Response and Reflection to NY Times Article (Catholic Countries Support Gay Marriage)

You can find the aticle here. Non-Scripture quotes are from said article. 

This is sad for a number of reasons:
(1):
"That’s because “Catholics” includes not just worshipers who attend Mass weekly and perhaps tilt in a more conservative direction but those who go less frequently and those for whom Catholicism is as much an ethnic as a religious identity."


Catholics who identify themselves as cultural and claim that their views are inspired by their Catholicism, when really its inspired by pluralistic influences, should not say "because of my Catholicism."

 Not participating in the sacraments whatsoever and no taking even the slightest time to understand what the Church teaches (or read Scripture) is doing a disservice to one's conscience.


In that same vein, (2):

"We journalists too often use “the Catholic Church” as a synonym for the pope, the cardinals and teachings that have the Vatican’s stamp of approval.
But in Europe and the Americas in particular, the church is much more fluid than that. It harbors spiritually inclined people paying primary obeisance to their own consciences, their own senses of social justice. That impulse and tradition are as Catholic as any others."


Primary obedience to one's conscience is not a blank check to do and act as you please, but a right given to all to exercise their free will to the best of their ability and knowledge.
One's conscience formed by his or her own convictions and preferences is not a "Catholic Conscience," but a "church-of-me" conscience. The Church can and won't infringe upon anyone's free will, but she does reserve the right, by virtue of her teaching and authority, to say if a given claim is erroneous, heretical, or schismatic to Catholicism and truth. So it is with myself or with anyone else who says they are Catholic, we must be humble in light of what is taught and obedient to the Church through a conscience formed by the Cross, a daily incorporation of Scripture, understanding of Tradition, and guidance from one's spiritual leaders.

Blame should probably fall on priests, myself included, who are not a steady witness to the Gospel, but rather seek comfort in those who agree with them and in topics of universal agreement, such as feeding the poor (which still isn't done enough, along with other corporal works of mercy), as opposed to preaching the Gospel on matters of gay marriage, divorce, contraception, the dignity of all persons, war, and the death penalty (things which pertain, I think, to spiritual works of mercy).

It's difficult to preach on these difficult issues without hijacking the mass which, in turn, makes the sacraments of the Church vehicles of personal preference as opposed to sources of life-giving grace. Yet we and our faithful don't do much before or after mass to build off that grace to grow in knowledge of our Church. So when should we talk about them? It's worth discussing, I think.


Thus, with brief reference to this article, advocating for gay marriage, even in a Catholic country and saying that it is a result of a Catholic conscience is, in my opinion, erroneous as best (insofar as they are mistaken about Church teaching) and those who proclaim it publicly (knowing consciously the teachings of the Church), with the intention of persuading other Catholics into seeing it as a "Catholic answer/alternative," speak in a heretical fashion. Neither of these actions are/become sinful unless those who hold to it as a Catholic position are obstinate and refuse to discuss it with their local, spiritual leader (typically a priest or deacon; or bishop). Catholics may, out of respect for their consciences, hold gay marriage as a personal belief, but publicly proclaiming it as coming from Catholicism is wrong.

My opinion is that most people simply speak in error because they have been taught to let "their conscience be their guide" while never being taught how to form it for themselves. "Do not be carried away by all manners of strange teaching" (Heb 13:9), rather, "test everything, hold onto what is good" (1 Thes 5:21). "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thes 2:15)


**tl;dr verson:**
It's time we as Catholics actually started forming our consciences, priests included, and be in genuine discourse with each other and the Tradition.


Feel free to give comments on this or similar topics below.

"We are the Church," she said....

I was giving a talk at my home parish on the early Church (part I-1) when a woman came up to me. Pointing at her heart she indicated that we, the people, are the Church. I couldn't deny her sincerity, nor do I think her intentions were wrong.

I come across this sentiment from time to time. I recall when I was in Washington DC, helping with catechesis, a particular follow-up meeting for the newly ordained. The deacon of this parish was brought in to explain a few things. My 20-year-old self was a bit appalled by his teaching. He was saying, "You don't have to genuflect to the tabernacle. Most people don't even know what that means. If you're going to bow or reverence anything it should be the people because without them there is no Church."

I interjected, "We genuflect because the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is housed there and we reverence His Holy presence."

He continued by saying something along the lines of 'but isn't God in each of us?'

I was happy when a number of newly baptized spoke up, many of them young to middle aged (28-45) saying "the purpose of going to mass, most of all, is the Eucharist" and "if no one knows why we genuflect why aren't we teaching them?"

In one part I was sad that these men and women, newly formed in Christ and possessing the fervor of a new convert, were met immediately and in their own home with divisive error, stubbornness, and borderline heresy. Nevertheless, I think it shows that no matter how close to home we are we have to be on guard from error.

Perhaps this deacon had lived through a time where the faithful did not respect each other. Perhaps he had some vision of Church that he couldn't let go. Whatever the reason his message was "We are the Church, we should not reverence the Eucharist but each other."


Fast forwarding to the present day: I wish I had this insight 5 years ago. All the same it came to my mind now and so I share it in hopes that it helps you, the reader.

I told her, more or less, that "We are certainly the Church. We were baptized and we as human beings can receive God's grace. We were also given a mission and entrusted to carry it out.

"You'll recall, however, that in the Old Testament God himself called the people of Israel together. In this sense the people were Israel. But God didn't stop there, did He? He formed a covenant with His people. He gave them priests, prophets, kings, laws, and a host of other things. People as people weren't Israel alone, it was the people committed to a certain way of life and a certain structure. This is how they were properly called children of God."


Afterward, this morning in fact, I reflected on what I had said. Perhaps these words would have helped:

Peter, in Scripture, tells us "like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 2:5).

In this sense we are the Church, but only so much as the stones of a church are the church. For you see, without a plan to build that church the stones remain scattered, disorganized, and contribute little to nothing. Likewise, if the building didn't have a purpose those stones would have never been gathered in the first place.

Each man living according to what he thought was right.

A church has structure. It has rules, it has order, and it has reason behind it. Likewise a church has a purpose. It gathers people to one spot for worship, for praise, for atonement, and it gathers them to be closer to God.

A church is not a church without its plan, without its purpose, or without its materials (or its people). The Church herself is God's gift to us. It's a structure that we inherit and it's a body that we're incorporated into. As living members of that Body we are indeed important and special. But we can only exercise our mission, our specialness, and our faith within that Church. The purpose of building a church is not to look at it from afar and comment, "It's a very nice building."

A church is built to be prayed in, loved in, and to worship God. Living apart from God's plan makes us as useful as a stone in a field. Living according to the structure and purpose of the Church glorifies God and stands tall with all others with us as a physical sign for all to see.

We are the Church, but only when we consciously choose to humble ourselves, making ourselves fit together like stones meant for building.

Those who claim that faith is only a personal relationship with Jesus are like stones that wish to remain stones. Peter, I believe, uses the image of "living stones" in a very particular way. A stone is something essential to a solid building, but a stone does not "build," rather it is something "built with." A stone submits itself to the builder. Paul himself said, "According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid the foundation, and another man [my successor] is building upon it" (1 Cor 3:10).

A stone that does not submit itself to the builder is a stone that's cast away or one that's in need of work. Paul, leader to his people, says, "We are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building" (3:9). And even if one builds with Christ as his foundation it does not mean that his building will stand. When we entrust ourselves with building we may end in ruin. When we submit ourselves to wise builders we endure.

Some men are good builders but they adopt a plan apart from generations of planners. Some men, like Luther for example, forsook the Tradition of his fathers. Rather, because he saw many stones were weak he decided that the plan for the Church was at fault and not the stones or the builders. Well, he blamed the builders but he also eventually blamed the plan.

The integrity of a structure like the Church depends first on its foundation, but it depends on more thereafter, if we're to believe 1 Corinthians chapter 3. The integrity of the Church requires humility from her members so that, like stones, that may make a temple pleasing to the Lord.