During my three years at Nashotah House (a seminary of the Episcopal church in Wisconsin) I had the pleasure meeting a bishop from the Church of England: Bishop John Broadhurst, who is now a Monsignor in the Catholic Church and part of the English Ordinariate.

I cannot exactly recall why he was there (I think it was because the school was giving him an honorary doctorate) but I do recall one specific interaction. He was giving a talk, or maybe it was a homily, to the students (and this being an Episcopal seminary some of the students were women) in which he brought up the topic of the ordination of women to the priesthood. For those who do not know, Anglicans all over the world do allow for the ordination of women, but since the inception of this novelty in the 1970s it has always been a contentious subject. And Bishop Broadhurst was part of a group of bishops within the Church of England that refused to perform such an ordination. And during his talk that day the good bishop made it very clear that he was against such an innovation. Needless to say, there were some feathers ruffled by his saying so. He then posed a question to himself, which went something like this,

He answered his own question quite simply by saying, "Tell 'em NO!"

There are many times when we all need to have this same bold and frank attitude. Of course, when we speak we should do so in a loving manner that has true concern for the welfare of the other person. But consider this - what is more loving than to correct our brother when he is mistaken about something of vital importance? And I think everyone will agree that things pertaining to the salvation of another person's soul is of ultimate importance.

The Church is very clear: certain things are right and certain things are wrong. If we see our fellow man going down the path that could lead him to everlasting damnation then we have a duty to speak up and boldly "Tell 'em NO!"

This post is in response to comments on one of my sermons. You can find the entire comments under the Sermons tab and scroll down to the 'Sermon for the Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity'. I will address what I feel are the most important concerns in chronological order. When I first read his comments I must admit I was a little suprised because he doesn't seem to be addressing what I actually say in my sermon but instead seems to be jumping to his own conclusions of what he thinks that I meant. I will quote directly from the comment and include all typos.

He states that I am "violating us law by talking about issues that conflict between church and state." Here he must be referring to the supposed separation of church and state that various people want to claim is the law of the land. But, according to what I have been taught, the US has no such law that says I cannot let my religious faith influence how I think in regards to politics. And, as a Catholic priest, I am obligated to preach the Truth on teachings of the Church, which is what I tried to do in this sermon and in all of my sermons.

He states that I "judge and then condemn people because they don't think like" me. He seems to be inferring something that I did not say. Nevertheless, I was doing no such thing in my sermon. Instead, I was trying to explain the Truth of the Church's teaching so that people did not commit a serious sin in how the voted.

He states "christ said first remove the beam in your eye" but I am not sure which beam he wants me to remove. Perhaps he does not like what I had to say in the sermon and therefore thinks that I sinned in saying it. But, I was not expounding my own opinion in the sermon but the teachings of the Church so how did I sin in what I said?

He states, "you condemn gay people because they want some form of union" but again, I didn't say anything that is out of line with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also, to say that I condemned anyone in my sermon would be a stretch.

Next, he asks a question, "what would you say if your child is gay"? This question is so loaded that it really requires a separate post but let me try to answer briefly. If one of my children were to think they were homosexual and tell me about it I would love them just like I do now. But, (and I cannot stress this enough) I would not support them in their behavior if they acted on those misguided homosexual feelings. The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear in regards to homosexual acts: "Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357)

He then goes on to state, "you condemn pro choice people". Yet again, I simply spoke the Truth of what the Church teaches. The Church teaches in a definitive manner that abortion is wrong! Look it up in the Catechism: §2270-2275.

Then, in regards to the sin of abortion he writes, "in any case it is just a sin and god forgives all sins." Yes, God does forgive all sins, as long as we repent of them. But you should never deliberately sin while thinking to yourself, "God will forgive me. I can just go to confession." To do so is to commit the serious sin of presumption.

In speaking of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in the country, he says that it is the "will of the people". Well, so what! Just because abortion is the "will of the people" (which is debatable) does not make it moral or acceptable. And, as I have said before in this post, as a Catholic priest I must stand up for the lives of the unborn. So his apparent desire for me to be silent on this point boggles the mind.

Lastly, he writes, "think of all the parishoners feelings you hurt because of your belief and political party preaching". First of all let me address his comment of "your belief". My belief, sir, is in the fullness of the teachings of Jesus Christ that He has entrusted to His Holy Catholic Church. And my duty as a Catholic priest is to protect those teachings by giving my very life if I have to do so. At no point in my sermon that you disagree with have I contradicted Catholic teaching. And yes, because of my willingness to proclaim the Truth of the Gospel someone might get their feelings hurt, as you say. Hurting someone's feelings isn't my goal in my sermons but instead preaching the Truth. And I will not withhold the Truth just because someone might disagree with it. In fact, that is all the more reason to proclaim it. If I don't proclaim the Truth to them and they go on sinning then their sin falls on my head and the sinner my be eternally lost. (See Ezekiel 33:8). Whereas, if I preach the Truth and the sinner repents then I have saved his life and my own. (See James 5:19-20)

In closing, it seems to me that the person who left these comments doesn't really want to hear the Truth, at least not the parts that he happens to disagree with. In a second set of comments he states that he will now be attending another parish, but why? Is it just to hear what he wants to hear? Whether or not another priest preaches against abortion or homosexuality does not change the fact that the Church teaches that both of these things are completely and always wrong. Out of concern for his salvation I hope he reads this post and asks himself these questions: am I Catholic; if so, do I believe everything the Church teaches as the Truth of Jesus Christ; if I do then well and good but if I do not, then why am I Catholic?

Dear sir, you closed your initial comments by saying "may god forgive you because i will not." Why are you so angry with me? I do not feel sinned against in what you have said but if there is anything done against me by you then I forgive it. My only concern for you, and for all I meet, is your eternal salvation. I pray that if I have done you any real wrong you will forgive me as well, remembering that Christ Himself taught us to say, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trepass against us." (Matthew 6:12)

Earlier today I read Pope Benedict's Apostolic Letter Porta Fidei. The release of this letter marks the beginning of the Year of Faith inaugurated by Pope Benedict. This letter is absolutely wonderful and I recommend that all Catholics read it. Doing so will help ensure that everyone is on the same page, so to speak, with what this Year of Faith is all about.

I know my posts have been sporadic lately. Due to that fact I am going to start posting various parts of this great document on my blog. I will try to comment on every post but some may not need any comment like the one for today. Today's post is from section 9 and I believe that it gives us the main purpose for both the letter and the Year of Faith.

We want this Year to arouse in every believer the aspiration to profess the faith in fullness and with renewed conviction, with confidence and hope. It will also be a good opportunity to intensify the celebration of the faith in the liturgy, especially in the Eucharist, which is "the summit towards which the activity of the Church is directed; ...and also the source from which all its power flows." At the same time, we make it our prayer that believers'  witness of life may grow in credibility. To rediscover the content of the faith that is professed, celebrated, lived and prayed, and to reflect on the act of faith, is a task that every believer must make his own, especially in the course of this Year.

I don't think this really needs any further comment. May we all grow deeper in our own faith during this Year of Faith, but let us realize that won't happen unless we put our own effort into it.

Fr. Namby Pamby, in his homily for this morning's Mass had the following to say about the Gospel:

"Jesus says to the rich young man this morning, 'If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.' (Matt 19:21) By this we can see that social justice is the way to heaven. It is the path laid out for us by our Lord to follow."

And he goes on and on with this drivel. Apparently, Nam, as he likes to be called by his parishioners (he did away with title Father because he felt it was too patriarchal), didn't read the entire Gospel. If he had been paying attention he would have noticed a few things.

First of all, Jesus said to the young man, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He didn't tell the young man to go alleviate injustice. Now I will admit that works of social justice are a part of the commandments that Jesus is speaking about when He says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But social justice isn't the whole story. Now at this point Fr. Pamby (notice the use of his title in order to annoy him) would probably want to argue, "But Jesus told him to go and sell all he owned and give it to the poor. That means social justice is the main focus of this lesson." It is at this point I must tell my misguided colleague that he is wrong.

If we look at Matt 19:22 we are told, "When the young man heard (what Jesus said) he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions." Jesus could see into this young man's soul and He knew that the young man put too much trust in his wealth. If this isn't true then why didn't he happily go along with what Christ said? He was sorrowful because his possessions meant more to him than his own soul. Jesus told him to get rid of everything because if the young man, or in fact any man, wants Christ then there is room for nothing else. We must be willing to get rid of anything that keeps us from Christ if we want to inherit eternal life. Christ gave up everything for us and we must be willing to do the same for Him.

So you see, this isn't a lesson in social justice. It is a lesson about the salvation of a soul and not just that of the rich young man but yours, mine and everyone else that has ever cared about something else more than they care about God.

(All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)