Bishops and priests by virtue of their office are our spiritual fathers in the Church. Honoring them in a spirit of charity, obedience, and filial respect usually poses no problem when things are going well. However, when our pastor seems to be "part of the problem," we tend to wonder to what extent we are to honor them.

Throughout the Bible there are many important lessons on how to relate to those in authority, especially during times of crises. From the example of Noah’s faithful sons, who covered their father’s nakedness (Gen. 9:23), to David's refusal to lay a hand on Saul (1 Sam. 24), to Our Lord’s pithy command to do as the Pharisees and scribes say but not as they do (Mt. 23:1-3), a clear picture develops. This picture is reflected in the constant teaching of the Church, including in our time the documents of Vatican II, the Catechism, and the Code of Canon Law.

The "anatomy" of a godly response to Church authority requires not only backbone but also heart--in other words, strength and tenderness rooted in the truth. This is charity in action, which the Catechism calls "the often narrow path between the cowardice which gives in to evil, and the violence which under the illusion of fighting evil only makes it worse" (no. 1889).

All this might sound good in theory, but what about Bishop So and So? What about my pastor, who allows--or even mandates--that X, Y, or Z go on in our parish? Here are some general principles that usually apply:

(1) Take personal responsibility. We are responsible for doing our part to build up the Church. Too often people lament about the deficiencies of local Church leaders, as though everything rides with them. The fact is, Baptism gives us the serious right and duty to be "apostles" in accordance with our state in life. We can’t control the actions of others, but we surely can take it upon ourselves to strive to become saints. At the judgment, we will not be asked about our bishop or pastor, but we will be accountable for what we did with our own talents.

(2) Offer it up. Difficulties and suffering within the Church can be the very stuff of our redemption. Do we believe that? Are we going to embrace these crosses (even as we legitimately and appropriately address our concerns), or are we going to respond with the "violence" that only makes things worse? Suffering of all kinds is a given in life; we can choose whether in our case it will be redemptive or wasted.

(3) Honor our fathers. Since bishops and pastors are our spiritual fathers, we are commanded to honor them as such by the Fourth Commandment. The Roman Catechism, issued after the Council of Trent, taught that "Christ the Lord commands obedience even to wicked pastors." But the Fourth Commandment is a "thou shall" rather than a "thou shall not" commandment. It does not tell us to avoid negative behaviors, but rather encourages a healthy, positive loyalty and reverence toward our parents and also our spiritual fathers.

(4) Live the vision. Lastly, we should pray for an increase of faith, that we might see in our bishops and priests, despite their human frailty and any perceived shortcomings, "the Lord’s anointed." If we do that, we’re well on our way toward imitating the example of David, who was, to his eternal credit, a man after God’s own heart (cf. Acts 13:22).

The foregoing is an excerpt from my article "Laity on the Line," which originally appeared in the May-June 2006 issue of Lay Witness magazine. 

Many men today think a “holy hour” means being able to watch the second half of a game without interruption, and that a “retreat” is 36 holes of golf interspersed with appropriate beverages. In countless parishes I’ve visited, the women far outnumber the men in the pews (and in the sanctuary). Meanwhile, try getting a seat at the local sports pub now that football season has begun.

There are countless things competing for men’s time and attention and, frankly, we don’t always do a good job of prioritizing, of putting first things first. And what could be more important than bending the knee before Our Heavenly Father, the source of all fatherhood (cf. Eph. 3:14-15)?

In this regard I suggest that we take a lesson from St. Joseph this Labor Day. More...

In today’s Gospel (Luke 5:1-11), Peter, James, and John had been fishing all night and had caught nothing. Our Lord instructs them to “put out into the deep” and, after some balking--after all, these fishermen think they know their trade better than this carpenter--they cast their nets back into the water and caught a tremendous amount of fish.

Then Peter falls on His knees before the Lord and says, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”

At first, St. Peter’s statement seems strange. It’s like telling a doctor, “Get away from me, I’m sick.” More...

The relation of Christ and the Church is often expressed in nuptial terms: Christ is the Bridegroom; the Church is His Bride. By extension, the bishop (who acts in the person of Christ) and his flock have a spousal, familial relationship. The bishop’s ring symbolizes his “marriage” to the local Church. Moreover, the bishop typically wears a pectoral cross, not a crucifix. There is no corpus on his cross because the bishop himself is to be the corpus, laying down his life for his bride in imitation of our Savior (John 15:13; Eph. 5:25).  

Spousal, covenantal relationships do not involve a quid pro quo. My fidelity to my marriage covenant is not dependant on my wife’s fidelity. I don’t assess my wife’s performance each day in order to decide whether she deserves my love. Rather, my commitment--and hers--must be total and unconditional.

This principle also applies to our relationship with bishops. More...

This has been a banner week for the Suprenant family. Last Saturday, of course, our daughter entered the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. Then yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the finalization of our son Raymond’s adoption.

And now today we are celebrating the 18th anniversary of our daughter Mary Kate’s Baptism--yes, the same daughter who just entered the convent.

We celebrate “Baptism Days” in our family, as we see them--with firm biblical and theological support--as second birthdays. Needless to say, this concept is a real hit with our kids. (So is "birthday week," but I'll save that for another post!) We consider these celebrations as excellent reminders to thank God for the mustard seed of faith that was planted in our children--and in us--at Baptism. And it also reminds us of our duty to nurture this life that God has entrusted to us as parents.

We usually at least sing and have cake to recognize the day. Sometimes we will get more elaborate and even light the candle the child received at his or her Baptism. Do the readers of this blog know their Baptism days and those of their children? If so, do you do anything to celebrate these special days? 

Today marks the fifth anniversary of the finalization of the adoption of our youngest son, Raymond. Filled with thanksgiving to our Heavenly Father, I will once again tell Raymond’s remarkable story. For those of you who have already heard it, tough! More...

Tomorrow we will be taking my daughter Mary Kate to the airport, as she embarks on her new life with the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist community in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

We've seen this coming for awhile, but I'm not sure anyone is ever quite ready to have their teenage daughter do something like this. But make no mistake: Mary Kate is ready. As for my readiness, I haven't been so sure!

Speaking of readiness, check out this recent interview given by one of the "oldtimers" entering the Dominican community this weekend--a 2010 summa cum laude Harvard graduate! 

Anyway, last Sunday at Mass many emotions were running through my head. While I honestly can't think of anything better she can do with her life--and I'm so proud of who she is and of her generous response to Our Lord's call--I was still feeling a sense of loss.

Fr. Anthony chose Eucharistic Prayer III. I really like this particular Eucharistic Prayer. One phrase that has had rich meaning for me through the years is, "Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here . . ." as I've written frequently on the image of the Church as the "family of God," as well as on the "parish family."

But last Sunday it was the next line that really struck me:

"In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be."

Even though Mary Kate will be in a cloister nearly a thousand miles away, we will still be united in God's mercy and love, particularly through our participation in the Eucharist and in the life of the Church in general (a "communion of saints" thing). This is another one of those teachings to which we give notional assent, but every now and then we have moments in which a truth of the faith penetrates us in a more real, experiential way. I'm not really "losing" my dear Mary Kate at all!

Now, I'm the Dick Vermeil of Catholic fathers (I've cried all 23 times I've seen It's a Wonderful Life, if that's any indication), so I'm sure I'm going to shed some more tears. But they will be tears of joy and thanksgiving. 

It's all right here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 2232-33):

"Family ties are important but not absolute. Just as the child grows to maturity and human and spiritual autonomy, so his unique vocation which comes from God asserts itself more clearly and forcefully. Parents should respect this call and encourage their children to follow it. They must be convinced that the first vocation of the Christian is to follow Jesus: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37). . . .

"Parents should welcome and respect with joy and thanksgiving the Lord's call to one of their children to follow him in virginity for the sake of the Kingdom in the consecrated life or in priestly ministry."

At the heart of the proclamation of the Gospel is the call to conversion. This call goes out to all of us, to turn to Christ and to continually deepen our relationship with Him. This is to a large extent a matter of the heart, but sometimes we need to critically examine our thought processes. Discovering flaws in one's logic does not of itself produce faith, but it does level the playing field so that the call to conversion may be heard anew.

Today, I thought I would offer a "top ten" list of non sequiturs ("it-doesn't-follows") that I've run into, with a brief explanation as to why they involve logical fallacies.

(1) "I don't always feel like going to Mass on Sunday, especially if I'm out late on Saturday or there's a good football game on."

Therefore: "It's okay [i.e., not a mortal sin] if I occasionally miss Mass on Sunday."

We don't always feel like doing the right thing. In fact, feelings are not a reliable guide to making good decisions (Catechism, no. 1768). What would even be the point of morality if whatever we felt like doing always happened to be the right thing to do? We know from personal experience as well as from the teaching of the Church that that's not the case. Also, this thought process makes Sunday Mass appear as merely an obligation, and not as the source and summit of our lives as Christians.

(2) "Fr. X sexually abused a minor."

Therefore: "The Catholic Church is evil. (And all priests are perverts.)"

If Fr. X sexually abused a minor, then he is a pervert and a criminal, and he should be prosecuted to the same extent as anyone else who commits such acts. But to judge all priests and the Church as a whole based on the bad acts of individuals is an illogical (and at times malicious) leap--and one that our society would not tolerate with respect to any other demographic group.

As a matter of pastoral governance, mistakes have been made in the past regarding the handling of priest abusers, but even that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all priests are sex offenders (the overwhelming majority aren't) or that the Church countenances the behavior of the Fr. Xes of the world. The Church, following Our Lord's teaching, especially in Matthew 18, has always considered the sexual abuse of minors a gravely sinful act (see for example Catechism, nos. 2353 and 2356). 

(3) "Annulments are just Catholic divorces."

Therefore: "I should be able to divorce and remarry in the Church without the hassle and delay of the annulment process."

This is the one clearly false premise in this list, as annulments, or "decrees of nullity," are distinct from divorces. So here we need more teaching on marriage, especially on the indissolubility of marriage. As Our Lord said, "What therefore God has joined, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6).

But even accepting this perception, there is a double standard at work here. Virtually nobody would attempt a second civil marriage (with the first spouse still alive) without first obtaining a civil divorce. Otherwise, they'd be committing the crime of bigamy. When it comes to a Christian marriage, the ultimate arbiter is the Church, not the state. Yet, many people act as if the permissive divorce laws of the state should exclusively govern realities that "God has joined." For more on this topic, check out this article.

(4) "It's legal."

Therefore: "It's morally acceptable."

Not all actions that are legal are morally good, and not all illegal activities necessary entail an action that is morally evil in itself. In legal terminology, which one would get in a cursory viewing of Legally Blonde, some acts are malum in se (bad in themselves) and others are malum prohibitum (bad because they're prohibited, such as various regulatory laws, etc.).

Even in our jurisprudence, then, some actions are bad, or evil, in themselves. This badness doesn't come from the law, but from something that existed before the penal codes were written. Here of course we're talking about the natural law, which is not dependent on the "democratic process" or having a majority of favorably disposed judges. So, the fact that abortion may be "legal" in the eyes of the state does not mean that it has ceased to be an abomination in the sight of God (see Catechism, nos. 2070-73).  

(5) "Catholics are not 'single issue' voters."

Therefore, "I can vote for the pro-abortion candidate because there are many issues and surely on some issues he or she is preferable to the pro-life alternative."

The fact that Catholics are not "single issue" voters does not lead to the conclusion that all issues are more/less equal. Abortion is a distinctive issue for three reasons. First, it involves the fundamental right to life itself, which is a prerequisite for any and all other rights we possess. Second, if that weren't enough, the victims are the most vulnerable in our midst and unable to speak for themselves. And third, unlike most political issues, this is a black and white moral issue where there is a right side and a wrong side to be on as Christians and as men and women of goodwill. So a certain prioritization of issues is certainly called for. On this, I refer readers to a joint pastoral letter issued during the last election cycle by Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn of the greater Kansas City area.

(6) "Everyone has the right to be happy."

Therefore, "Homosexual activity and even homosexual relationships should be approved by society, and the Chuch will have to come around on this issue."

When this person says "happy," he or she doesn't mean happy in the deepest sense. Basically, this person is saying that a person, or in this instance, "consenting adults," have the right to do whatever they want to do. What he or she is really talking about is "license," which is human freedom disconnected from the truth. One cannot be happy apart from God and apart from striving to do what is pleasing in His eyes. If human happiness resides in God alone, as all the saints have attested, must we give legal recognition to his or her disordered attempts at happiness (to the detriment of the moral fabric of our society), or do we lovingly offer them another way? 

(7) "The Church's teaching on birth control is not infallible."

Therefore, "The Church's teaching is wrong."

Here we get into all sorts of futile arguments as to whether the Church has made an "infallible" ex cathedra statement on the subject, or at least has taught on this subject in such a way that it partakes of the "ordinary Magisterium" of the Church. Basically, people are looking for loopholes. They want the Church to be wrong about this, so they need to lay the foundation that such an error is possible (without bailing on the Church altogether).

The fact of the matter is that the Church teaches the truth in matters of faith and morals. When it comes to moral evils, the Church typically does not issue infallible pronouncements. Does that mean that the Church's moral teaching is up for grabs? Of course not. And the Church has noted that the sinfulness of contraception is also a precept of the natural law (cf. Humanae Vitae, no. 14), and the natural law does not change (Catechism, no. 1958).

(8) "Things seemed to go haywire in the Church after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65)."

Therefore, "Vatican II is the problem, and its so-called 'reforms' must be reversed immediately."

Maxwell Smart might say, "This is the old post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy." Literally this means, "After this therefore because of this." In other words, it's bad logic to conclude that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was the cause of the second event. Now Vatican II did bring about some significant changes in the Church's life, but most things people point to as the bad fruits of Vatican II are things that (a) would likely have happened even without Vatican II and/or (b) reflect a mistaken (or mischievous) interpretation of the Council's provisions. Taken to the extreme, this fallacy has led some who are "more Catholic than the Pope"--or at least "more Catholic than Vatican II"--to walk away from the Church. "Pre-Vatican II" and "Post-Vatican II" are not two different churches, people!

(9) "All human beings are born with God-given dignity and value."

Therefore, "Illegal immigrants have the right to citizenship and to free healthcare insurance coverage."

Obviously this is a complex, divisive issue that requires a new way of thinking that can break through partisan divisions.

The Church, more than any other body, affirms the God-given dignity, value, and rights of all people. There are many people in this country who are "undocumented" or "illegal," oftentimes because their family is unable to survive harsh living conditions in Mexico. Treating these people as mere criminals or worse doesn't resonate with the Christian perspective.

Yet, automatic citizenship and health insurance for those who have fled to our country (notwithstanding our immigration laws, such as they are) is not a necessary conclusion to be drawn from our premise. Even more so when we imprudently and unjustly burden the next generation with paying for our inability to manage this immigration crisis in a way that is both compassionate and respectful of the rule of law.  

(10) "God is merciful."

Therefore, "All people [with perhaps noteworthy exceptions, such as Adolph Hitler or Osama bin Laden] will be saved.

This is the error of presumption, or perhaps universalism. Just as we can choose to accept Christ, we can also set our will against Him. If none of that mattered, then "human freedom" would simply be a mirage.

Can you think of any other faith-related non sequiturs?

With my daughter entering the convent this weekend, I find myself thinking about my time with a religious community in the 1980s as I was discerning a possible vocation to the priesthood and religious life. One day, they brought in a well-known retreat master to give the two dozen or so seminarians a day of recollection.

The first words of the priest to begin the day of recollection really startled me. He bluntly said, “None of you are called to the priesthood.” I looked around the room at all the postulants and said to myself, “Boy, Father Tom (the community’s vocation director) sures knows how to pick ‘em!”

The priest then explained that our vocation is “now,” that we must respond wholeheartedly to the Lord right here, right now by being holy seminarians. In five or six years, God willing, the bishop will lay hands on some of us, and then--and only then--would we truly be called to the priesthood.

As it turned out, More...

A student once asked me: When did the term “Catholic” come into play? How did we become “Catholic” from our Jewish roots? I thought these were very good questions, so I thought I would share my brief response with the readers of Catholic Hour.
 
The first recorded use of the word “catholic” (from the Greek word for “universal”) in reference to the Church is found in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop and disciple of St. John who was martyred by the Emperor Trajan in 107. Shortly before his martyrdom, he wrote several letters to various Church communities. These letters have been preserved by the Church ever since. One such letter was the Letter to the Smyrneans, where he wrote in chapter 8:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Interestingly, Antioch is also the place where the followers of Christ were called “Christians” for the first time (Acts 11:26).

As for the second question, really the goal of all of salvation history, from the time of the fall and surely from the scattering of the nations at Babel, has been to reunite the divided, sinful family of man into the Family of God, the Church. The Church indeed is universal, as it’s the means of salvation for the whole world, Jew and Gentile alike. Surely the Jewish people played a unique role as God’s chosen people, from whom would come Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. In a real sense the Church became “Catholic” at Pentecost, when God reversed the scattering of peoples at Babel (see Catechism, no. 830).

The covenants made to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to King David all find their fulfillment in the salvation Christ brings to the world. As was promised way back in Genesis, through Abraham and his descendants all the families of the earth will find blessing (Gen. 12:3). This blessing is universal. This blessing is Catholic.

In our daily spiritual lives, moments of decision typically revolve around temptations. We’re trying to follow Christ and abide by His teachings and commands. Then we’re confronted with a situation in which we’re being lured--subtly or overtly, whatever best suits Satan’s purposes at the time--into doing what we know we shouldn’t do.

In these instances, the good choice often involves avoiding a negative, to not do the wrong thing. Yet, battling temptations rather than fleeing them suggests that part of us has already given in a little bit. I know that sometimes even after choosing not to sin I feel somewhat sullied and compromised, because my good choice wasn’t as prompt and pure as it should have been.

I guess we can keep butting heads with temptations, flirting with how much we can get away with before we’re actually sinning, but I’d like to suggest a way out of that mindset. More...

Today is the feast day of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153). For many people, unfortunately, St. Bernard is merely a big, lovable breed of working dog. Even those of us with Catholic sensibilities might not know too much about him. Maybe we remember that he was devoted to Our Lady (which saint wasn’t?), and that he is believed to be the author of the prayer commonly known as the Memorare (”Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary . . .”). But even that’s probably pushing it.

It’s a shame we don’t know more about him, because Bernard was no ordinary monk. His singular holiness, his amazing zeal, his prolific spiritual writing, his founding of dozens of monasteries, his decisive, godly impact on ecclesial and world affairs during his incredible life are all a matter of historical record.

My family recently finished as our dinnertime reading The Family That Overtook Christ (Daughers of St. Paul, 1986). It’s the story of St. Bernard’s remarkable family. His father Tescalin has been declared “Venerable” by the Church, and his mother, Alice, his sister Humbeline, and his brothers Guy, Gerard, Andrew, Bartholomew, and Nivard have all been declared “Blessed.” It’s one of the most edifying things I’ve read in a long time. One of the most challenging, too. The holy siblings frequently attributed their exceptional religious formation to their parents, who truly raised a generation of saints. Isn’t that the goal of all of us Catholic parents? More...

One argument offered in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that children raised by same-sex couples have no more problems than children raised by their married biological parents. Aware that a major impediment to their agenda is public concern about the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, gay activists have encouraged researchers to “prove” that their thesis. They offer these "findings" to the courts in marriage cases.

The majority of these studies do not compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by married biological parents, but with children raised by single mothers or in other less-than-ideal circumstances. Further, many of these studies have been shown to be externally or internally invalid. And in some cases, researchers simply ignored their own findings and skewed their conclusions to fit their agenda.

Persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are human beings. It’s natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanting to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.

Yet children are not trophies, or a way to meet one’s personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. More...

I used to listen to a talk radio host who would say, “In the department store of life, sports is, after all, the toy department.” Surely that’s a useful message for us “weekend warriors.”

But let’s take that comment a step further. In the department store of life, is our faith merely a department--and a “boring” one at that, such as housewares or women’s clothing? If so, then what about the rest of the store? Are there parts of our life that our faith doesn’t affect?

I think it’s very easy to compartmentalize our day. If we’re not careful, however, this could lead to our assessing our spiritual development based solely or at least excessively on explicit religious observance. In other words, we might look to whether we “got in” our Rosary, chaplet, holy hour, or whatever other devotion(s) we set out to do each day, as if these admittedly good things were ends in themselves.

Or we might pride ourselves on our “orthodoxy,” but then check our faith at the door in certain areas of our lives, such as in our business dealings or even our highway driving. Yet deep down we know that religious observance and doctrinal orthodoxy, to be authentic, must inform the totality of our lives. More...

When my daughter Virginia was younger, she and I had a conversation concerning girls’ names, during which time she commented that Virginia is a very common name. I said, “No, it isn’t honey,” to which she replied, “Yes it is, I hear it all the time.”

Obviously our viewpoint, on matters of greater or lesser signifance, is shaped by our personal perspective and the information that is available to us. When it comes to homosexuality, we find ourselves frequently surrounded by propaganda, societal pressures, and misinformation. We're being pushed to lighten up on a weighty matter, to tolerate the intolerable, to accept the unacceptable. We naturally want to push back, but how we do so matters greatly. More...