The two teachings that prove the Church is of God

To my mind, the best evidence of the Catholic Church's divine origins are these two facts:

1) The Church has never changed her teaching on masturbation

and

2) The Church has never definitively declared what happens to the souls of babies who die without baptism


Knowing what we know about human nature, there is simply no way at all that these two teachings would stand for twenty centuries, for two thousand years, if human beings were the ones making the rules and calling the shots.

Put on your thinking caps, and let's examine the facts.


     Masturbation

The Church has always taught that masturbation is intrinsically immoral. Sex is not meant to be a solitary act. Our sexual faculties and reproductive systems are, by design, all about complementary, total union with another. To use sex selfishly, to "have sex with oneself", so to speak, is beneath the dignity of a human being.

Yet, in a fallen world, masturbation is an incredibly common sin.

So here we have a Church headed by unmarried men for century after century after century after century after century. We have had a succession of 266 popes. Not one single male in the long stretch of 266 has changed the teaching of the Church on masturbation. Not one of those men has said, "You know what? Let's loosen up on that one! Let's make life a little easier for all of us. Heck, it would even make us popular, especially among the young! We'd bring 'em in by droves if we said that masturbating was good and holy!"

Knowing what we know about human nature, and thinking of probabilities, how on earth is the teaching about masturbation's sinfulness still in place?

The skeptic might chide me by saying, "But you said that the Church can't change the teachings, that's why!"

And I'd answer with, "Yes, that's true, she can't; the Church can't change her doctrinal teachings precisely because she's of God. However, dear skeptic, that's not what you believe. Your belief, your conviction, is that the Church is a merely human institution. And you firmly believe, as do most skeptics, dissenters, and non-believers, that the Church can and should change her teaching on a number of issues (and you believe she will -- you are just waiting for that 'someday'). So, from your perspective, how on earth is the teaching about masturbation still in place?"

In human terms, of course, the teaching on masturbation should have and would have been changed almost right out of the gate. Or at least later, by one of the depraved, lusty, sinful popes, or the power-hungry popes, or the popes who could be bought, or maybe the popes who were weak and wanted to please.

All it would have taken is one bad apple who jumped at the chance to allow masturbation for himself and everyone else, guilt- and consequence-free!

And yet it's never happened.

If we are honest, we know that there's not any earthly, human reason for this teaching to be standing. Human beings are too weak, fickle, and sinful for this to be anything other than divine protection of Church teaching.



     Babies who die without baptism

The second "proof" that the Church is not merely a human institution is the unanswered question of what happens to the souls of babies who die without baptism.

There are few things more heart wrenching than a mother who has lost her child. The agony of a mother or father after a child's death cannot be overstated. Throughout Christendom, from the first century until today, millions upon millions of anguished parents have appealed to the Church, asking the question, desperate for the assurance that their child is in Heaven. What human being with breath in his body and a beating heart in his chest would not want to do everything in his power to calm the mind and comfort the soul of a grieving parent?

If the Catholic Church operated on human desires alone, there would have been a rush to declare that all unbaptized children go straight to Heaven when they die. Imagine two thousand years' worth of popes witnessing countless instances of profound grief! Most, if not all, would be moved to make a definitive statement about the fate of the littlest souls. In a merely human institution, there would be nothing to stop them from making such a happy, welcome declaration.

And yet, the Church says today what she has said from the beginning: We just don't know definitively what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies. Theologians have debated the issue for centuries, have come up with constructs and theories such as "Limbo" (a place of perfect natural happiness, but minus the beatific vision), and have met and discussed this issue even recently at an international theological commission. But still, the teaching authority of the Church has not pronounced on it. Why? Because Jesus did not reveal it. The Deposit of Faith contains only that which has been revealed by Christ, and the Church has no power to go further than what she has received from God.

The very Church that loves providing answers to the world is being honest when she says that we just don't know. It is exactly because the popes have no power to change what Christ revealed that you will see nothing more definitive on this issue than what we read in the Catechism:

1261: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

We humans want answers, and God doesn't always provide them. Many things are to remain a mystery to us this side of Heaven.

If you are frustrated by this, then imagine how frustrated a human pope is when he, as the head of the  Church on earth, is unable to provide an answer to his beloved and often greatly suffering flock!

What merely earthly, human reason would stand in the way of 266 popes giving the answer we all want to hear? I can't think of one.


From what we know of human nature, if these two teachings don't provide enough reason for us to believe that the Church is of divine origin, then dare I say that even a man rising from the dead would not convince us.

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (Caravaggio)

Sorry, you're not allowed to do that.

This has been on my mind for a long time now.

I am going to be blunt.

You are not the arbiter of Christian doctrine.
You don't get to decide the tenets of Christianity.
You don't have permission to reverse or negate Christian teaching.

You don't have the authority to define Christianity.

Neither do I.

If you are a Catholic, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the moral law and the Creed are valid. If you are a Protestant, you don't get to personally interpret the Bible and tell us what you are sure Christ meant. If you are a secularist, you don't get remake Jesus in your own image, i.e., a New Agey, non-threatening guru who fits neatly into your own worldview.

Trust me, it's nothing personal.

You just simply don't have that option.

You didn't establish Christianity, and you have no permission to reinvent it.

You see, Christianity is a revealed religion.
It was given. It is handed down.

It is not open to anyone's personal interpretation, whether one's name is Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Kennedy, Pelosi, Chittister, or Miller.

You can choose to accept the whole of Christianity and her teachings, or you are free to reject them. You are even free to start your own religion, teaching whatever you'd prefer.

But you do not have the right to speak in the name of Christ's Church and define authentic Christian belief for yourself or others.

You do not have that right, because you do not have that authority. 

Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) and the entire Deposit of Faith has been handed down intact by the only men to whom Christ delegated His authority: The Apostles and their successors, also known as the pope and the body of bishops. This teaching authority, or Magisterium, is not you, and it's definitely not me.

The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, protects the Deposit of Faith from any deviation, addition, subtraction, reversal, contradiction, distortion, or destruction offered by those who wish Church teaching to be something it is not.

So, as earnest as you are, as sincere as you are, as studious as you are, as kind as you are, even as holy as you are, you are not allowed in any way to alter, bypass, morph, undermine, negate, or redefine Christian teaching on faith or morals and still insist that it's Christian.

You may receive the Faith, you may accept the Faith, and you may hand down the Faith pure and entire, but you may not be its arbiter.


Sorry, you're just plain not allowed to do that.



Related post: Authority

+++++++

For emphasis, and for the sheer joy and peace that faithful Catholics feel when the millennia melt away as we read the Early Fathers, I give you St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, extolling in 189 A.D. the selfsame faith we hold today. He writes of what Christians everywhere already knew… but which the heretics could not accept:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). 

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). 

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). 

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1). 

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). 

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). 

For more Fathers on Church authority and apostolic succession, go here.

.

What I Never Learned, Part VII: Authority

Years ago, I sent out some "catechesis emails" to interested friends and family. They, like me, never really learned much in Catholic religious education and CCD classes (I was catechized in the 1970s and '80s). What I wrote was pretty basic stuff, and I thought some of the Bubble readers might like the overview. 

Part I: The Fall

Part II: After the Fall

Part III: The Trinity

Part IV: Why it had to be Jesus, and Why He Had to Die
Part V: Jesus as the "Lamb of God"
Part VI: Jesus, the Mass, and the Eucharist

It all comes down to the "A" word: Authority.

Many years ago, my friend Kim and I were on the phone one evening, having a friendly debate about the Pope. She, a Protestant, asked me a sincere question about something that made no sense to her: “America was built on the idea of freedom and independence, and the right of a person to think for himself. So, how, as an American, can you submit yourself to the authority of the Pope? How can you give up your own will in obedience to a mere man?”

Coming from an American Protestant perspective, she was understandably perplexed. And frankly, many American Catholics have acquired the same sentiments, rejecting the idea that they owe filial obedience to the Pope ("Papa") when he speaks as the head of the universal Church. He is, in the minds of many American Catholics, just one more opinion among many. Perhaps he deserves greater respect than others, they might say, but to submit in pure and humble obedience to his teachings? Um, no thanks.

However, let’s look at what God thinks of authority and our obligation to submit to it.

From the very beginning (remember the Garden and the Fall?), man’s big problem has been the refusal to submit to legitimate authority. Pride is the culprit, of course, as pride makes us believe that we are somehow above authority, and that we are able to declare what is good and evil for ourselves, which is exactly what Adam and Eve attempted to do. Humans are always forgetting their place in the hierarchy of created order (yes, God is the author of hierarchy!), and that is what gets us in trouble.

Let’s look at a specific incident in the Bible which really illustrates the point well. If you read Numbers chapter 16 (Numbers is one of the Old Testament books), you will read the story of Korah’s rebellion. Korah was a man who had that streak of stubborn independence that we tend to admire here in America and which is good in proper context; however, that rebel attitude doesn’t always fly with God Almighty. Korah and his supporters decided that they did not like being under Moses’ authority and were upset with his leadership. They confronted Moses and said, “Enough of you! The whole community is holy! Why should you set yourself over the Lord’s people?” (Today we might say it more like this: “We are all equal, and you are no better than us. You can't tell me what to do!”)

In reply, Moses warned Korah and his supporters that if they were conspiring against Moses, then they were really conspiring against God Himself. After all -- and this is key -- it was God who gave Moses authority over His people.

Sooooooooo, to make a long story short (although it’s really not that long of a story, and I highly recommend you go to Numbers 16 and read the entire account), some pretty dramatic things transpired, and God made quite clear whose side He was on by making the earth open up and swallow Korah and his followers whole. Yep, the earth swallowed them up with all their possessions and closed over them and they were never to be seen again. Let's just say that God is not a big fan of open rebellion against those He sets in authority.

God's delegation of that kind of authority is not unique to Moses. In fact, there is never a time when God does not delegate authority from the top down. We see that in every covenant He makes with mankind over the course of history, the Lord always works through mortal, sinful men, setting those men apart and giving them the power and jurisdiction to govern the people in God's name.

Consider these powerful words of our Lord Jesus (speaking of the sinful, hypocritical religious leaders of His day): 

“The scribes and the Pharisees have succeeded Moses as teachers; therefore, do everything and observe everything they tell you. But do not follow their example.”  -- Matt. 23:2-3

Think about that for a minute! Jesus Christ (i.e., the Lord God, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) is saying that even if God's appointed teachers are great sinners, we still must submit to their legitimate authority. We must not follow the example of their sin, but we must obey their teachings because their authority to teach comes from God. Therefore, when we obey them, it is really God Whom we obey.

The moral of today’s catechesis is: Don’t be a Korah! Prideful disobedience, rebellion, and a refusal to submit to legitimate authority are not attributes of a faithful child of God. Obedience and humility are, as every saint's life can attest.

Oh, and by the way, my friend Kim became a devout Catholic within a year of our "authority" discussion. She went on to teach the Catholic faith formally for six years after that, at the parish level and beyond. She was able to remain a great American patriot as well. :)

Next time, we will talk more specifically about the establishment and the authority of the Church. Finally understanding what the Church is really blew me away and kept me Catholic when I was ready to bolt.

+++++++

PS: If you still balk at rules, check out this past post:

What the heck is so bad about "rules" anyway?

.

"...and the Papacy remains."

I.love.this.

I love this.

I love this.

Did I mention that I love this?

I found it excerpted in one of the best books I've ever read, The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam. It has stayed in my head for well over a decade. It's a description of the Catholic Church, written by 19th century English historian Thomas Macaulay. I thrill to his words. Read them slowly, savor them:

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. 

The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. 

The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. 

The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. 

The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila…. 

Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. 

She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. 

And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

There is no earthly explanation for the fact that the Catholic Church, grounded in the office of the papacy, survives and thrives after 20 centuries.

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-- Matthew 16:18

Jesus Christ is a Man of His word.




.......

Why does anyone care what the Catholic Church says?

We are Americans. We love our independence and our freedom, and we love to question (and sometimes reject) authority.

So, it seems odd to most Americans -- and dare I say, most American Catholics -- that anyone would submit to the authority of a Pope in Rome or a collection of bishops. But if you follow the logic, you'll see that it's not so crazy, from the Catholic point of view. Think about it:


If Jesus literally rose from the dead, then He is God, and I will submit to Him in all things.
If Jesus established a Church, then I will be a member of His Church.
If Jesus appointed leaders for His Church and delegated His teaching authority to those leaders, then I will submit to those leaders when they speak on matters of salvation, faith and morals.



Those are some big ifs, and I won't set about to prove any of them today. Obviously, many folks dispute one or all of them.

If any one of those ifs is untrue, then the Catholic Church is irrelevant and can be ignored.

But if they all are true, then we have just answered the question, "Why does anyone care what the Catholic Church says?"

Knowing God's Will, and Catholic Freedom

Note: Please feel free to let me know if I ever misrepresent a tenet of our Catholic Faith. I will correct my mistake immediately.

Among my real life friends and my blogger friends, I've noticed that many devout Catholics get very stressed out in trying to discern God's will: Should I adopt this particular baby, should I marry this particular man, should I take this job, should I move, should I (fill in the blank)? How do I make sure that this choice is God's will and not my own? Ack! Help!

It's a very great thing to want to do God's will in all things, and it's nothing short of inspiring to hear and feel the sincerity of these pure-hearted women. My friends are my spiritual mentors in so many ways. I have learned and grown so much from them. Hugs and kisses to you all!

However, I started to notice that many faithful Catholics are so afraid they might somehow step outside of God's will that they become anxiety-ridden. The angst they feel in not wanting to offend God by making the "wrong" choice is severe, and it can be debilitating.

But we are Catholics, and that kind of burden is unnecessary! Here is what is so liberating about our Catholic Faith: When our intentions are good and the choices before us are moral, we are free.

Let me restate it another way: As long as we are not choosing something evil, or for evil intent, we are free to embrace any path that God opens before us. So, you are free to choose to adopt that baby, to marry that man, to move, to take that job, or any other morally licit option. You are also free to choose not to adopt that baby, take that new job, marry that man, etc.

This is the beauty of Catholicism. Our free will is a great gift that God gives us, allowing us the dignity to choose our own path, as long as we do not choose sin. Sin is the only thing that offends God, the only thing that he will not bless, and the only thing that is not within His active will for us. If we are not choosing sin, then we remain in a state of grace. This is a beautiful, liberating truth, which leaves little room for fear and anxiety!

But then, of course, the question becomes: How do we choose between two moral options?

Well, remember, we are talking about two moral and licit options (immoral choices are never acceptable). If God places two or more moral choices before us, then we should go with the choice which brings us the most internal peace. If we feel more tranquility at the thought of choosing Option A, then we go with Option A, even if Option A may actually cause us more external suffering or hardship than Option B.

But wait! This is important…. Even if a soul should "miss" whatever path God may have originally laid out for him/her (i.e., some people do miss their calling as a priest or religious), that person still has not committed a sin if his/her intentions were good. This is so important for people to know, especially the scrupulous. God will work with whatever path we have put ourselves on. He is not a puppet master pulling our strings. He is a loving Father who makes all things work for good for those who love Him.

Think about it: If I am a healthy parent, I will be happy to support my child whether he chooses to be a doctor or an artist or a carpenter. Those are all honorable goals. (Though I lean toward doctor, ha ha! Wait....maybe not under Obamacare....hmmmmm.) Anyway, you get my point, right?

So, enjoy the freedom of being a Catholic, as we are so blessed and have true freedom. We are not shackled slaves who have no liberty or choices (as so many people think of Catholics). I've lived both in the Church and outside of it, and the difference in peace and freedom is night and day.

Just for fun, and only tangentially related to this post, I will leave you with two amazing quotes from the great G.K. Chesterton (convert from atheism):

"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man
from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

"[When the convert] has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside."

A disappointing eureka

Okay, I promise at some point I will write a funny, light-hearted post! But for some reason I am just ticked off and incredulous about things these days, ha ha!! (Wait... who am I kidding? I am a social and political commentator at heart, so you will be getting a lot of ticked off, incredulous posts if you read this blog! You are forewarned!!)

All right, as many of you know, I am a bit of a frustrated yenta. I fancy myself a Catholic matchmaker, but so far.... well, we don't need to talk about that now. My glory days will come. :)

Suffice to say, I have some familiarity with two of the Catholic online dating services, Ave Maria Singles and Catholic Match. More familiarity with AMS than CM. I think in general the sites have been wonderfully successful in helping Catholics find spouses.

For years I have heard that CM has more socially "normal" men utilizing their site, but that the CM men dissent from Church teaching in far greater numbers than the men on AMS. Recently, I have had two of my single girlfriends confirm this for me.

First, I read this post from A Friend of Gianna's blog. Disturbing, for sure. My first thought was: "Why the heck does this guy even stay Catholic?" I mean really, what's the point in saying you are Catholic if you reject what the Church teaches? Isn't that like saying, "I'm a vegetarian, but I am committed to eating meat"?

Then, the other day, another single friend mentioned the phenomenon of the "5 out of 7" on Catholic Match. Meaning, a good percentage of the men describe themselves as being in agreement with five out of seven important Catholic beliefs. And it's usually the same five out of seven. The pattern, she said, goes like this:

Eucharist:	Yes, I accept the Church's teaching
Contraception:	No, I do not accept the Church's teaching
Sanctity of Life:	Yes, I accept the Church's teaching
Papal Infallibility:	Yes, I accept the Church's teaching
Premarital Sex:	No, I do not accept the Church's teaching
Immaculate Conception:	Yes, I accept the Church's teaching
Holy Orders:	Yes, I accept the Church's teaching

Five out of seven. But how bizarre, I thought. How can it be that a man could accept the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but not on pre-marital sex? After all, the teaching against fornication is explicit in the Bible (Jesus' own words!) and is generally accepted by Protestant Christianity as well. How could someone doubt or dismiss that teaching, while having no problem with the trickier concepts of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility? Of course I understood that it was all about the men wanting to have lots of sex, but still... I could see struggling to live out Church teaching, admitting that the teaching is a difficult one, but outright rejecting it? As if it weren't true? That just seemed illogical.

I continued to be frustrated and annoyed by this, and couldn't put my finger on it. I shared my frustrations with my hubby. His response was immediate.

“That’s easy. Those are the two items that involve personal sacrifice.”

Eureka.

And there lies one piece of the crisis of Catholic manhood. If it involves any kind of real sacrifice, then "it's not true for me" even if God says it is true for all.

Sigh.

It ain't pretty, but at least I understand it now.

Thoughts on the Church sex scandal. Part Two.

Part Two, and a final (obvious) revelation at the end....

(For Part One, go here.)

Third: The Church’s initial responses were in line with the times.

At the time most of the abuse occurred (again, decades ago), the standard response was to quietly try to rehabilitate the offender through counseling. This was the accepted psychology at the time, and that is how therapists advised Church officials (and everyone else of that era). Of course, we now know that sex offenders are generally not able to be rehabilitated, and they almost always re-offend. But how was the Church to know something that no one else at the time knew, either? Yet the Church is excoriated while everyone else, doing the same thing, gets a pass.

Fourth: The Church has been hyper-aggressive in addressing the problem.

In fact, I have never seen or heard of any organization which has gone so far overboard in policing itself after similar allegations.

Overboard?

Yes, in some cases, overboard. Let me explain.

When the first wave of the abuse scandal swept the nation, dioceses sprang into action, setting up mandatory sexual abuse prevention and awareness programs for anyone and everyone involved in paid or voluntary positions within parishes, schools, ministries and other Church entities. These programs are often long and tedious, and everyone must become re-certified each year. The Church wants to right the wrongs, and has gone to great lengths to do so.

Which brings me to the “overboard.”

A few years ago, I was told about a policy which mandated that I could not be alone with the teen girl I was sponsoring for Confirmation. There had to be a parent or other adult present if we were together, even outside of a Church setting.

Mind you, the girl I was sponsoring was the daughter of close family friends. I had known her since she was six weeks old, and she was my daughter’s best friend of fifteen years. Now the Church was telling me that I, a regular suburban mom with no criminal background, needed a chaperone to be with a family friend, even in a public place!

I couldn’t believe this was right. I thought it was unjust (and just absurd). I called a friend who worked in the diocesan offices, and he confirmed that it was true. A sponsor for Confirmation was “a representative of the Catholic Church,” and as such, we had to be above suspicion in every circumstance.

So, yup, I think the Church has gone above and beyond in addressing the problem. And the fact that there are virtually no new cases of priestly sexual abuse is a good indication that she has largely righted the wrong.

Fifth: Church teaching on sexuality is right, and is the antidote to the sex scandal.

I “discovered” my Catholic Faith in 1995, many years before the priest abuse scandal hit the headlines. Back then, I was reading a conservative Catholic newspaper called The Wanderer, which was already reporting on the problem of sexual deviants in the priesthood. That’s right -- the faithful, magisterial Catholics in America were already decrying the scandal of active homosexuals in the clergy, who in addition to being unchaste were pushing for a “progressive sexual ethic” in the Church (i.e., they wanted the Church to ditch her teachings on sexual sin).

So, the idea that the secular media broke this story is not exactly true, as I and other Catholics had known about it for years. Faithful Catholics were trying to expose it! We knew something rotten and dangerous had infiltrated the priesthood.

The fact is, many seminaries had become corrupted after the mid ‘60s. Until recently, they had for decades turned away orthodox, faithful candidates for the priesthood, preferring instead to foster a culture of homosexuality.

It’s a difficult read, but if anyone wants a look inside the seminaries of that time, check out Goodbye, Good Men, which describes what went wrong with several decades of priestly formation. With a culture of homosexuality being the norm in many seminaries for so long, is it any wonder that a whopping 80% of the priest-abuse victims were male? Mostly pubescent and post-pubescent males at that. Please note: I am not asserting that homosexuals are prone to abusing children, but I am saying that most of the priestly abuse was homosexual abuse.

Priests who committed sexual sins against children were acting against Church teaching. They were committing mortal sin, which the Church teaches is deserving of an eternity in hell. Had these predator priests lived according to to the teachings of the Church, not a single child would have been harmed.

The ones howling the loudest about the shame the Church should feel are the sexual libertines themselves. The free sex crowd who rail against the Church’s “repressive” sexual teachings don’t seem to recognize that it’s the “anything goes” mentality of sexuality that leads to, well... anything! Ah, the irony.

Anyway, these posts are much too long. I have much more to say, but I won’t. Because as I was writing, I realized the obvious about the Church-bashers:

It doesn’t matter to them that the reporting on Church abuse is grossly disproportionate compared to other offenders.

It doesn’t matter to them that there is no link between celibacy and sexual abuse.

It doesn’t matter to them that the Church’s initial reaction was in line with the conventional wisdom at the time.

It doesn’t matter to them that the Church has been incredibly aggressive in addressing the problem.

It doesn’t matter to them that living according to the Church’s teaching on sexuality is the answer to all sexual deviance, including sex abuse of children.

It doesn’t matter, because those who are attacking the Catholic Church now also hated the Church well before the scandals ever broke.

The Church-bashers will keep on bashing the Church, and nothing I write here -- no matter if it’s true, no matter if it’s logical -- will change their hearts. Only God can do that.

So, we Catholics must remember Jesus’ promise that the Church would be hated by the world. It should not surprise us or worry us. We should wear it as a badge of honor, and take the humiliation. Sometimes, it’s the Christian thing to do.

Thoughts on the Church sex scandal. Part One.

Please note: In no way, shape or form do I defend or excuse sexual predators and child abusers, whether members of the clergy or not. If you know anything about me, you know that those who harm children are the lowest form of scum in my book.

Also, when I ask questions in my posts, I really am looking for logical answers (keyword, "logical"). So, if there are any Church-bashers out there, help me understand your points. I welcome the dialogue.

Like many of you, my heart hurts to read the recent embarrassing, scandalous headlines about the Catholic Church. The purpose of this post is not to discuss the culpability of any one priest or bishop, or to hash out the details of what Pope Benedict did or didn't do. If you are interested in that part of the story, I suggest you start here. Then, you can click on the many links on that page which will expand on that topic. I especially recommend the aforementioned reading if you have thus far only gotten your information from the New York Times, which is (how to say this kindly?) a tad biased and perhaps agenda-driven in its "reporting" of the "facts."

So, for a little perspective, maybe some logic, on the priest sex scandal in general? Let me just throw out some random thoughts that have been swirling in my brain for some time....

First: The reporting is grossly disproportionate.

I have been a Catholic for 43 years, and I know tons of Catholics. I know it's only anecdotal, but to my knowledge, no one I know personally has been sexually abused by a priest. However, I personally know many people who have been sexually abused by family members, by teachers, by neighbors and by camp counselors. Is it so crazy to question why all the media attention is only on the Catholic Church's offenders (especially considering that the vast majority of cases are decades-old)? And, come to think of it, don't Protestant clergy offend, too?

It seems to me that if the press wants to investigate a vast hotbed of ongoing, right now child sex abuse, with the number of abusers far eclipsing those of the priest scandal, they could just look to the American public schools. Check out this AP story, and then tell me where all the sensationalized headlines are? The failure to sanction or arrest teacher-molesters is routine, and the practice of quietly reassigning these sexual predators to new, unsuspecting schools is so sickeningly common that it actually has a name -- "passing the trash." If the media were truly concerned about protecting children, wouldn't they be hot on the trail of this widespread abuse, exposing administrative cover-ups?

If the Church-bashers could tell me why they aren't demonizing the teachers as well as priests, I am all ears. It simply doesn't make sense to me, unless this is simply about, well, demonizing the Church. Because, frankly, some of the outrage begins to ring a bit hollow.

By the way, I love teachers!!! Some of my closest friends and relatives are teachers, and they are stellar, dedicated professionals. Please don't think I am trashing a profession. Teachers deserve our respect and support, and I am in no way suggesting that we smear all teachers because of the crimes of a few. Reasonable people understand that. But, um... ditto for priests, right?

Second: Don't blame celibacy. Please.

Again, I am confused. If celibacy makes for sickos (which I have heard a thousand times), then why aren't the Church-bashers railing against celibate Buddhist monks? If the answer is, "Because Buddhist monks don't molest children!" then I would say that proves my point. For to insist that celibacy creates child molesters, one must (if one has any integrity) account for the Buddhist monks.

But in fact, many of the same folks crying that celibacy for priests is "unnatural" and "impossible" are great admirers of celibate Buddhist monks, whom they see as "spiritually enlightened." Go figure.

And how to account for fellow Christians who find priestly celibacy to be creepy, sick, unnatural or troubling? That one really baffles me. The word "celibate" actually means "unmarried." And Christianity teaches that unmarried people are not to have sex. That means unmarried teens, single young adults, the never-marrieds, widows and widowers, divorced, etc. Are those categories of people, if they are living as Christ teaches (i.e. no sex), sick and twisted? Are they sexually deviant due to their singleness? If not, why not?

Bottom Line: There are reasons why a tiny percentage of Catholic priests have violated those in their charge, but being celibate is not one of them.

More thoughts on the Church sex scandal in the next post....

[Read Part Two here]