The following comes from an April 28 Chiesa Espress Online article by Sandro Magister:
ROME, April 28, 2015 – The controversy broke out at the end of January, after the journey of Pope Francis to the Philippines.
It was ignited by the Jesuit Joseph Fessio. Who is not an unknown. Formed in the theological school of Joseph Ratzinger – and a prominent member of the circle of his disciples, the “Ratzinger Schülerkreis” – he founded and directs the publishing house Ignatius Press in the United States, in San Francisco, which recently made an impression with the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” with contributions from five cardinals against communion for the divorced and remarried.
And the target of his polemic was another renowned Jesuit, the Frenchman Pierre de Charentenay, a former president of the Centre Sèvres, the Paris institute of higher education of the Society of Jesus, director from 2004 to 2012 of the magazine of the Jesuits of France, “Études,” and since last year part of the team of writers of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the magazine of the Rome Jesuits printed after inspection by Vatican authorities and directed by a man very close to the pope, Fr. Antonio Spadaro.
In a book on the Church in the Philippines published in conjunction with the pope’s visit, Fr. de Charentenay had harshly criticized the bishops of that country for their opposition to the law on “reproductive health” with its support for contraception, backed and steered through the legislature by President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, who is a Catholic.
Fr. de Charentenay charged the Filipino bishops with being “backward” and “closed off” not only toward the insights of modernity by also toward the appeals of Pope Francis:
Fr. Fessio reacted to the positions of Fr. de Charentenay with a letter to www.chiesa, which was published with his consent:
So then, among the “errors of reason and of fact” that Fr. Fessio charges against his confrere Charentenay is one that took not a few readers by surprise.
While for Fr. de Charentenay abortion is always and in every case a greater evil than contraception, and therefore it is fine to permit the lesser evil if it serves to reduce the greater evil, for Fr. Fessio this is not at all the case:
“Is it true that abortion is a greater evil than contraception, even ‘decidedly more serious’? Not necessarily.”
And this because – Fr. Fessio continued – “it is a greater evil to deprive someone of existence than to deprive someone of temporal life.”
It was foreseeable that this idea – neither customary nor a given – would prompt reactions. Which in fact have come.
The most measured and thoroughly argued came from Canada, with two letters to this site from Michel Fauteux, a professor of philosophy and theology and the father of 13 children.
Starting with the second, Father Fessio has responded to both letters point by point, as in a brilliant and compelling “quaestio quodlibetalis” between early theologians, recognizing that “the question is one that has not been definitively decided by the Church and therefore one on which faithful Catholics can disagree.”
Below are some excerpts of the correspondence between the two.
____________
THE SECOND LETTER FROM MICHEL FAUTEUX…
Hi Sandro,
If I understand well, according to John-Paul II, contraception and abortion are fruits of the same tree, but abortion is a graver evil than contraception. Father Fessio, on the contrary, says that abortion is not necessarily a greater evil than contraception.
John Paul II, “Evangelium vitae”, 13: “Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment ‘You shall not kill’. But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.”
Michel Fauteux
Québec, Canada
_______
THE FIRST LETTER FROM MICHEL FAUTEUX COMMENTED ON POINT BY POINT BY FR. JOSEPH FESSIO, S.J.
Hello, Sandro
Here are a few reflections on the letter from Joseph Fessio published on the site on January 29, 2015.
It is at the least bizarre to maintain that contraception is a more serious evil than direct abortion.
(JF: I don’t think “bizarre” is a relevant category here).
Contraception, as contraception, is always an objective moral evil. This is why Paul VI declared, in “Humanæ Vitæ,” that it is to be excluded (no. 14). But one must not maintain, as Joseph Fessio does, that it is a more serious moral evil than direct abortion, under the pretext that it impedes the procreation of a new life for eternity, while direct abortion is limited to shortening this life.
(JF: Ok. That’s your thesis. But I didn’t say contraception was in se always more serious. I said abortion is “not necessarily” more serious than contraception in some cases).
The omission of procreation (not contraception, which is always a moral evil) can sometimes be good, in cases in which it is dictated by responsible paternity. The omission of procreation is not always a moral evil.
(JF: And I never said that it was).
For example, a couple that already has 12 children and could have another in a responsible way is not obliged in justice to have a thirteenth child. If this couple brings another child into the world, it will be through a form of heroic generosity. In this case, the fact of omitting to have a child would not be a moral evil, and certainly not a moral evil more serious than direct abortion, under the pretext that this omission would impede the existence of a human being for eternity.
(JF: I agree entirely. And nothing I wrote suggests otherwise).
The omission of procreation through contraception must be excluded, according to Paul VI, but this does not mean that the omission of procreation is itself a moral evil, as we have now shown. On the contrary, it can be a moral evil not to omit procreation, in the case for example in which generating a new life would be irresponsible. Omitting the procreation of a new life can be very praiseworthy morally, even if contraception must be excluded as a means for reaching this end.
(JF: Again, I agree entirely. Your comments are not “on the margin” of my letter. They are completely off the page).
But can there be an unjust omission of procreation?
(JF: This again is posing a question that is quite different from the one I asked. I did not frame my example as one of “injustice”. There can be no question of an injustice towards someone who does not exist. Although one can consider every sin, whether of commission or omission, as an injustice toward God).
Of course there can. This omission is not always unjust, but it can be. Married persons capable of having children, who have sexual relations and have no serious reason not to procreate, would commit a serious injustice if they omitted to procreate.
Meanwhile, just when this dispute was posted online, it has already been enriched with new back-and-forths, as can be seen in this further exchange reproduced in the original French and English:
> Il seguito della disputa tra Joseph Fessio e Michel Fauteux
Contraception is often de facto abortion in that actual contraceptives prevent the implantation of already fertilized eggs. Yet this is likely arguing which Circle of Hell ought to be deeper.
Contraception and abortion are inextricably linked, and many forms of contraception are undeniably abortifacient. No country has ever legalized abortion without legalizing abortion first. These evil twins are grave mortal sins, and a properly formed Catholic Conscience must reject them.
“Choose life, that you and your descendants may live” Deut 30:19
Kristen, I think in the last sentence of your second line you meant to say “No country has ever legalized abortion without legalizing contraception (instead of abortion as you wrote) first.” Am I correct that you made that error?
Yes ma’am!
Contraception is metaphysical abortion. Being in-and-of-itself is a moral good. How could a loving God have allowed the fallen angels to consign themselves to Hell? How can He allow human souls to consign themselves to Hell? Why does He not annihilate them into non-being instead? God does not do so because evil is the privation of a good that is due, and, in this case, non-being is the privation of being. St. Catherine of Siena in her DIALOGUES affirms that, although those in Hell hate their own being, their being remains the only good left to them and shows God’s mercy. At worst, the soul of an aborted baby enjoys natural felicity in Eternity; the non-soul of the contracepted non-baby whom God had meant to be, does not enjoy even that.
Jack:
Yet the counter-argument might well run that God can find another chance for the soul he wished to create, while the aborted baby has no chance of Heaven.
That’s an interesting point, Tom. God is Love. The only thing that God cannot do is contradict Himself. Yet, the Catechism teaches that the soul and body are one (Section II, paragraphs 362–368). So, if God found another chance for a soul he wished to create, how then could it be quite the same soul with a different body? How can we know if God really does find another chance? Or, is it just wishful thinking? Jesus did not say that it were better for Judas had he never been conceived; he said that it were better for him had be never been born. In other words, it were better for Judas had he been stillborn. Thus, our Lord Himself would seem here to lend support to the contraception-as-metaphysical-abortion argument. Father Fessio stands as a rebuke to the hypocrisy of pro-lifers like me, and I welcome the rebuke. Father Fessio is right.
DOCTRINE of the CATHOLIC FAITH –
CCC: ” 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.
In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is INTRINSICALLY EVIL:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . .
The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. ”
CCC: ” 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,
by the very commission of the offense,
and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
CCC: ” 1759 An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention.
The end does not justify the means. ”
CCC: ” 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.
Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). “
Those who contracept are in the state of Mortal Sin.
Until there is repentance, with the resolution not to commit that sin again – they may NOT receive Holy Communion. – – – – – Because they are in the state of Mortal Sin.
It is also a Mortal Sin of Sacrilege to receive Holy Communion while in the state of mortal sin.
CCC: ” 1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance. “
Based on his refusal to adhere to the Doctrine of the Faith
in the CCC – which was: promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1997 as part of the APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION;
Promoted in Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio Data “PORTA FIDEI”, starting with paragraph #11;
Promoted by Pope Francis’s Encyclical “LUMEN FIDEI” – – – – – –
Pierre de Charentenay is a heretic and schismatic.
And so in any other Priest and Theologian who defies the Doctrine of the Faith – which is contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition”.
“ the question is one that has not been definitively decided by the Church and therefore one on which faithful Catholics can disagree .”
The following HAS been definitively decided by the Church –
Both CONTRACEPTION and ABORTION are serious MORTAL SINS as stated in the Doctrine of the Faith (CCC).
Both Mortal Sins will send unrepentant Souls to HELL for eternity.
On this all ‘faithful’ Catholics can agree.
If a couple has more children that what they can care for –
they may practice ‘Natural Family Planning’ – ABSTAIN from SEXUAL ACTIVITY during fertile times of each month as necessary.
NFP should be taught to all those contemplating marriage.
CCC: ” 2348 All the baptized are called to chastity.
The Christian has “put on Christ,” the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life.
At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.”
CCC: ” 2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.
It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone;
but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts,
criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love;
this is possible ONLY if the virtue of MARRIED CHASTITY is practiced with sincerity of heart. “
Ah, the French! Too bad that the “Eldest daughter of the Church” largely is dead, except . . .
The exception is Tradition, where Mass attendance and ordinations show that regular church-going French will be majority Traditional by mid-century. So, what?
Well, the condemnation of contraception was so great that all — all — Christians prohibited this until 1930 and the Lambeth Conference (where contraception was permitted in the Anglican Communion, in “some cases” — hahaha). Only the Catholic Church remained true to history, and to the Faith. The Catholic Catechism refers to contraception as “intrinsically evil”. CCC 2370.
Abortion is murder. The Catholic Catechism says that abortion is “gravely contrary to the moral law.” CCC 2271.
Contraception and Abortion are on the same continuum of evil. The French — mon dieu — simply see no serious problems with anything to do with the sexual act (and so do most Americans, at least at this point in time). Contraception, then, seems little more than part of the “ritual” of coupling.
Good luck convincing Christ, Fr. de Charentenay, of your position. But, nice look with the suit, white shirt, and tie, “Father”. You give such a strong witness to the Catholic Faith, and your ordination, by dressing as any business schlub on the street.
Why do some Bishops, some Priests, and some Nuns think they know more than the Catholic Faith,
and have the authority to go against official Church teaching ?
“…Apparently all you do is hoop and holler – where it does zero good since none of us has the authority to fix the abuses at the OF Mass that you have said you witnessed.”
What are you hooping and hollering about, Cindy? You have no authority to change anything. So what, pray, are you doing?
“…If you don’t use official documentation from the Church, why should anyone pay attention to you and your ilk ?”
Quote from the 1921 ‘Christmas Pastoral Letter of Archbishop Hayes’ from New York’s Archbishop Patrick Joseph Hayes, later Cardinal Hayes:
“Heinous is the sin committed against the creative act of God, Who through the marriage contract invites man and woman to cooperate with Him in the propagation of the human family. To take life after its inception is a horrible crime; but to prevent life that the Creator is about to bring into being, is satanic. In the first instance, the body is killed, while the soul lives on;in the latter, not only a body but an immortal soul is denied existence in time and eternity. It has been reserved to our day to see advocated shamelessly the legalizing of such a diabolical thing!”
(https://www.cfnews.org/Hayes-Christmas.htm)
Now, almost 100 years later, stating that contraception would ‘deny existence to an immortal soul’ is beyond comprehension, ( Fr. de Charantenay included here) and ‘shameless advocacy’ today would apply to all those who dare question government-mandated tax-payer funded contraception.
For the most part even the overwhelming negative consequences directly related to contraception remain largely unknown–marriage breakup with divorce, abortion (as mentioned above follows ‘legal’ contraception), illegitimacy, sexually transmitted diseases, aging populations, environmental disturbances via hormonal contraceptives in water systems and more.
Thanking Father Fessio for shining the light here–time for us to be rightly formed and true disciples.
Ann Malley, a statement of a Bishop is not necessarily a teaching of the Catholic Church. And has little authority outside of his own Diocese.
Stick to official teachings of the Church to insure accuracy in all your statements.
You have a tendancy to quote Bishops and Priests, some of which are correct while others are not.
Kim, I believe you intended this post for Mary. Even so, while you direct others to stick to “official” Church teachings to ensure accuracy, you seem to negate the reality that the unofficial teaching is letting the Bishops do as they will. For “pastoral” reasons. (A law not enforced is no law.) That is why heretical Bishops/priests/nuns are not corrected. And that is how error spreads.
One may foment change in an organization in many ways, Kim.
And Mary’s point is very well spoken. By allowing error to go uncorrected and barriers to be subtly broken down, one avoids the shock that would alert the faithful.
The one comment I would add to Mary’s statement:
“…For the most part even the overwhelming negative consequences directly related to contraception remain largely unknown.”
I would say that the overwhelmingly negative consequences are known and that is why they are vociferously suppressed – much like those who vehemently (almost in knee-jerk reaction) reject any objective analysis of VII and the Novus Ordo Missae. In the case of contraception, the resulting breakdown of marriage/family IS a desired outcome (not an unknown) and in the case of the ambiguities of VII and the wide-open portals of abuse within the NO there are some who desire the watering down of faith. Something explained away by stating that the motives are pastoral as if the Faith in its entirety would frighten folks.
Thanks Ann Malley. You said it well. I agree that officials are aware of the negative consequences of artificial birth control and suppress information related to them as much as possible.
At the same time, I think a large number of lay/clergy Catholics/others remain in the dark about the fact that this information is suppressed (often one has to be willing to look to non MSM media outlets) and the result is they are ignorant of consequences. True, also, is the fact that many prefer to remain ignorant for obvious reasons. So thank you for clarifying that point. (Aside here: My daughter, whose marriage prep was in SF, was told by a deacon running the class that she and her fiance ‘could choose for themselves as to whether they wanted to use the pill– no binding church teaching.’ Was deacon in the dark or did he dissent willfully?)
(Continues below next post)
(Continued from above post)
Kim, when questioning the authority of a stated position of an Archbishop in a ‘Pastoral Letter’ I agree with your point. However, here, I would point to the actual teaching itself, the date,and the circumstances in which the pastoral letter is delivered to the faithful.
First, In 1921, Archbishop Hayes wrote nothing in his Pastoral Letter which contradicted the official magisterial teaching held by the Catholic Church on artificial contraception throughout time. Other official teachings in the form of Papal Encyclicals on same did not come until December, 1930 with Casti Connubi, and in July 1968, Humanae Vitae. Archbishop Hayes does not teach that contraception is worse than abortion per se, though he states the gravity of the evil of contraception, referring to it as ‘satanic’ and ‘diabolic’ while emphasizing the point that ‘an immortal soul is denied existence’. So he is complete agreement with official teaching on the subject.
Additionally and just as important are the circumstances in which the Pastoral Letter was released: Archbishop Hayes, of the Diocese of New York, lives in the ‘epicenter’ of battle as the newly formed American Birth Control League, NYC has just been recently founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921. Sanger’s pro contraception and anti-Catholic Church ideas where being promoted since 1913 and before with the publication of ‘The Woman Rebel’. Planned Parenthood Federation of today owes it’s existence and legacy of millions of abortions to the likes of Margaret Sanger.
Thanks for your lucid and well written post, Mary. And for sharing the experience of your daughter’s “marriage prep” class.
I call it manufactured invincible ignorance – for when Church hierarchy gags Mother Church, who will teach but the passions goaded on by the world? And those in authority can pull a Pontius Pilate, pretending that even they do not know Truth.
Thanks again for your post!
Ann Malley, woah. Hold up there. You are committing serious and grave sin. Calumny. You got all bent out of shape because of a little story about a traditional priest and starting accusing people right and left of rash judgement and detraction. (And at the time I thought …if it was about a Catholic priest she would be saying “that happens in the Catholic Church all the time.” )
Now here you are bearing false witness with absolutely no compunction. Aside from your total hypocrisy and your glaring double standards, there is also the matter of breaking a Commandment.
You can’t objectively analyze anything about the Catholic Church. You are too prejudiced and a total bigot.
Thank you, Anonymous, for showing yet again the knee-jerk reaction to anything approaching logic. You make the case for manufactured invincible ignorance with every post and every attempt to use words and pronounce sins without a license :)
Logic? Where?
I hear something negative about the Catholic Church and I believe and exaggerate it? I make stuff up and then judge the people who I am lying about?
That is not logic, lady. That is sin.
So you have any idea what logic is? And do you know what invincible ignorance is? Now that how could than be manufactured? And what exactly is pronouncing sin? And where would one get a licence for whatever that is? Who issues that-the excommunicated priests that you take communion from?
Really? Do you ever think before you write something?
Didn’t think so.
ROTFL
All Christendom, excluding a few marginally “Christian” and Gnostic sects, was solidly opposed to contraception in any shape, manner or form until the response of the Sacred Congregation in 1853 and confirmed in 1880. No quibbling over “artificial” and “natural” contraception was given any credence.
Even at that, the S.C. held that “natural” contraception was a “less immoral” means of avoidance of procreation than Onanism. Both were acknowledged as evil. For a husband to refuse to copulate with his wife during her fertile span was seen by the S.C. as a lesser evil than for him to use coitus interruptus. Both were acknowledged as “mortal sins” but NFP did not compel the other partner to participate in the evil.
It should be realized that the S.C. is not an “infallible” source of Catholic doctrine. Their allowance of “natural” procreation avoidance is fallible.
One thing more —
Given the marriage ‘definition’ crisis of today, had we held fast to the position that ‘contraception is a greater evil’ as argued by Archbishop Hayes and others, marriage as only between ‘a man and a woman’ would most likely be more deeply embedded in our religious, cultural and societal thinking and practice this last century since the orientation in marriage toward procreation would not be sidelined –it would remain central.
Shifting our focus mainly to ‘abortion as the greater evil’–these last 40 years in particular–has resulted in both more abortions and the marriage crisis.
Another important related point–
The orientation towards procreation in marriage having been sidelined these last 100 years while accompanied by the mistaken notion that contraception is– acceptable, permissible, preferable– has contributed to much confusion about the proper understanding of “sensus fidelium.”
This confusion is seen even at the level of the Synod on the Family in Rome having been used as reason for rejecting magisterial teaching on the grave evil of contraception. Popes JPII and Benedict addressed these concerns in the recent past.
Pope JPII had this to say:
“[Sensus Fidelium] does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful. Following Christ, the Church seeks the truth, which is not always the same as the majority opinion.”
and Pope Benedict, this :
“It is particularly important today to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this is because the sensus fidei cannot grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium.”
Our modern culture is so far from God! The modern Death Culture worships the flesh, and endless self-gratifications! People do not think in God’s terms! How about some regular ABSTINENCE, offered to the Lord — (especially for the men!) for poor or sick married couples? I think a Catholic couple should daily pray together, and consecrate their entire lives to God! As part of their daily prayer life, they must ask God about their conjugal life together, and ask His will for them!! I do not believe there is a single, “unwanted” child, in all the SELFISH world! Ask God what His will is, and ask Him, Who created that dear, little child– to provide for it! In the Great Depression, people were all used to great deprivations– and so, what do you do, in a Depression– how do you feed your children, plus, a new baby on-the-way? PRAY!! And get going, do not feel sorry for yourself! Go see what you can do– to feed God’s new baby!! Go see who wants to help you– inspired by our Loving God!! And PRAY!!!
I recall, when quite young, a priest we once had from Ireland, who served as our Pastor for a few years. He was well-liked! One day, he told of the great deprivations of his childhood. He said that there were five children in his family, and on wash day, his mother would put all five children to bed, while she did the laundry, because they each had only one or two sets of clothes! It made me so sad! Yet– each child was well-educated, in Catholic schools, and they grew up in a warm and loving Catholic home, that was poor, but provided the “basics” of life! People of that generation, and older, cannot relate to the younger generations– who all have gargantuan “Death Culture”-inspired appetites, that they expect to be immediately filled– and cry all the time, about so-called babyish “freedoms,” with no respect nor responsibility! One can have a very good, loving, responsible, and giving life– though poor, with just the “basics!” So many rich, spoiled, (and miserable!) American kids, have no love, and no religion– just the Death Culture! They are extremely DEPRIVED!!
Evil depends on intention. It is a greater evil to intend to kill which abortion always does than to intend to prevent a pregnancy which contraception sometimes does.
Joel the CCC specifically states that practicing Contraception is INTRINSCALLY EVIL.
No Mortal Sin can be approved. Without repentance both Contraception and Abortion will send Souls to Hell.
Both sins are mortal sins. Contraception usually leads to abortion, and oftentimes involves abortion. To ask the question, which is worse is like asking, is it worse to kill your mother, or your father, your brother, or your sister.
I agree Pilar…good way of putting it.
Yesterday, after the Tridentine Mass at Star of the Sea, I went over to Target, on Geary Blvd., to do some shopping, and picked up a flyer, advertising items for Mother’s Day. Today, I looked at the flyer, and saw a big, “exclusive special item,” for Target customers– the filthy, sadistic movie, “50 Shades of Grey,” along with a special pen and journal set! I was in ABSOLUTE HORROR!! I called the proper department, at their headquarters in Minneapolis, and requested that Target recall this evil product immediately, and write up a brand-new Code of Ethics, and publicly display it! The lady in charge, responded, “But we have a wide diversity of customers!” I replied, “There is NO SUCH THING– as a “DIVERSITY” of customers, on the subject of PORNOGRAPHY!! Either you have good, decent customers– or CRIMINAL CUSTOMERS!! Either you have a MORAL CONSCIENCE and a firm Code of Ethics, for your business– or you DON’T!! Do you just want to PRACTICE GREED– by selling any old thing— for MONEY?? The lady agreed with me, and wrote up a proper complaint. Big problem, in America!!
YOU shopped on a SUNDAY?
Sunday is in no wise the “Christian Sabbath.” Salvation in Christ is the rest (sabbath) for the soul.
The early church met in the end of the sabbath, that is, after sundown Saturday night. Sun DAY was just the first workday of the week.
Raymond Arroyo’s talk last night, at Star of the Sea church in San Francisco, was wonderful! Fr. Fessio was there, along with pro-life leader, Eva Muntean, selling books from Ignatius Press, founded by Fr. Fessio! Fr. Illo announced that Star of the Sea would hold a series of speakers, of which Arroyo was the first. I so appreciated seeing Fr. Fessio, along with Eva Muntean– and I also bought an Ignatius Press book! (I have also been on their mailing list, for years!) God bless these two dedicated, hard-working, faithful servants of Christ!! And God bless Raymond Arroyo, and EWTN!!
After calling Target (as described in my post above, due to their Mother’s Day flyer advertisement, of a “deluxe special,” the sadistic, pornographic dvd, “Fifty Shades of Grey”) — I also emailed the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (www.EndSexualExploitation.org) in Washington, D.C. They were formerly called, “Morality in Media.” Their phone number is (202) 393-7245. Anyway– I received a quick response from one of their big lawyers, thanking me for the Target information, and then assuring me that they would contact Target, and look into this evil situation! I was so thankful!
Thanks for the number.
We should all save helpful info as “favorites” for us to reuse,
and pass on to others.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” – God
How many children are known by God who were never conceived due to their parents contracepting?
While we should not ignore the possibility that contraception denies bodies to souls, the Holy Writ tells us nothing definitive, so it is speculative.