of the Catholic Church in the pro-life movement than the SBC. But things weren't always that way.

That's not the only stain on the SBC's name either. They once argued that the Bible permits and endorses the practice of slavery.

To be fair, the SBC no longer holds either position. And in fact, they have repented and apologized for their previous errors.

But all of these things lead to my ultimate point. There are cases when the Catholic Church has had some bad policies in the past. That much is definitely true. But you're hard-pressed to cite one occasion when the Catholic Church has signed her name and staked her credibility on moral and religious issues and then either been shown to be in error or otherwise reversed herself. There are no cases where the Church has had to "revisit" an official pronouncement made in the past and do a mea culpa. It's just never happened.

What are the odds of that? I cited several instances of the Anglican Communion reversing itself on several incredibly important moral issues in less than a century and two instances of the Southern Baptist Convention doing the same in less than fifty years! So how has the Church survived for 2,000 years without so much as one egregious error in faith or morals? And as I've said, there are no similar reversals made by the Catholic Church you can draw comparisons to in spite of the fact that the Church has an incredibly longer history.

The Magisterium and the concept of the Catholic Church being supernaturally guided and protected from error on faith and morals all of a sudden doesn't seem like such a crazy idea, now does it?

The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God and Marriage Chaos in Utah

Today marks the beginning of My Catholic Year. And as it happens, today's a Holy Day of Obligation (The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) so I'll be going to Mass later.

Still, between my illness and all this holiday craziness, I haven't had a chance to comment on the state of marriage in Utah. First "homosexual marriage" was legalized there followed swiftly thereafter by the effective decriminalization of polygamy.

For years, those who favor the traditional definition of marriage argued that permitting "gay marriage" would eventually lead to a full-scale destruction of marriage. After all, if marriage can be something other than one man and one woman, why can't it be anything at all? The gay lobby constantly shouted my side down, called us paranoid rightwingers and denounced the efficacy and usefulness of slippery slope arguments.

Strangely enough though, they've all been very silent about goings on in Utah lately. A simple oversight, I'm sure.