Fr. James Martin published a pier in The Washington Post on December 16th that I am surprised has not got greater attention.

The piece is titled “Five myths bout Christmas” and he goes on to write this:

3. Jesus was an only child.

Such passages are sometimes explained away by saying that these are Jesus’s friends, relatives, half-brothers or, most often, cousins. But there is a perfectly good word for “cousins” in Greek, which Mark and Luke could have used instead of “adelphoi,” meaning “brothers.” Many Catholic scholars maintain that Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters — perhaps through an earlier marriage of Joseph. So a virgin birth, but (step-) brothers and sisters.

It is a myth that Jesus was an only child?

The Catechism states:

Mary – “ever-virgin”

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.

501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love.”

This is one of the four Marian dogmas and to imply otherwise is heresy. Maybe this section is just badly written and does not mean to imply that and this is what I would charitably want to believe. It is certainly possible that Joseph was a widower and had children as is asserted in the apocryphal Proto-evangelium of James. If this is what Fr. Martin wanted to point out than his title of the section is misleading. Plus Catholics do not stumble when they read these references in the Bible, it is Protestants that do since references to brothers can also be cleared up by other passages. Anybody with even a passing interest in Apologetics are aware of this. As Catholic Answers points out:

In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them [at the cross] were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.

The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13. This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.

So Fr. Martin’s contention that the Greek word adelphoi must be brothers and not some other relationship is simply false.

Many Catholic scholars maintain that Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters — perhaps through an earlier marriage of Joseph. So a virgin birth, but (step-) brothers and sisters.

Many Catholics scholars believe — lots of stupid things. Plus whenever you insert such a phrase it is used to assert pretty much anything you want.

If Fr. Martin just wanted to point out that it was possible that Jesus had half-brother than this piece is very poorly written since is allows as a conjecture that Mary went on to have other children. It does not deny this possibility in any way. This type of article is exactly why I have so much problems with those who have publicly self-identified themselves a “progressives.” They seem to snip away at dogmas and the magisterium of the Church without actually specifically denying them. It is seemingly a wink-wink to the reader.

When you write a piece concerning the truths of the Catholic faith for the public you must be especially careful and this piece only sows confusion. To say “Jesus was an only child” is a myth is totally inaccurate since there is only a possibility that he had half-brothers and sisters and zero possibility that Mary had other children.

Fr. Martin gets a good amount of public attention and some of what he does is very good, but it does not justify shoddily written pieces like this.

Via Over the Rhine and into the Tiber

No doubt the title of this post is link bait, but I also use it as a truth.

Ever since I heard St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love – willing the good for the other – I have only become more convinced of its accuracy and a guide to how to love my enemies.

Recently Canonist Ed Peters has been much in the news because of his posting that Gov. Cuomo should be denied Communion because he is living with his girlfriend. Not only is this technically public concubinage, but adultery since they are both married and civilly divorced.  His post addressed the Canons involved and what should be an easy application of them in this case.  This of course was met with a firestorm of progressive Catholics attacking him along with non-Catholics who are politically liberal.  Even the Diocese of Albany responded to the post in a unsatisfactory manner and it could easily be said that this Diocese seems to lean in favor of progressive Catholics.  Ed Peters has spent considerable time addressing some of the articles written and responding to some requests.  While this is a good thing to do, it is often a losing war to respond reasonably to those who won’t be reasonable.

Which brings me to the point of this post.  Objectively Gov. Cuomo continues in a state of grave sin that he has not yet repented of.  That he is committing an objectively grave sin can not be disputed. All faithful Catholics when it comes to Gov. Cuomo should desire his repentance so as to love him – to will him good.  While we can not judge his soul and how culpable he is, we certainly know that the current state of affairs is an extremely dangerous one for him.

It has long been Catholic teaching that receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist when you are in an objectively grave state of sin profanes the Eucharist.

“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30)

So anybody who loved Gov. Cuomo or anybody else in similar circumstances would want them not to receive Communion. Ideally they would want him to repent and thus be worthy to receive this great sacrament or to at least not go forward to receive being aware of his grave sin. Gov. Cuomo though does indeed still go forward even though he is aware at least of the controversy and surely knows his actions are not in accord with the Church. So again anybody who loved Gov. Cuomo knowing that he would still go forth to receive would want him to be kept from receiving out of concern for his soul in not adding another sin. All of this is of course in the context of a public sinner; one where the objectively grave sin of the person is well known. To think that Gov. Cuomo should be given Communion is to show an objective hatred for him in that you do not will him good, but evil.

I have not read one progressive Catholic who seems to be concerned at all for Gov. Cuomo’s soul and their concern seems to be almost totally political. Their anger is directed towards Ed Peters whose crime is pointing out the application of Canon Law in this matter.

Former Jesuit John C. Dwyer who hasn’t lost the Jesuitical touch said “Cuomo comes from a day and age when living with your girlfriend isn’t a serious, grievous matter … or something that’s seen as a serious violation of God’s will,”

Again confusing what is objectively grave with what a person is culpable for. And if Gov. Cuomo is truly confused about this it was with the help of theology professors like John C. Dwyer.

So why is it that progressive Catholics seem to care more about party affiliation than about someone’s soul? When Mayor Giuliani was running for President many Catholics such as myself were upset when he presented himself for Communion and was given it. Most faithful Catholics opposed his run for presidency because of his personal sins and his embrace of the Culture of Death. Yet so-called progressive Catholics seem to have little concern at all of how badly Catholic politicians are at odds with the faith they profess. Politics trumps sin and just as long as the politician supports the agenda you want – nothing else matters.

I don’t think we will be seeing any articles in America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, and other outlets of the usual suspects asking people to pray for Gov. Cuomo to repent of his objectively grave sins. Profaning the Lord in the Eucharist doesn’t seem to bother them just as he is one of their guys agenda-wise.

So pray for Gov. Cuomo and his concubine and for those who ignore abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

* Note: I use the term progressive Catholic since this is how they identify themselves. I only use it since I hate it less than such terms has liberal/conservative Catholics. Really there are only faithful Catholics and unfaithful Catholics. This does not mean that all Catholics will agree with each other on prudential applications, but that faithful Catholics take the Magisterium seriously.

Ed Peters’ original post: Cuomo’s concubinage and holy Communion

When the Pope visited the U.K. and met with Dr Rowan Williams, Mr. Williams was quite cordial. Though maybe the reason is that he is so adept in compromising with everyone, or at least attempting it. Damian Thompson reports.

From behind the Times’s paywall, the sound of an Archbishop of Canterbury digging a hole for himself so deep that it will soon swallow him up.

Dr Rowan Williams has given a disastrous interview to the paper today that leads his interviewer, Ginny Dougary, to describe his position on homosexuality as “both confusing and rather revolting”. Well, she’s certainly right on the first count. Here’s my paraphrase of the Archbishop’s current position:

Does he still think it’s OK for gay couples to have sex, as he wrote years ago? “That’s what I wrote as a theologian, you know, putting forward a suggestion. That’s not the job I have now,” he tells Dougary.

No gay bishops, then? Actually, gay bishops are OK, as long as they don’t have sex. (The same prohibition doesn’t apply to lay people, for reasons lost in the mist of time.)

So it’s appropriate for the celibate Jeffrey John to be a bishop? Here Rowan really squirms, saying he “let down” John by blocking him as Bishop of Reading. But we don’t discover why, this year, the still-celibate Dean John unexpectedly disappeared from the candidates’ list for Southwark.

But does the Archbishop hope that one day gay bishops can have partners? “Pass”.

Yes, he really did say that. Now, you may regard Roman Catholic teaching on homosexuality as wrong, amounting to a declaration that it’s OK to be left-handed but not to write with your left hand, but it is at least clear. It’s inconceivable that Benedict XVI would produce the game-show reply “Pass” to a question about sexual morality.

What will it take, I wonder, for my liberal Catholic friends to recognise that – irrespective of your views on this matter – Rowan Williams emerges from this debate neither as a radical prophet nor a defender of biblical morality, but as a source of confusion and anxiety?

I never realized Dr. Rowan Williams was such a funny guy. “That’s what I wrote as a theologian”, funny stuff that. If he was being serious it would be quite a strange thing to say as if the theologian part of him was a multiple personality. It is much more charitable to think he is a funny guy, because how else can you explain “Pass” to a question on sexual morality?

From the Anglican Catechism:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Pass.

Damian Thompson is exactly right in that you would never get such a game show answer from Pope Benedict XVI. But I guess it is much easier to give coherent replies when you are theologically consistent. The problems with Dr. Rowan Williams are a reflection of the problems within the Anglican Communion itself which are not internally consistent and display multiple personalities. Within the Church and it’s various Rites there are many different emphasis on theological points, not contradicting theologies. Though the progressives do try to take up the Anglican slack in presenting such theologies.

For an Anglican “What comes after Benediction? Contradiction.”

Fr. Michael Kelly, Jesuit CEO of the Asian Catholic news agency UCA News has this to say about the doctrine of transubstantiation:

Regrettably, all too frequently, the only Presence focused on is Christ’s presence in the elements of bread and wine. Inadequately described as the change of the “substance” (not the “accidents”) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist carries the intellectual baggage of a physics no one accepts. Aristotelian physics makes such nice, however implausible and now unintelligible, distinctions. They are meaningless in the post-Newtonian world of quantum physics, which is the scientific context we live in today.

So is this a bit of Jesuit nuttiness denying Transubstantiation.

Well not necessarily. The Whosoever Desires blog looks at the statement without making rash judgements, though the same writer on this solid Jesuit blog also says “Nor am I sure that we should absolve Fr. Kelly. But I think that we can give him a fair reading and try to understand the point he is making.”

Physicist Stephen M. Barr at First Things looks at Does Quantum Physics Render Transubstantiation Meaningless? His analysis goes to prove once again that almost every time a theologian or others wade into modern science to support a contention for or against the truth of the Catholic faith that they are bound to say something stupid. Ad Mr. Barr says “If anything, quantum mechanics makes a straightforward connection between what appears empirically and what is “really there” more obscure than it was in Newtonian physics, and to that extent would make it easier rather than harder to affirm the doctrine.”

I wonder if this is the same Fr. Michael Kelly, S.J. who made past statements such as condoms being the lesser of two evils?