R. J. Grigaitis

For a number of reasons, I’m a little more than a month behind in most of my projects right now (actually, I’m a whole year behind in one project). This is why I took a three week break in my podcasts over Easter instead of only one. Seven weeks ago, I heard someone say something theologically incorrect, and it’s taken until now before I address it. I didn’t correct this person at the time because in this situation I had to look up specific biblical passages to back up my correction. It was actually the beginning of the Intercessions in Tuesday’s Morning Prayer that prompted me to finally get busy on this one.

This is the erroneous theological statement that I heard:

“Christ did not rise from the dead of his own accord. God raised him from the dead.”

You may say that only the first sentence of this statement is erroneous, but when both sentences are put together, they imply a thoroughly heretical thought. By itself, the second sentence is correct. God did raise Christ from the dead, and since Christ is God, it could be said that Christ raised Himself from the dead. However, when these two sentences are put together, a distinction is made between Christ and God. By saying that God, and not Christ, raised Christ from the dead, it is implied that Christ is not God. This is heresy.

I am quite sure that the particular person that made this statement does believe that Christ is God, and didn’t realise the implication of this statement. I’m sure that the only intention was to emphasise the role of God the Father in Christ’s resurrection. This is why I said that it was “theologically incorrect” and not actually heretical.

Now onto the statement that prompted me to finally get around to writing this. This is how the Intercessions begin in Morning Prayer for the Tuesday of the Third Week of Easter:

“By his own power Christ raised up the temple of his body when it had been destroyed in death.”

I found the same wording, “by His own power,” in a section from a creed composed by a unknown theologian of the fifth century, which was received by the Council of Toledo XI in 675, and possible approved by Pope Innocent III:

[The Redemption] In this form of assumed human nature we believe according to the truth of the Gospels that He was conceived without sin, born without sin, and died without sin, who alone for us became sin [II Cor. 5:21], that is, a sacrifice for out sin. And yet He endured His passion without detriment to His divinity, for out sins, and condemned to death and to the cross, He accepted the true death of the body; also on the third day, restored by His own power, He arose from the grave.

The most convincing proof that Jesus rose from the dead by His own accord is His own words in John 2:19-22:

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

Note that He did not say, “God will raise it up,” but, “I will raise it up.”

John 10:17-18 also says the same thing:

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

Here Christ states that he has the power to lay down His life and raise it up again by His own accord. However, He also says that He received this charge from His Father.

Christ did not act alone in the Resurrection, but in the unity of the Trinity. Here are a couple of passages that cite the action of the Father and Holy Spirit in the Resurrection.

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

… and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord… (Romans 1:4)

Pauline theology tends to emphasise that the Father raised Christ from the dead, whereas Johannine theology tends to emphasise Christ raising Himself from the dead. Both are correct (obviously, they’re in the Bible). Negating either one creates not only unsound theology, it open the door to heresy.

Addendum May 12, 2009

As Easter progresses, the Liturgy of the Hours gives a fuller expression of the Trinitarian source of the Resurrection. The Intercessions in Morning Prayer for the Friday of the Fourth Week of Easter begin with this:

God the Father raised up Christ through the Spirit, and will also raise up our mortal bodies.

The Intercessions in Evening Prayer for the Fifth Week of Easter begin with this:

The Holy Spirit raised the body of Christ to life and made it the source of life.

It is quite common for people to point to priestly celibacy as the cause of the clergy sex abuse scandal. Many have the idea that if priests were allowed to get married, they wouldn’t have to suppress their sexual desires, and therefore would not fall into immoral sexual relationships. Anyone that holds such ideas is actually ignorant of the meaning of marriage, as they are of the meaning of  celibacy.

First, let me put the scale of this scandal in perspective with some personal statistics. I personally know of two sex scandals involving married Protestant ministers. One was a consenting adulterous relationship, and the other involved a number of young girls. I do not have any personal knowledge of any sex scandals involving Catholic priests, and I know around four times as many Catholic priests as I do Protestant ministers.

I should clarify that that the scandal involving a number of young girls was in a congregation that denies being Protestant (although an examination of their history proves that they are). They will also deny that the man involved in the scandal had any authority in their church because he was only a professional preacher, not a deacon or an elder. This, of course, is a ruse because he was the main teacher of this congregation.

The scandal in this congregation also mirrors the Catholic scandal of bishops putting supposed rehabilitated sex offending priests in positions where they could re-offend because the elders of this congregation were aware of at least one sexual offence when this man was in Bible college. There were no legal charges laid in this earlier offence, and so the whole affair was kept quite. However, knowing of this past offence, the elders allowed this man to be in a position where he was alone with young girls.

The purpose of these last three paragraphs is simply to point out that this is not just a problem in the Catholic Church. The reason the Catholic problem is so publicised is because the secular media has a bias against the Catholic Church. Statistically speaking, sexual offences among Catholic clergy is lower than in the general public. As well, more than half of the offenders in sex abuse cases are married, divorced or in a common-law relationship.

Marriage does not stop a potential sex offender from offending. Even if he does not do anything illegal, he will still offend in his mind, which Christ affirms is just as sinful:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28)

In his General Audience of October 8, 1980, Pope John Paul the Great points out that Christ does not say “one who looks at a woman that is not his wife lustfully,” but “one who looks at a woman lustfully.” Thus, Christ implies that even if a man looks at his own wife lustfully, he commits adultery “in his heart” (I use the pope’s actual quote in my next Weekly Thought).

Purity of heart is just as important in marriage as it is in celibacy. A man that habitually looks at women, or men, lustfully and can’t stop himself from doing so is not only unfit for the priesthood, he is unfit for marriage. He may never act out on these thoughts, but the fact that he can’t stop himself from thinking these thoughts means he has a deep rooted disorder that must be corrected before he can make a vow of celibacy or make a vow of marriage.

Marriage makes some sexual acts seem moral in the eyes of other Christians; however, if such acts are motivated by lust and not love, they are in fact immoral no matter how they may appear. In time, such acts will likely no longer satisfy, and acts that are blatantly immoral will be sought. So as to keep up appearances, these blatantly immoral acts will be done in secret, but as a person becomes more and more sexually disordered, he will take greater and greater risks in losing his reputation as a good Christian.

If a person with disordered sexual desires gets married, there is always the potential that the children resulting from this marriage will become the object of these disordered desires. Marriage puts a person with disordered sexual desires in a legal situation where he is alone with young children.

Even if a man is able to quench all his lust with his wife, there is no guarantee that she will always be sexually available to him. A medical condition may arise, such as a coma, where she cannot have sexual relations with him for months or even decades. How can he quench his lust if something like this happens? He will most likely look for a sexual outlet beyond that of his marriage. 

In such a scenario, the only moral thing for a man to do is to remain faithful to his wife, which would require remaining celibate, possibly for the rest of his life. Such a heroic life could be forced upon any married man; however, some men freely choose such a life, many of whom become Roman Catholic priests.

A married priesthood would not have stopped the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. All a married priesthood would do is bring more women and children into the scandal. As I mentioned above, more then half of sexual offenders have, or had, a legitimate or semi-legitimate sexual relationship. Such a relationship does not stop one from committing a sex crime.

Of course, a good percentage of priests involved in the clergy sex abuse scandal would still have chosen celibacy even if a married priesthood was an option for them. They chose the vow of celibacy as a legal way of suppressing their disordered sexual desires. Only mandatory marriage would have stopped them from becoming priests.

Mandatory celibacy did not cause the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. What caused the scandal was admitting men to the priesthood that were not only unfit for the priesthood, but also unfit for marriage.

This topic has come up yet again in an e-mail discussion, so I decided to address it on my blog so that the next time it comes up, I can direct people  to this page.

There is married clergy in the Catholic Church. There always has been. Both married and celibate men can be ordained to the diaconate; however, once ordained, a man cannot marry. If he freely choses to devote himself wholly to God through celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:32-37) before ordination, he must remain celibate. If he was married before ordination and his wife dies after he is ordained, he cannot remarry but must remain celibate. It became the norm in the Latin Rite to only ordain celibate deacons to the presbyterate (priests). It became the norm in all of the rites of the Catholic Church to only ordain celibate presbyters to the episcopate (bishops).

No one is forbidden to marry in the Catholic Church; however, men must discern if God is calling them to celibacy or marriage before being ordained. After ordination, a man cannot marry. If a man is called by God to marriage, God will not call him to be a priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church as long as his wife is living. As well, God will not call a married priest to be a bishop as long as his wife is living. God will not call a married deacon to be a Latin Rite priest or a married priest to be a bishop because God binds in heaven what the Church binds on earth (cf. Matthew 16:18, 18:18). Since the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to make these rules, the same Spirit will not confound them by calling someone to an office he can’t legally be placed in.

The rule that married deacons can’t become a priests in the Latin Rite, and the rule that a married priests can’t become bishops are not doctrines and can change; although, it is very unlikely that this will ever happen. These rules were not always in place, but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they are in place now, and must be accepted.

I should point out that I said it was the “norm.” Exceptions can be made. While the norm will always be followed for celibate clergy already in the Church, it is possible for married clergy from another church, such as the Anglican Church and some Protestant churches, to enter the Church and be ordained to the diaconate and then possibly to the presbyterate in the Latin Rite. I said, “possibly;” there are no guarantees, just as with any man discerning a call to ordination.

There is also another exception: a celibate priest can petition the Church to release him from his vow of celibacy, allowing him to marry. A release from this vow; however, comes with a serious consequence: he would not be allowed to normally exercise his priesthood. This is called laicizing a priest because the priest normally can no longer perform the functions proper to a priest, essentially making him a layman. He does, nonetheless, remain a priest because, like baptism, ordination cannot be erased. In case of a serious emergency, he is obligated to perform his priestly duty. As example of this would be hearing the confession of a dying man when it is impossible to get another priest there in time.

Aside from this exception with its serious consequence, ordained men are not allowed to marry. Married men are allowed to be ordained; although, it has become the norm in the Latin Rite to only ordain celibate deacons to the presbyterate and the norm throughout the Church to only ordain celibate presbyters to the episcopate.

I had a pleasant surprise this last Saturday afternoon. As I passed by the ambo during the practice for Easter Vigil, I noticed that the Lectionary looked different. Actually, at first I thought that it was some other book that someone had placed on the ambo. Upon a closer examination, I realised that it was in fact a Lectionary; and not just any Lectionary, the new Canadian Lectionary approved by the Vatican, which I had been waiting years for.

Nine years ago, I became aware that the Canadian Church has been using an unapproved Lectionary that contains “doctrinal and theological problems” since 1992. As I discovered the severity  of these “problems,” I became rather passionate about this issue.

In the summer of 2000, I wrote four letters concerning this scandal: one to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), one to the Congregation of Divine Worship, one to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and one to Pope John Paul II himself. Five years later, I wrote another letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, this time not as the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but as My Most Venerable Shepherd, Pope Benedict XVI.

I’ve also written about this problem on my website over the years:

• “Inclusive Language” vs. Liturgical
• Slave or Son
• New Roman Missal
• God the “Father”
• Now You Need a Missal

Could my waiting really be over? Could this book sitting on the ambo be the Lectionary rumoured to have all its “doctrinal and theological problems” corrected?

I looked at the beginning of the book. It said, “2009.” Yes, it was new. I turned to the end of the book to look up Psalm 1:1, the first verse I test all Bibles with. The chart directed me to the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C. I turned to the correct page, and what I found got me real excited. It said, “Blessed is the man…” The 1992 Lectionary says, “Happy are those…” Yes, the mistranslation of the First Psalm had been fixed.

I then asked our parish priest, “When did we get the new Lectionary?” He nonchalantly said, “Around two weeks ago.” He didn’t seem to think that it was a big deal.

He had actually been told a couple of months ago that we had to have the new Lectionary in use by Pentecost of this year. I hadn’t heard a thing. I’m on the CCCB Communications Service e-mail list and I’m subscribed to the CCCB RSS feed, but I don’t recall any mention of the release of the new Lectionary.

I rather excitedly explain this to our priest, who began to look at me kind of funny. I told him that little things like this get me excited. He laughed and agreed to let me know when he gets word that the new Sacramentary is coming out.

Later that evening at Easter Vigil, I heard the First Reading like I had never heard it before (I’ve only been Catholic since 1993, so I’ve only heard the unapproved Lectionary at Easter Vigil). Verse 27 of the first chapter of Genesis went like this:

So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

In past years, this is what I heard:

So God created human beings in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

If you’ve been following Spirituality in Erotic Language, you’ll know how important these changes are.

I’m quite happy that the revised Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities is now available. Now all we need is the revised Weekday Lectionary – Volumes A and B. Actually, what would be really great is a Bible based on these Lectionaries. The biggest problem with such a Bible is coming up with a good title for it. Though accurate, the title Revised New Revised Standard Version doesn’t have a very nice ring to it.

I made some major edits to my Weekly Thought for December 14, 2007. At the bottom, I added some podcast links for some talks on contemplative prayer by Fr. Thomas Dubay.

On April 15, 2009, Fr. Thomas J. Loya will address the prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) issued by Pope Paul VI. Alone in the world, the pope insisted that the Church could not change its teaching on what was then quaintly called “the regulation of births.”