ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA - Criticizing Clergy, A Heinous Sin

[Sirach2]

Rence, I did see your same comments on this in post #2, and I agreed with you in my post #3. I hope you did not overlook it.

But to answer your question, no this is not from the Vatican, but was written by St. Catherine of Siena in one of her letters. Basically, this thread has previously presented her “Dialogue” with Our Lord, who spoke to her abouut His great displeasure when His ministers are disrespected. This was simply another way of her alluding to that displeasure in a formal letter. I don’t know to whom it was addressed, but it was preserved for posterity because of its solemn teaching. You do remember, I hope, that this saint was named a Doctor of the Church?

 

[JReducation]

Catherine’s writings are very important, because they speak to what is happening among many Catholics. She is one of the most misquoted and abused Doctors in the Church. Many people refer to her to justify their aggressive and disrespectful behavior toward clergy and religious and even the Holy Father.

But what Catherine reveals in her writings is that there are some distinctions that have to be made.

First: there is a difference between the state in life and the sins of the person. The person’s sins are still sins. That does not change. However, the person’s state in life, which is that of a consecrated state, is sacred.

Second: while it is fraternal charity to offer correction to another when they fail or when they are in error, it must be done with the respect that is due to their state in life. In plain English, Catherine is telling us that you do not speak to or about a consecrated person as if you were talking to the guy next door (hopefully you don’t live next to rectory). This is where she mentions how people delude themselves. What she is saying is that they justify their behavior toward the consecrated under the guise that they are righting a wrong. The teaching here is that one cannot right a wrong by committing another wrong. In this case, it’s a grievous wrong, because it’s a wrong against the consecrated life.

Third: Catherine did offer correction and suggestions to the religious, clergy and pope of her time. However, she did not allow her subjects to speak about them. The communication was always private. We know about Catherine’s communications post mortem. These letters that she wrote to bishops and religious were not released by her. They came from those who had them in their posession.

The Church recognizes Catherine’s writings as teachings of truth. Otherwise, she would not be a Doctor. Are they infallible? No. That’s not what this means. It means that they do not contain anything that is contrary to the faith. Anything that was incorrect was sorted out, just as we did with Aquinas. The Church took some of Aquinas’ writings off the shelf, esepcially his writings on the Immaculate Conception. He was wrong and the Church preserved the rest and uses them to teach theology. She does the same with the writings of other doctors, such as Catherine.

In a nutshell, if one knows of a priest or religious who has sinned, there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with it. There is a moral and an immoral way to deal with it. Anger, resentment, aggression, disrespect, condescension are not moral ways. These are the revelations that the Lord made to Catherine and the teachings that the Church takes from Catherine. You may correct the sinner. You may never say or do anything that desrespects the consecrated state or that causes others to question it. The consecrated state remains sacred, even when the consecrated person is a sinner.

This is why we must try to be very careful when we speak about the whole sexual abuse issue. We tend to speak disrespectfully about clergy, religious, hierarchy and even the pope. The sin does not lay in the Sacrament of Holy Orders or with the Religious Life. The sin is with John Doe. For example, to say that a priest should have his priesthood stripped from him is a disrespect to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Why so? Because the priesthood is not something that the Church can give and then take away. The abuser will always be a priest. He will be dismissed from the clerical state. That does not mean that he is no longer a priest. It means that he may not use his priestly powers, except to grant absolution or annointing of the sick in an emergency. When we make such a statement, we’re treating the sacrament as if it were something that can be manipulated by man. That is the issue that the Lord addressed with Catherine, because in her day, people did speak negatively about clergy and religious as if Holy Orders and vows were something that you could ignore

Catherine is teaching us what Christ taught her. No matter how great the sin, we cannot desecrate the sacred. The priest or religious remain such. This does not mean that there are no consequences for their sins. It means that there is no justification for aggression, disrespect and a lack of reverence.

As I understand Catherine, I interpret her as I understand military law. There is a difference between taking the enemy as a prisoner and quite another thing to treat him with disregard for his human dignity. The latter is not allowed by moral law, nor by military law. In correction, there are lines that cannot be crossed. That’s all that Catherine is saying here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Timothy17]

Catherine’s writings are very important, because they speak to what is happening among many Catholics. She is one of the most misquoted and abused Doctors in the Church. Many people refer to her to justify their aggressive and disrespectful behavior toward clergy and religious and even the Holy Father.

But what Catherine reveals in her writings is that there are some distinctions that have to be made.

First: there is a difference between the state in life and the sins of the person. The person’s sins are still sins. That does not change. However, the person’s state in life, which is that of a consecrated state, is sacred.

Second: while it is fraternal charity to offer correction to another when they fail or when they are in error, it must be done with the respect that is due to their state in life. In plain English, Catherine is telling us that you do not speak to or about a consecrated person as if you were talking to the guy next door (hopefully you don’t live next to rectory). This is where she mentions how people delude themselves. What she is saying is that they justify their behavior toward the consecrated under the guise that they are righting a wrong. The teaching here is that one cannot right a wrong by committing another wrong. In this case, it’s a grievous wrong, because it’s a wrong against the consecrated life.

Third: Catherine did offer correction and suggestions to the religious, clergy and pope of her time. However, she did not allow her subjects to speak about them. The communication was always private. We know about Catherine’s communications post mortem. These letters that she wrote to bishops and religious were not released by her. They came from those who had them in their posession.

The Church recognizes Catherine’s writings as teachings of truth. Otherwise, she would not be a Doctor. Are they infallible? No. That’s not what this means. It means that they do not contain anything that is contrary to the faith. Anything that was incorrect was sorted out, just as we did with Aquinas. The Church took some of Aquinas’ writings off the shelf, esepcially his writings on the Immaculate Conception. He was wrong and the Church preserved the rest and uses them to teach theology. She does the same with the writings of other doctors, such as Catherine.

In a nutshell, if one knows of a priest or religious who has sinned, there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with it. There is a moral and an immoral way to deal with it. Anger, resentment, aggression, disrespect, condescension are not moral ways. These are the revelations that the Lord made to Catherine and the teachings that the Church takes from Catherine. You may correct the sinner. You may never say or do anything that desrespects the consecrated state or that causes others to question it. The consecrated state remains sacred, even when the consecrated person is a sinner.

This is why we must try to be very careful when we speak about the whole sexual abuse issue. We tend to speak disrespectfully about clergy, religious, hierarchy and even the pope. The sin does not lay in the Sacrament of Holy Orders or with the Religious Life. The sin is with John Doe. For example, to say that a priest should have his priesthood stripped from him is a disrespect to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Why so? Because the priesthood is not something that the Church can give and then take away. The abuser will always be a priest. He will be dismissed from the clerical state. That does not mean that he is no longer a priest. It means that he may not use his priestly powers, except to grant absolution or annointing of the sick in an emergency. When we make such a statement, we’re treating the sacrament as if it were something that can be manipulated by man. That is the issue that the Lord addressed with Catherine, because in her day, people did speak negatively about clergy and religious as if Holy Orders and vows were something that you could ignore

Catherine is teaching us what Christ taught her. No matter how great the sin, we cannot desecrate the sacred. The priest or religious remain such. This does not mean that there are no consequences for their sins. It means that there is no justification for aggression, disrespect and a lack of reverence.

As I understand Catherine, I interpret her as I understand military law. There is a difference between taking the enemy as a prisoner and quite another thing to treat him with disregard for his human dignity. The latter is not allowed by moral law, nor by military law. In correction, there are lines that cannot be crossed. That’s all that Catherine is saying here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Kiss the consecrated hands. Preach against adultery.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Rence]

Rence, I did see your same comments on this in post #2, and I agreed with you in my post #3. I hope you did not overlook it.

No, I didn’t overlook it.

But to answer your question, no this is not from the Vatican, but was written by St. Catherine of Siena in one of her letters. Basically, this thread has previously presented her “Dialogue” with Our Lord, who spoke to her abouut His great displeasure when His ministers are disrespected. This was simply another way of her alluding to that displeasure in a formal letter. I don’t know to whom it was addressed, but it was preserved for posterity because of its solemn teaching. You do remember, I hope, that this saint was named a Doctor of the Church?

Even though she was a Doctor of the Church, that doesn’t mean that what she wrote was infallible or had any mistakes. IMOHO, the quote is cult-sounding and dangerous. Let’s look at it again:

"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you.

God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28).

These are all views imposed on fearful Catholics that led to abuses in the Church because it made them afraid to report abuses. If forced people to go underground when they, in fact, wanted to leave the Church or questioned teachings of the Church. People were afraid of the clergy at one point, and some still are. In fact, many children were severely reprimanded for reporting abuse. Parents who suspected abuses turned away from their children because they felt it wasn’t their right to protect their children and report the abuses. It makes the Church look like a cult and feeds those who hate the Church ammunion to use against it.

Thankfully, most Catholics know better, and especially nowadays we see priests (and the Pope) as human, and quite capable of making mistakes (even very serious and bad ones). They are NOT above reproach and when to do evil, they are reported more these days.

What St. Catherine is saying above is, no matter how evil the Pope is, even if he’s possessed by an evil spirit, you should bow down and cowtow to him, to grovel. That is not a teaching of the Church. That’s an opinion of a woman. And I don’t share that opinion.

Fortunately, I don’t think our Pope is possess by a demon. As to any other accusations, I have no clue, but I do know that eventually the truth will come out. As to any priests, if they do wrong, they should be reported to the civil authorities and dealt with. That’s contradictory to your quote from St. Catherine above, but that’s how I feel about it.

Jesus said, give to God what’s God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. He didn’t add, “except for my Apostles and Disciples”. And IMOHO, shielding priests in this way by evoking fear and guilt out of our fellow Catholics when priests do wrong only pushes people away from the Church. It’s a different time. People won’t tolerate the abuses today like they hid them in the past.

 

[JReducation]

No, I didn’t overlook it.

Even though she was a Doctor of the Church, that doesn’t mean that what she wrote was infallible or had any mistakes. IMOHO, the quote is cult-sounding and dangerous. Let’s look at it again:

These are all views imposed on fearful Catholics that led to abuses in the Church because it made them afraid to report abuses. If forced people to go underground when they, in fact, wanted to leave the Church or questioned teachings of the Church. People were afraid of the clergy at one point, and some still are. In fact, many children were severely reprimanded for reporting abuse. Parents who suspected abuses turned away from their children because they felt it wasn’t their right to protect their children and report the abuses. It makes the Church look like a cult and feeds those who hate the Church ammunion to use against it.

Thankfully, most Catholics know better, and especially nowadays we see priests (and the Pope) as human, and quite capable of making mistakes (even very serious and bad ones). They are NOT above reproach and when to do evil, they are reported more these days.

What St. Catherine is saying above is, no matter how evil the Pope is, even if he’s possessed by an evil spirit, you should bow down and cowtow to him, to grovel. That is not a teaching of the Church. That’s an opinion of a woman. And I don’t share that opinion.

Fortunately, I don’t think our Pope is possess by a demon. As to any other accusations, I have no clue, but I do know that eventually the truth will come out. As to any priests, if they do wrong, they should be reported to the civil authorities and dealt with. That’s contradictory to your quote from St. Catherine above, but that’s how I feel about it.

Jesus said, give to God what’s God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. He didn’t add, “except for my Apostles and Disciples”. And IMOHO, shielding priests in this way by evoking fear and guilt out of our fellow Catholics when priests do wrong only pushes people away from the Church. It’s a different time. People won’t tolerate the abuses today like they hid them in the past.

I respectfully believe that you’re misunderstanding her theology. Reread my post and look at how the Church interprets her theology. By the way, this particular writing has been included in the theology of the Church. The Church sifts through the writings of the doctors. Some writings are considered to have doctrinal weaknesses. Those are separated from the ones that are consistent with the Church’s faith. That’s what the word Doctor means, Teacher.

In this particular statement Catherine is teaching what was revealed to her concerning the sacredness of the consecrated state and the reverence that is due to it. She is not saying that sin and evil should not have consequences. What she is saying is that those consequences cannot be at the expense of the sacred, which is the consecrated state. For example, what you said above about the pope being wrong. This is the very kind of statement that the Church would considere to be on a slippery slope. John Doe can be wrong and John Doe can be the pope. But the pope is not wrong, it is John Doe. You must separate the state from the person. That is what Catherine teaches. She is trying to help people understand the error of the heretics who claimed that the consecrated life and the ordained have no place in the life of the Church. She is explaining that no matter how evil they may be as individuals, the consecrated life and the ordained ministry continue to be sacred and must be spoken about and treate with reverence, because the reverence is due to Christ who does the consecrating.

Therefore, in our dealing with wrongs done by those in the consecrated life or the clerical state, we must be very careful to avoid all words and manner that may cause these states to be disregarded or dismissed as non sacred.

When the Lord says to Catherine about people interfering in what is none of their business, this is precisely what he means. He does not mean that justice cannot be done. He means that justice is to be dispensed by those who have the authority to do so. Therefore, the public commentaries and criticism or even judgments, especially by Catholics are condemned, unless these individuals have the right to make such judgments. If they do not, then it’s simply gossiping and bashing, to put it in modern English. There is a difference between justice and uncontrolled diserespect. I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[paperwight66]

When the Lord says to Catherine about people interfering in what is none of their business, this is precisely what he means. He does not mean that justice cannot be done. He means that justice is to be dispensed by those who have the authority to do so. Therefore, the public commentaries and criticism or even judgments, especially by Catholics are condemned, unless these individuals have the right to make such judgments. If they do not, then it’s simply gossiping and bashing, to put it in modern English. There is a difference between justice and uncontrolled diserespect. I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, not entirely. It was only by parents talking among themselves, putting two and two together, being willing to consider the idea that a priest could do anything wrong, that child abuse came to light. If each individual parent had kept quiet, rather than sharing their worries and suspicions with others, I believe that it would have gone on for more years than it did. On one level it could be called gossip, I suppose, but where children are concerned (or any vulnerable person) we have a duty to be watchful, don’t you think?

I shudder at the naivete shown in years gone by, to be honest. A priest sharing a tent with a boy? Come on, now…

 

[KathleenGee]

JR,

I think you were clear…I read the Dialogues of S. Catherine of Siena who also spoke about crimes against nature committed by priests whose offerings at Mass were akin to offering a stench to heaven…that the devils themselves could not see the actions of their own inspirations to those who committed sins against nature.

But hers were in writing directed to those she was correcting. The Lord works as He may…and here is a consecrated lay woman, a virgin, who the Lord chose to correct clergy.

Our work as laypeople is to pray and do penance for the priests. And I do not think hardly any Catholic in name, except the devout and faithful Catholics, have prayed for the Catholic clergy.

It is the priesthood who provides us the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and it is the priesthood that evil directs its greatest temptations and attacks.

As Padre Pio said, we will never know the power of the Mass — the only true atonement we can witness – that atones for the sins of mankind.

We are living in an age where sin is no longer sin. Mary of Fatima said more souls go to hell on account of the flesh than any other sin. And when we look at the common people of today…the sins of the flesh are quite apparent–be it lust, greed, carnal self-indulgence, the profanity and crude language…every day conversation in public…

St. Catherine of Siena over and over again stated that the great underlying flaw of ecclesiastics in her day in not properly administrating and punishing clergy sin was a slavish fear of losing human favor.

 

[JReducation]

Well, not entirely.** It was only by parents talking **among themselves, putting two and two together, being willing to consider the idea that a priest could do anything wrong, that child abuse came to light. If each individual parent had kept quiet, rather than sharing their worries and suspicions with others, I believe that it would have gone on for more years than it did. On one level it could be called gossip, I suppose, but where children are concerned (or any vulnerable person) we have a duty to be watchful, don’t you think?

I shudder at the naivete shown in years gone by, to be honest. A priest sharing a tent with a boy? Come on, now…

The bold is mine.

Notice what you said, “parents”. Parents have a right and a duty to protect their children. Their behavior is justified. These are not the people to whom Jesus is referring or how Catherine delivers the message. If she were writing today, she would be addressing those who go on the internet to malign the character of religious and ordained by making comments and judgments that are not their right to make. She would not apply this revelation to parents protecting their children.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

JR,

I think you were clear…I read the Dialogues of S. Catherine of Siena who also spoke about crimes against nature committed by priests whose offerings at Mass were akin to offering a stench to heaven…that the devils themselves could not see the actions of their own inspirations to those who committed sins against nature.

But hers were in writing directed to those she was correcting. The Lord works as He may…and here is a consecrated lay woman, a virgin, who the Lord chose to correct clergy.

Our work as laypeople is to pray and do penance for the priests. And I do not think hardly any Catholic in name, except the devout and faithful Catholics, have prayed for the Catholic clergy.

It is the priesthood who provides us the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and it is the priesthood that evil directs its greatest temptations and attacks.

As Padre Pio said, we will never know the power of the Mass — the only true atonement we can witness – that atones for the sins of mankind.

We are living in an age where sin is no longer sin. Mary of Fatima said more souls go to hell on account of the flesh than any other sin. And when we look at the common people of today…the sins of the flesh are quite apparent–be it lust, greed, carnal self-indulgence, the profanity and crude language…every day conversation in public…

St. Catherine of Siena over and over again stated that the great underlying flaw of ecclesiastics in her day in not properly administrating and punishing clergy sin was a slavish fear of losing human favor.

Catherine is not against justice. As you rightly point out, she pointed out many of the flaws among religious and ordained. She did not only protect and correct the clergy… That is a misunderstanding. Read her carefully. She also speaks about consecrated religious. These are men and women who are not priests. Most were monks, friars and nuns. There were no sisters in Catherine’s time.

Catherine was very discrete and demanded this discretion. Today, we violate discretion. This is what she’s saying to the lay person who “wags” his tongue. Such a person does damage to the sacredness of the consecrated life and the ordained. But there is nothing in her Dialogue against justice. In fact, it is against justice for the person who has no jurisdiction to become a judge and executioner, which is what many people do. This was common then and today.

We have to remember, as the Dominicans have stated over and over again, no one knew about the corrections that Catherine offered to the clergy. She did not make them public. These were made public after her death, because the documents were collected. There are reports from her disciples of Catherine punishing them for speaking badly about the Dominican friars. Catherine would get very upset with her spiritual children, because this was something that if it was that important should have been shared with the Prior, not the world.

Unfortunately, human beings tend to overstep their boundaries. All of us do so. We take upon ourselves tasks that do not belong to us. When we do this, we commit injustices. In the case that Catherine is addressing, the injustice is committed against the consecrated life and the ordained ministry. Some people think that if it serves justice to roast a priest, even if it makes the priesthood look cheap, then it’s ok. What the Lord reveals to Catherine is that this is not OK. The priesthood, the religious life of the brothers and sisters, all forms of consecrated life belong to him. They are made sacred by him. Therefore, it is not justified to do or say anything that demeans the ordained ministry or the consecrated life. One has to use discretion and one has to use the proper discrimination between the individual and the state in life. John Doe is a thief. Priests are not thieves. This is the difference that Catherine is teaching.

Faternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

In this particular statement Catherine is teaching what was revealed to her concerning the sacredness of the consecrated state and the reverence that is due to it. She is not saying that sin and evil should not have consequences.

I’m sure she isn’t saying that evil should not have consequences. But what she clearly states is that “He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you.”

Respectfully, I don’t mean to contradict you, but I can only understand the above quote of St. Catherine to mean that we are not to stand up to John Doe, who happens to be a priest, or John Doe, who happens to be the pope, but rather we should grovel and avoid seeking justice against them when they do evil.

What she is saying is that those consequences cannot be at the expense of the sacred, which is the consecrated state. For example, what you said above about the pope being wrong. This is the very kind of statement that the Church would considere to be on a slippery slope. John Doe can be wrong and John Doe can be the pope. But the pope is not wrong, it is John Doe. You must separate the state from the person.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying. But respectfully, the fact of the matter is, when the Pope or Priest, does something which is reported, they are referred to by their title. So for example, if Father John Doe breaks the law, he will (unfortunately) be referred to as Father John Doe. That is, after all, what he is.

 

[Rence]

Catherine was very discrete and demanded this discretion. Today, we violate discretion. This is what she’s saying to the lay person who “wags” his tongue. Such a person does damage to the sacredness of the consecrated life and the ordained. But there is nothing in her Dialogue against justice. In fact, it is against justice for the person who has no jurisdiction to become a judge and executioner, which is what many people do. This was common then and today.

I’m sorry but IMHO when a man who is a priest commits a crime, I think it is he who does damage to the sacredness of the consecrated life and the ordained, not the person seeking justice. And once a crime is reported, discretion is not always possible, and not always warranted.

Unfortunately, human beings tend to overstep their boundaries. All of us do so. We take upon ourselves tasks that do not belong to us. When we do this, we commit injustices. In the case that Catherine is addressing, the injustice is committed against the consecrated life and the ordained ministry. Some people think that if it serves justice to roast a priest, even if it makes the priesthood look cheap, then it’s ok. What the Lord reveals to Catherine is that this is not OK. The priesthood, the religious life of the brothers and sisters, all forms of consecrated life belong to him. They are made sacred by him. Therefore, it is not justified to do or say anything that demeans the ordained ministry or the consecrated life. One has to use discretion and one has to use the proper discrimination between the individual and the state in life. John Doe is a thief. Priests are not thieves. This is the difference that Catherine is teaching.

Well, I see what you’re saying, and I can see your perspective and understand it. But unfortunately, when a man who is a priest commits a crime, there probably won’t be anything discreet about it after it’s reported. And that burden should fall on the shoulders of the man who is consecrated, not on those seeking justice.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sure she isn’t saying that evil should not have consequences. But what she clearly states is that “He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you.”

Respectfully, I don’t mean to contradict you, but I can only understand the above quote of St. Catherine to mean that we are not to stand up to John Doe, who happens to be a priest, or John Doe, who happens to be the pope, but rather we should grovel and avoid seeking justice against them when they do evil.

You’re not contradicting me, you’re arguing with Jesus. I’m just explaining what Jesus said to Catherine the way that the Church understands it. Christ is driving home a point that many people have forgotten. The point in this case is that the pope holds the keys of the Kingdom. It would be insane for any man or woman who knows this to strike against him or try to eliminate him in any way.

Christ also points out that the devil will often tempt us by making us believe that some action against the consecrated person or the ordained man is justified. He points out that one has to be careful, because the enemy will take something and use it to his advantage. For example, if a priest steals my money. The enemy can use that action to persuade me that priests are thieves. Then I go out and act on this belief. This is what Catherine is explaining that the Lord is telling her. It’s not a novel concept. We do it today. How many Catholics don’t we know who speak to priests and to religoius as if all were abusers, thieves, or suspects of some kind? That is the work of the enemy. This is what Jesus points to and Catherine reports.

If she were speaking in modern English, she would probably say that you cannot condemn the many for the sins of the few. She would also say, that despite the sin of a consecrated person or an ordained person, you should never lose the awe for the fact that God consecrates to himself sinful man and ordains sinful men. God’s glory is so great that he can do these things, despite the sin of man. This is where Catherine, in her very peotic Italian manner speaks of groveling, crawling and what have you. Today we would probabl say “to be in awe”.

Even is a priest were to sin against me, that is not enough reason for me to cease to be in awe of the power of Holy Orders. Even if sister beat me to a pulp with he ruler, that is not enough forme to cease to be in awe that Christ consecrates human beings to himself. The awe comes from the awareness that Christ acts despite human sinfulness and that sinfulness does not change what Christ has done, because he is above sin. That’s why this part of the Dialogue begins with Christ saying that the honors paid to the consecrated are really honors to him. That is because it is he who does the consecrating and he who does the ordaining.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying. But respectfully, the fact of the matter is, when the Pope or Priest, does something which is reported, they are referred to by their title. So for example, if Father John Doe breaks the law, he will (unfortunately) be referred to as Father John Doe. That is, after all, what he is.

Using his title is fine. Assuming that all priests are cut from the same bolt of cloth is immoral. Treating every priest with disrespect, because one finds a weakness in one or many, is also immoral. The problem back then was that there were people (heretics) who were dismissive of priests and religious, because of their sins. This is being done today by Catholics as well as then. Those folks were Catholics too, until they fell into heresy.

Do you see what she’s saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

I wonder what more we can say, for if there is little appreciation for the Lord’s message to St. Catherine, there will certainly be far less from one of us.

In an Old Testament example, we learn that God rejected King Saul for his refusal to obey God’s command, and Samuel was sent to anoint David, the shepherd, in his place. Time and again, Saul was rabidly seeking David’s life, and if anyone had excuse to retaliate, it was the newly anointed David. But what do we read in scripture when David finally had the opportunity to end the persecution and kill Saul as he slept?
1 Sam. 24:10:

Today you saw how the LORD handed you over to me in the cave. Although I was told to kill you, I spared you, saying, ‘I will not raise my hand against Your Majesty because you are the LORD’s anointed.’

It is good for us to meditate on this example, and to realize that despite Saul’s evil, God delivered David from harm and he did reign in Saul’s stead. “Vengence is mine says the Lord, I will repay.”

 

[Rence]

You’re not contradicting me, you’re arguing with Jesus.

Actually, I’m not arguing with Jesus. Nor am I arguing with you. I’m only explaining how I feel. I’m not seeking to change anyone’s mind or looking for anyone to agree with me.

I’m just explaining what Jesus said to Catherine the way that the Church understands it. Christ is driving home a point that many people have forgotten. The point in this case is that the pope holds the keys of the Kingdom. It would be insane for any man or woman who knows this to strike against him or try to eliminate him in any way.

Well, we’re lucky that we don’t have to worry about that with our current Pope because although I can’t say with 100% confidence, I personally don’t think he’s done anything illegal that would warrant someone trying to strike against him or try to eliminate him in any way

Christ also points out that the devil will often tempt us by making us believe that some action against the consecrated person or the ordained man is justified.

We’ve both agreed that it’s justified to report wrongdoings that lead to action against a person who is consecrated or ordained though. So I have to believe you are ferring to an unjust action, or an unwarranted action.

He points out that one has to be careful, because the enemy will take something and use it to his advantage. For example, if a priest steals my money. The enemy can use that action to persuade me that priests are thieves.

I agree. That’s not something that I advocate. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’ve never said anything about the priesthood or the station of the pope. I’m talking about specific cases in which persons who happen to be religious have commited crimes. I’m not talking about generalizations about the priesthood or the office of the pope.

How many Catholics don’t we know who speak to priests and to religoius as if all were abusers, thieves, or suspects of some kind? That is the work of the enemy. This is what Jesus points to and Catherine reports.

On the flipside, one can’t blame a parent for trying to protect her child in light of all the abuse reports surfacing. And you said it before, it’s a parent’s responsibility to protect their child, and protecting their child from potential abuse is a big part of that resonsibility. And in today’s day and age, everyone is suspect, even if that person is a priest. Abusers wear many hats, whether they are police officers, teachers, preachers, doctors, friends’ parents, etc. Unfortunately, if someone wrongs another person, that wronged person is going to be leary of that which represents that wrong. So, for example, if a police officer wrongs someone, or hurts someone, that person will be suspicious (or scared) of police officers. Unforunately, the same applies to men who are priests. Now, being leary of someone is not the same as treating someone as if they were already a criminal by their station in life. However, I certainly can’t blame someone for being careful.

 

[JReducation]

I wonder what more we can say, for if there is little appreciation for the Lord’s message to St. Catherine, there will certainly be far less from one of us.

In an Old Testament example, we learn that God rejected King Saul for his refusal to obey God’s command, and Samuel was sent to anoint David, the shepherd, in his place. Time and again, Saul was rabidly seeking David’s life, and if anyone had excuse to retaliate, it was the newly anointed David. But what do we read in scripture when David finally had the opportunity to end the persecution and kill Saul as he slept?

It is good for us to meditate on this example, and to realize that despite Saul’s evil, God delivered David from harm and he did reign in Saul’s stead. “Vengence is mine says the Lord, I will repay.”

Unfortunately, what often happens is that we want to impose our criteria over that of Christ. Christ tells us that something is sacred and is off limits. We claim that we have a right to tear it apart, because an injustice has been committed against us. That’s an example of our attempt to impose our criteria over his. That’s a slippery slope. Where do we stop challenging what Christ teaches us through the teachers of the Church?

In this particular case, we have to ask ourselves, what authority or knowledge do we have that makes our judgment superior to that of Catherine? She is the one whom the Church has declared a teacher of the Church, not me. Therefore, I’m to be her student. That’s why she’s a doctor. There is no reason to name someone a Doctor of the Church if they are not intended to teach us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KathleenGee]

A priest told me a number of years ago that in times past, before the intrusion of the civil state into the matters of the Church, that the Vatican deed indeed punish priests guilty of such crimes.

He told me that the Vatican did have its own prisons and that they were not pleasant places, use of chains and severe confinement; was it Pope Gregory that even mentioned that such priests who violate be put to death?

Discipline of the clergy is within the realm of the ecclesiastics.

St. Catherine was very clear in her mysticism that it is Our Lord Who is abused in spite of the sins of the clerics…‘Dare not touch my anointed ones’…when we abuse a priest in any way, we are abusing Christ Himself. She admonishes the laity to pray and do penance for the priests; we can never give to them what they give to us…in spite of any sins…Christ Himself.

 

[JReducation]

A priest told me a number of years ago that in times past, before the intrusion of the civil state into the matters of the Church, that the Vatican deed indeed punish priests guilty of such crimes.

He told me that the Vatican did have its own prisons and that they were not pleasant places, use of chains and severe confinement; was it Pope Gregory that even mentioned that such priests who violate be put to death?

Discipline of the clergy is within the realm of the ecclesiastics.

St. Catherine was very clear in her mysticism that it is Our Lord Who is abused in spite of the sins of the clerics…‘Dare not touch my anointed ones’…when we abuse a priest in any way, we are abusing Christ Himself. She admonishes the laity to pray and do penance for the priests; we can never give to them what they give to us…in spite of any sins…Christ Himself.

Actually, it was not just the Vatican. Long before the Vatican existed the Church had a “prison system”. It’s not exactly a system, but you get the idea. You can read about it in the biography of John of the Cross. The Carmelites put him in a dungeon. Even Francis of Assisi, who was a very mild superior, would imprison those who disobeyed. I don’t know how many were actually tortured. Of course there are always people who abuse their power. But for the most part, these superiors and bishops were not cruel men. They were simply the only source of law and order. We have to remember that the European system of justice was chaotic at best. Most people preferred to be tried in an ecclesial court than a civil court. The Church was much kinder.

As to the abuses heaped upon clergy and religious, Catherine’s visioin is very clear that these states are really signs of the Glory of God. Therefore, any sin against them, are really sins against God. This is not just applicable to the cleric and religious who sins against his or her state in life, but it applies to them and to those who would defile the ordained ministry or the vowed life out of resentment, anger, vengance, or some other ungodly reason. There is a difference between justified indignation and an assault that is irreverent.

Europeans and Americans are the most guilty of this, because we have lost our sense of the reverent. If you observe Jews, they have a very deep respect for Rabbis. When they disagree with Rabbis they do not go on the attack. Those who do are considered to be rebels and unorthodox. This respect for the religious and the ordained actually goes back to pre-Christian days. It is something that God built into human conscience.

We see it foreshadowed in many pagan cultures too. We don’t pay much attention to it, because most Christians, Jews and Muslims pay little attention to pagan cultures; therefore, we miss a lot of the clues that God is trying to communicate with these people. Even among them, we find a certain sense of respect for the reverent, this includes those who serve the reverent.

This is probably one of the writings of Catherine that Americans and Europeans find the most difficult to deal with. Unfortunately for us, this same message repeats itself in the writings of Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liseux, Mother Teresa and many other mystics. The wording is different, because God does not dilute the mystic’s personality or culture. He allows the mystic to communicate using his language and style. The message is the same. Sin has its consequences, but sin is not a justification for defying the sacred. That’s why I keep using the same example. Because one priest picks my pocket, I cannot say that priests are thieves. That would be defiling the sacred. It would be a statement against the priesthood, not about an individual. It’s like when people post on these threads and say “The bishops are rotten”. It’s like, slow down . . . this is the kind of condemnation that the mystics were told is offensive to Christ. It’s an attack on one of the orders of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF