The following comes from an Apr. 8 story on the Catholic News Agency website.
Brianna Heldt was 20 years-old when she first started taking the birth control pill. As an Evangelical Protestant, she believed in saving sex for marriage, but the young college student was planning her wedding and wanted to delay having children for a few years.
Like many young women, Heldt visited her college’s campus health clinic and got a prescription.
What followed was an unexpected and “horribly difficult” time for Heldt and her husband.
“From the time I began taking it I had severe headaches,” she recounted. “I was constantly bloated and hungry, and worst of all, I became an emotional wreck. Things that would never have bothered me before made me cry uncontrollably. Kevin (my husband) and I had always gotten along so well but we began arguing, and I was perpetually frustrated with him.”
“Intercourse was painful,” she added. “I even saw an OB/GYN about this problem who never once connected those dots for me, and just tried to tell me that it was some sort of psychological problem. But it was not.”
It turns out that Heldt’s experience was not unique. This January, 90s talk show host Ricki Lake opted to make a documentary exploring the dangers of hormonal contraceptives.
Based on Holly Grigg-Spall’s book, Sweetening The Pill: or How We Became Hooked On Hormonal Birth Control, the full-length film will consider the dangers of the birth control pill, as well as other contraceptives such as Yaz and Nuvaring.
“In the 50 years since its release, the pill has become synonymous with women’s liberation and has been thought of as some sort of miracle drug,” said Lake and her co-producer, Abby Epstein. “But now it’s making women sick and so our goal with this film is to wake women up to the unexposed side effects of these powerful medications and the unforeseen consequences of repressing women’s natural cycles.”
Perhaps Lake’s forthcoming documentary will not only “wake women up” but speak for those who have experienced some of the negative side effects of hormonal contraception.
Mara Kofoed – who writes the popular blog, A Blog About Love, with her husband Danny – recently wrote a post confessing her loathing of the birth control pill.
“You guys, I hate the birth control pill. I mean, I really, really hate it. I know it’s ‘supposed’ to be liberating to women, but I am convinced this pill is actually harming a lot of women – and therefore society at large including marriages, relationships, friendships, families, and work places,” she wrote on Feb. 26.
The Kofoeds are professed Mormons who have no moral objection to the hormonal contraceptives. Instead, Mara listed a series of side effects she had experienced, including physical symptoms such as “severe, acute pains in my heart,” as well as more general ones like a “lack of intuition & creativity,” and “numbed spirituality.”
Although the responses to Mara’s post were mixed, many women shared similar experiences, and one commenter noted her desire to avoid ingesting a substance classified as a group 1 carcinogenic by the World Health Organization, the “same group as asbestos….”
To read the entire story, click here.
Toward the end of the original article Heldt states; “Many women sense that there’s a problem with the fact that fertility is treated like a disease to be managed.”
“Some are concerned that the pill allows women to be used by men. And we should all be alarmed by the physical dangers inherent in using hormonal contraception,…….”
“There is no doubt that women deserve better choices than the ones we’re being handed in our present society.”
For the saving of our culture, let’s all pray that men and women will reject the contraceptive lifestyle!
From what I have read, and have been told by several priest experts, Pope Paul VI had a committee of his friends who discussed birth control, after he decided against having it brought up at Vatican II. Many of the liberals in the various chancery offices believed birth control was going to be accepted, and so they started teaching it in the diocesan pre-Cana classes. This was going on for a few years. At the same time, moral theologians were teaching in the universities that birth control was going to be accepted, so they were just waiting for the final ok from Pope Paul. When he issued his famous encyclical, HUMANE VITAE, the world was shocked and stunned. There were priestly protests in various American (and other) cities. By acting like Hamlet (waiting to long to make a decision), Pope Paul basically was too late. It was like trying to stop the Titanic from hitting the ice berg with one minute to spare (a huge ship does not turn on a dime). All that Pope Paul wrote about was very true, and his wisdom is exceptional and prophetic, but the damage was done before his encyclical was written. Birth control should have been discussed at Vatican II (but then, it was not a dogmatic council). Because of Pope Paul’s hesitation, the majority of Catholics practice and approve of birth control, a sin which Martin Luther said cries to God for vengeance.
Very nice, Fr. Karl; so what you’re saying, as have so many other Trad. Catholics, in other contexts, “Pope Paul VI is GUILTY for not bringing artificial conreaception up at the Council, so once again, as in other contexts, it’s all that HORRIBLR Pope Paul VI’s fault!” Really, Fr. Karl? Do you know that he, Pope Paul VI is now known as ‘Blessed Pope Paul VI? And may be canonized either this month or possibly within the next two years? Or would that happening be filed under your category of the MODERNIST Catholic Church canonizing one of their own ‘SEDAVACANTIST POPES’? ONCE AGAIN, REALLY? But I also realize that you haven’t spoken ‘EX CATHEDRA’ about such a designation, so nothing’s for sure. (Admittedly, a little sarcasm, there). Frankly, I’m just a little tired of all the disparaging of the Good Pope Paul VI. He wrote possibly the most COURAGEOUS and FAR-SIGHTED Encyclical of the last 500 years, “HUMANAE VITAE.” HE CERTAINLY DIDN’T GET ANY KIND OF AWARD FROM VIRTUALLY ANYONE IN THE CATHOLIC WORLD AT LARGE FOR HAVING ISSUED IT.
Pope Paul the VI, is now being recognized for the great “saint” he always was…no doubt he will be canonized, and is already a saint in Heaven…careful what you say about Pope Paul VI senor….furthermore, I don’t believe Fr. Karl is a Catholic Priest…he’s just letting us have a “look see, in his carnival tent”…
Even ‘Saints’ have sinned, MarkRite and Duncan. And sins of omission, especially when committed by those in positions of ultimate authority, wreak the greatest fallout. (Think of a parent who corrects too late his child’s hanging out with the wrong companions.) That does not deny the good they do, but it is wholly one sided to pursue the idea that because someone is canonized means they never had any faults or could not be called to account for injuring others with their sinful negligence.
Calling into question Fr. Karl’s priesthood, Duncan, is an overreaction. As for ‘careful what you say senor’ about Saints in Heaven, news flash, they would be the FIRST to admit their sins and failings. Humility is part and parcel of sanctity, my friend, so seek some balance please and stop looking to human beings as if they were proclaimed God or perfect just because of canonization.
That is not faith, but hero worship.
Ann…Pope Paul VI is now beatified…I would think twice before chastising others who disagree with the “over-the-top” stance good Friar Karl is taking, concerning the papacy of Blessed Pope Paul the VI… PPVI dealt with more upheaval in the Church during his pontificate, than anyone may ever know…the minefield this man had to navigate through, as he steered Holy Mother Church through the turbulence of Vatican II and it’s aftermath, was achieved with in the most remarkable fashion and with the help of Divine Intervention…I should be 1/10th as holy and modest as this man…so should Karl…
Actually, Duncan, you will be holy in your own right if you take to managing the affairs over which God has given you jurisdiction with prudent firm action. That said, you may believe that being slow to condemn that which is inherently evil is somehow a credit, but do that as the head of a family and your children will be in for a world of hurt. Your wife won’t consider you much of a Saint either, but rather blame you for the loss of her older children who didn’t get the official message in time because Dad couldn’t be decisive.
Hesitation on the part of leaders is often a grave fault. And navigating those problems we allow ourselves to get into is not the sign of our sanctity, but rather the sign of God’s mercy in coming to our undeserving aid. (That said, I believe HV was a direct intercession of the Holy Ghost to save the Faithful. And I thank God Pope Paul VI yielded to the grace.)
That said, much of the ‘turbulence’ of Vatican II was had thanks to the weakness of leadership, that is the Pope, who allowed modernist Bishops to form hard-line factions on his watch. How else perchance was it that the smoke of Satan entered the Church? Not via well guarded entries, that’s for sure.
But go ahead and feel the way you do. That’s fine. But others who lived through it and witnessed these times on the front lines fighting for souls – that is Fr. Karl, not ‘Karl’ as you’ve now deigned him – have a world of on-the-ground wisdom that should be headed. For those who do not pay attention to history are always doomed to repeat it – the failures that is.
God bless.
The Catholic Church’s position on birth control has always been that it is a sin. In 1932 (30 years before the birth control pill was available) Margaret Sanger wrote:
“One third of the women who come to the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau in New York are Catholics and the remainder are about equally divided between Protestants and Jews. This has been so for several years, and it indicates that, at least in one important locality, religious affiliation makes no difference one way or the other in the practice of birth control. However, the official teaching of the Catholic church, even though ignored by many of its members, is sometimes an obstacle to general approval of the birth-control movement by political leaders unwilling to oppose the authorities of that church.
My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement. I hope to make this clear by analyzing the statements of Pope Pius IX in his encyclical letter “Of Chaste Marriage,” which was issued about a year ago.
Evidently the Pope was alarmed by the rapid advance of the birth-control movement, for he complains that an “utterly perverse” morality is “gradually gaining ground,” and “has begun to spread even among the faithful.”
This is the document referred to:
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
And speaking of birth control,Tuesday’s 8am mass at my parish church was for the repose of the soul of the pioneering doctor responsible for the pill. Tried to contact the pastor but to no avail. Truly scandalous.
Kristen, I am wondering who this might be? Anyway, Mr. Carl Djerassi, is said to be one three researchers who invented our modern day birth control pill. He has since came out strongly against it. He links it with the current catastrophic demographic decline in Europe.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/birth_control_pill_inventor_laments_demographic_catastrophe/
Tracy, Google Dr. John Rock, and you will find that he left the Church when his science was not accepted as being morally licit.
Kristin, thanks for the information. Quite interesting. Reminds me of Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 7:21; “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Just read the warnings on the back of the package on chemical contraceptives.
Drugs taken to obstruct or change normal/healthy bodily functions should be expected to cause problems.
Abstaining from sexual activity should be taught in all high schools and colleges, as well as providing information on STDs (sexually transmitted disease).
Abstaining is the only 100% form of birth control.
Natural Family Planning should be taught in preparation for marriage.
Women got hooked on the pill because they got hooked into thinking that they needed to be modern and with it. Anything that kept them from being modern and free was rejected. How free can you be to experience the excitement of noncommittal life with a baby in tow. Catholic women became embarrassed by the regulations of the Church. It was their body and their decision to make. The mass casualties experienced by society practicing this lifestyle is monstrous.
Oh, yeah. We tell our children to avoid steroids. Then, we advocate steroids in the form of birth control pills. Those chemicals are so strong that even the empty pill containers placed into the landfills contaminate our rivers, our streams, and our water supplies. I have read about such toxins in the Couple to Couple newsletter studies that have been published out of Cincinatti, Ohio. Stay far away from the birth control pill because the harm is very real. Unfortunately, those of us who know better are forced to bear the contamination because the industry does not recycle its deadly poisons.
“The Pill” is a powerful STERIOD. It “highjacks” a woman’s natural fertility cycle. If anyone would ever look at all the “possible” side effects of the the pill, a huge alarm should go off. My doctor put me on the pill right after the birth of my baby at 18yrs old. I was sick for 7 months with gall bladder attacks–which can be a side effect(read the insert)……but the “doctors” that I saw would never connect the dots and say that the pill was causing my distress. I stopped the pill after 7 months on my own and the gall bladder attacks subsided……however, scar tissue had developed throughout my reproductive system and I was unable to conceive……I believe that the pill caused that too.
Many Catholics, at the time the birth control pill was first prescribed by American doctors—- were not leading a truly Christian married life! Many were ignoring the Church, and simply going to Sunday Mass, while leading a very secular, modern, worldly life, barely following basic Christian teachings! Many priests were likewise! It seemed to me, that these so-called “modern, liberal” priests and lay people were not taught their faith properly! In many
Catholic American universities, we had the same problem, with so-called “modern” Catholic intellectual priests who were professors. They seemed to have a poor understanding of the Faith! It was so disappointing, to see all of these people so angry, publically disobedient to Christ, when “Humanae Vitae” was published! Worldwide, many Church leaders angrily voiced their unChristian opposition! Many parish priests misled their parishioners, stating that one must “follow one’s own conscience,” and ignore “Humanae Vitae,” and come to Sunday Mass, receive the Sacraments– and do as they please! Many thought “Humanae Vitae” to be impractical, impossible, and ridiculous, for Catholic married couples! So sad! The Catholic Church has been too worldly f0r too many years, mixing falsely the beliefs and way of life of the vulgar, secular, “fallen” world, with the Catholic faith. One cannot f0llow two masters– Christ and the “fallen” world!
Huymanae Vitae cost our Church tens of millions of Catholics who ultimately bolted to a Christain denomination that was not so harsh on birth control. This was the beginning of recognition by many Catholics worldwide that Popes can make mistakes. The Church review of the old teaching showed that change was in the wind. Paul VI’s Population Commission voted 58-5 to recommend that Church teaching on contraception be overturned. A committee of 15 Cardinals looked at the Commission’s work, then cast majority votes in favor of declaring that contraception was not intrinsically evil, allowing it would not be inconsistent with past teaching, and that the results of all the work studying it should be released immediately. Paul VI waited two years, then upheld the old teaching, caving in to pressure from conservative Cardinals who lobbied him to uphold it because they feared not doing so would jeopardize how the teaching authority of the Church would be perceived by the laity. Of course, the exact opposite happened: Catholics who stayed in the Church disregarded the teaching entirely, while Catholics who left the Church over the teaching either stayed out of any other denomination or joined other Christian denominations.
gc, good grief! Those who PROTEST against Church dogma have always COST the Church a loss of Souls. Nothing new here. :(
HV is not dogma, Tracy. It’s doctrine. There is a difference.
Even so, YFC, that doesn’t change the reality that those who protest against Church doctrine have always cost the Church a loss of souls. And that is nothing new, much like the undermining nature of your post.
Thank you Ann. It should also be stated that Pope Paul VI was hardly the first nor the last in Church history to oppose contraception.
https://www.hbgdiocese.org/family-life/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/history-of-the-church-contraception/
The use of the “pill” YFC is a “mortal sin”…HV is not something Catholics take lightly…on matters of faith and morals the Church is “infallible”…to dispute this fact is “heresy”…and we know what grounds this can lead too…think Mcfly!
Duncan, Catholics in the pews use artificial birth control despite its being a mortal sin. The problem here is most of the folks doing as much do not consider it heresy and are not taught that it is heresy.
The plain and simple fact is that a doctrine that does not enjoy broad reception by the faithful cannot be an infallible teaching, and failing to adhere it cannot be a heresy. I know that then Cardinal Ratzinger and then Pope Benedict thought that by clamping down on dissent , pretending that the faithful do not enjoy freedom of expression, he could whip the faithful into submission. But it didn’t work. The conclusions of HV were broadly rejected by the faithful on every continent. Insistence on this poorly derived doctrine have sent millions scurrying from the Church because she no longer represented a place where the hopes and joys of life could be celebrated. Saying something a million times, and preventing others from holding a contrarian view, does not make it a million times truer.
“…Saying something a million times, and preventing others from holding a contrarian view, does not make it a million times truer.”
If only you would heed your own advice with regard to the corruption of the Same Sex agenda you push, YFC.
As to, “…Insistence on this poorly derived doctrine have sent millions scurrying from the Church because she no longer represented a place where the hopes and joys of life could be celebrated.”
The objective of Holy Mother Church is the salvation of souls, YFC, that is the sanctification of souls, not a warm and fuzzy place where the ‘hopes and joys’ of life can be celebrated.’ That sounds more like a neighborhood potluck.
Your Fellow Catholic, your statement is not true. It does not matter how many lay people reject a teaching. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are infallible and yes, you are bound to believe all of them. The Catholic Church is infallible on all matters of faith and morals. Using artificial methods of birth control is a grave sin, a mortal sin under the usual conditions. Someone has confused you. The Pope is infallible when teaching from the Chair of Peter-these are special pronouncement on matters of Faith-such as the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. The ordinary magisterium of the Church is also infallible. And yes, a belief held by all the Faithful from the Pope down to the laity is infallible. However, the laity disbelieving a teaching of the Church does not render in not infallible. It is the sin of willful doubt. The Church’s teaching on birth control is infallible. It existed always in the Church. It did not begin with HV. It is a very great evil to use the sexual gift without remaining open to life. It is an injustice to one’s own children that one does not allow existence to. It is an injustice to one’s other family members. It is man usurping a power of the Creator, once again the temptation “you will be like gods”.
YFC – all Catholics must adhere to Doctrine of the Faith. – PERIOD.
CCC: ” 2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed. ”
CCC: ” 2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility.
This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation;
it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.”
The footnotes for this teaching in the CCC point to: “Dogmatic Constitution” – “Lumen Gentium” – #25.
You are out of luck. You must adhere to everything in the CCC. It was promulgated by Apostolic Constitution, and is from the Magisterium.
If you do not adhere to EVERYTHING in the CCC, you are a Catholic heretic or Catholic Schismatic, (or perhaps YFC you are not Catholic at all and merely a troll).
Fortunately, PETE, it is not a part of your charism to determine who is a heretic or a schismatic. Every person walking down the street is not entitled to make these pronouncements, so you might want to try staying within the bounds of what you are called to do and to be, instead of taking on roles and responsibilities that are not yours.
Well put, Tracy. Too many fail to realize that home IS where the heart is. And if one’s heart is with the Protestants and/or atheists, being listed on the Catholic Church roles is not going to mean squat.
Ann, my take on why so many, still sitting in the Catholic pew, fail to see that their heart is with the Protestants, is because you never hear the word “heresy” being used anymore. The Church’s teaching on contraception has been established from the beginning. To oppose this teaching is to hold a heretical viewpoint, plain and simple.
Heresy — A opinion or doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs.
Established — To settle securely in a position. To cause to be recognized or accepted. To prove the truth of.
Speaking of ‘heresy’ is specifically avoided, Tracy, for fear of appearing non-ecumenical or divisive or ‘driving people away from the ‘Church”. The mentality is very much like that pointed out by Good Cause with regard to birth control. Don’t speak truth or else folks will not want to be Catholic anymore. (Fortunately, Humane Vitae came out even though it was late in coming. A formal teaching on heresy would be great, too, but rejection would almost be assured as folks in the pews have been led further and further toward the Protestant notion of conscience…much like a good many clerics. It’s easier and sounds a lot nicer in today’s sin-is-just-self-expression society.)
Unfortunately, while that kind of mentality might keep folks in the pews, it won’t keep the actual faith in their hearts. That’s why we hear the abhorrent statistics of how many supposedly Catholic families use artificial birth control – the whole of the congregation is treated like the neophyte, incapable of handling the truth even though they are supposed to be confirmed soldiers of Christ not mercenaries.
How would you know what is taught in the pews Ann, you don’t sit in one yourself?
By their fruits you shall know them, Anonymous. Ponder that and you will understand in time. In the interim, you may wish to stick to the topic at hand.
God bless and Happy Easter to you :)
Anonymous accuser. We all know how much you disrespect Ann. You do not lift up her dignity as a child of God by your repeated snide remarks.
Anonymous accuser of Ann. Your repeated attacks on Ann shows how much you disregard her dignity as a child of God. If YOU have something constructive to add to the discussion about “heresy” then please do. If you believe that something Ann said is false, then please point it out. But out of Christian Charity I would ask you to STOP the attacks on her! :(
Saul Alinsky’s 13 Rules for Radicals:
#5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
#8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
Thank you, Tracy. Your consistent kindness is most appreciated. That said, even though Anonymous has his/her issues with me, it is apparent that he/she does understand that I have a solid Catholic POV. They just cannot understand precisely how that came about in light of where I attend mass. But that’s a mystery that Anonymous is just going to have to ponder… even so with every snide remark, it’s a teaching moment.
God bless and Happy Easter, Tracy :)
…you too Anonymous!
How can a person review a movie one has never seen? “How would you know what is taught in the pews Ann, you don’t sit in one yourself?” is nothing more than a good question, not an attack deserving of throngs coming to Ann’s defense. How can she know that which she does not experience?
You’ve had the same question and/or very similar accusatory query answered exhaustively in previous posts, Anonymous. You know this. And so your seeming inability to understand that which is explained comes off as annoying and/or as unwarranted ad hominem pestering. Like a stuck needle on an old lp or a playground taunt.
As to ‘never seeing the movie’ you need to read posts more thoroughly, my friend, for I’ve seen the movie many times. That is something you seem incapable of grasping. Much like the defense of one person, Tracy, being hyper-inflated to a ‘throng’ of one. Such over reaction lends itself to your being perceived as single minded, as in no other issue seems to flip your trigger, or not concerned with the depth of conversation, but rather silencing others despite the soundness of what is spoken. (That could be why you seem disinterested as to abuses and/or a lack of orthodoxy at the NO as long as you’re attending the ‘right’ place?)
Either way, God bless and good luck working things out :)
You don’t go to a Catholic Church do you?
No priest, no bishop and no pope bears the responsibility for your use of birth control.
Everybody, even non-Catholics, knows that the Catholic Church teaches that it is a sin. You chose to ignore it and live the way you wanted to live. Other people do the same.
Quit blaming the clergy for everything you don’t like in the world.
God bless you, Anonymous, in your single minded crusade. Please pray for me. And no, priests, bishops, and the Pope don’t bear any responsibility for my using birth control – chiefly because I don’t use birth control. As for Church, yes I attend the Catholic Church and am a Catholic. Thank you for asking :)
Thank you for your blessing.
I do not know what single minded crusade you think I am on.
I will pray for you.
I am glad that you no longer use birth control.
And I am glad that you no longer attend traditional chapels.
God bless you and continue to guide you.
Anoymous, let me say this again, in reference to Ann’s April 18, 2014 at 5:21 pm response to my April 18, 2014 at 10:40 am post: If YOU have something constructive to add to the discussion about “heresy” then please do. If you believe that something Ann said about “heresy” was false, then please point it out. The TRUTH has absolutely NOTHING to do with which pew one sits in, (or whether or not a person sits in a pew at all!). Truth is truth and Heresy is Protestantism, plain and simple.
Anonymous, I do attend traditional chapels. But I do not know where you got the notion that I use/used birth control. As to the crusade, it is your dogged pursuit of calling out traditional chapels as somehow not Catholic that I take issue with as these chapels produce Catholic fruit. (My apologies for the sarcasm.)
But it takes a Catholic environment to produce a Catholic as grace builds on nature, Anonymous. That’s why there is so much dismay on CCD at how out of touch supposedly Catholic kids are when they comment here on CCD, those educated at Catholic schools.
God bless.
Tracy, I hope you will find this constructive.
The definition of heresy that you use is secular. The definition of heresy in the Catholic Church is “the obstinate denial after Baptism of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”
Ann Malley, because you wrote before this that you blamed your early miscarriages on your use of the pill.
All churches not in union with the Pope are not Catholic.
This notion of Catholic fruit is another one of your cognitive distortions.
I really encourage to learn the Catholic Faith.
I reacted to your post above because it was so ridiculous. Your ESP ain’t workin’. Please also try to learn about cognitive distortions and immature thinking. We all have these. This is not to be insulting. Usually I ignore your posts, but this time I just felt like the person who made the remark about you not sitting in the pews was taken to task for trying to make the point that you don’t go to a Catholic Church and it is obvious by what you write. I really encourage you not to write about what you don’t know.
God bless you, Anonymous, you have me confused with another if you believe I wrote that my early ‘miscarriages’ were caused by taking the pill. I only had one miscarriage and was trying actively to become pregnant at the time after years of infertility. Sorry to disappoint. As to Traditional Chapels, specifically the SSPX, I will look to the hierarchy’s handling of the Society and thus far the hierarchy handles all issues with the Society as an internal matter – not a schismatic problem and not as a heretical sect. (There’s no Sedevecantist outreach as far as I know)
So saying, please heed your own advice and write about what you actually know instead of parroting the illogical to beat up faithful Catholics – that is Catholics who actually adhere to the Faith full and entire. :)
Your rejection of judging something by it’s fruits should be taken up with Our Lord as they were His words, likely said because often people write one thing (doctrine) and do the exact opposite (practice). Kind of like what is going on in the Church today.
That’s why so many ‘full communion’ Catholics admit to using birth control, Anonymous. Deal with that reality. Chase down those who are supposedly saying they are in full communion while practicing that which is against the Faith (and bad for their health, too).
I apologize for remembering you as having written something that you say is not true. I would not want to think wrongly of you. Why would I be disappointed? I do not want you to commit a sin.
I said nothing about SSPX, schism, heretical sects. The only thing that was said is that if a church is not in union with the Pope it is not a Catholic Church.
I do not reject judging something by it’s fruits as Jesus advised us to. He didn’t say anything about your term “Catholic fruit?” I cannot even imagine what the term would even mean. Going to a church not in union with the Pope is not a good fruit.
The term “full communion” is not used for individual persons. The sins of Catholics harm the whole Church. God is not going to judge us based on how we compare to others. He expects us to be faithful. He does not grade on a curve.
Anonymous, apparently you are more occupied with discrediting Ann and myself than you are with championing the truth of what the Church teaches with regards to the evil of contraception. My definition of heresy is just fine in the context of the comments I made on April 18, 2014 at 10:40 am.
But even when we use your definition of heresy, please explain to us how I would need to thus change anything which I said on the 18th? (which, by the way, started this whole conversation!)
“my take on why so many, still sitting in the Catholic pew, fail to see that their heart is with the Protestants, is because you never hear the word “heresy” being used anymore. The Church’s teaching on contraception has been established from the beginning. To oppose this teaching is to hold a heretical viewpoint, plain and simple”.
I did not attack you or try to discredit you.
Opposition to the teaching on birth control is a grave error.
The term heresy is usually used with matters of dogma.
Some lay people use the term loosely.
All heresies are errors but not all errors are heresy.
Using artificial methods of birth control is a grave sin; mortal if committed with full knowledge and full consent of the will. Those who counsel the doubtful to use birth control commit a grave injustice.
As to God’s grading on a curve, you may want to think again as even in confession we are to explain the circumstances surrounding certain ‘sins’ so that our confessor can understand where our heart lies and what conditions led to our fall. Or even if it was a fall for that matter. (Like your uncharitable comments to me. You may think them charitable in your cloud of zeal while a third party may well label them sinful and baiting.)
As to the rest, define union with the Pope, Anonymous. Is that union with the Faith? Is that union in practice? Is that union on paper? Is that union with only this Pope throwing all previous teaching to the wind? Do you know that there was a time in Church history where there were competing Popes?! That is more than one claimant to the Papal throne. What do you think folks of those times did? They kept the Faith, Anonymous.
Relax.
I am sorry that I used terms that you were not familiar with. Grading on a curve means you are graded in relation to how others perform. So even if you get what would normally be a failing grade, if all others did worse you would get an A.
Union with the Pope-The Pope is the visible Head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is divided into diocese (usually geographical areas but sometimes not, as in the case of a military diocese.) Each diocese has a bishop for its head. All Catholic Churches are erected by the local bishop. Therefore, any church that is Catholic is established by the bishop of the diocese that is part of the Catholic Church which has the Pope as its head. That is all it is. There have been occasions where churches have had the bishop remove a diocese’s or orders priests and then declare the church no longer a Catholic Church. This usually happens when the members of a Church or their representatives refuse obedience to the bishop.
Where would you fall in the curve, k-Anonymous? In your estimation? The only one bent on comparing themselves to others seems to be you. And for some odd reason, you seem to have selected me for purposes of comparison as if there is some competition. There isn’t.
If you have a solid Bishop, give thanks for it. Others do not and the diocese suffers and thus the children and ourselves. What to do? Keep the faith. Get earplugs? Take your children out of mass when the sermon goes down the yellow-brick-road. Get out the Baltimore Catechism to counter the odd amalgam of whatnot being put forward as Catholic.
Those may be the techniques you have used with your family. And kudos to you for your efforts. But others have been led to other means in these times of crisis as you well know. That is no crowing of superiority, Anonymous, so there is no need for your ire.
Expressing ‘anger’ when trying to supposedly help someone expresses a lack of purity in intention. In other words, the ‘helper’ is really out to feel good about themselves and/or to mark themselves as superior, not to do God’s work.
I am the lowest of the low.
Tracy, instead of trying to silence me, pretending that I have no right to post here, and accusing me of working with other commentators, how about you just address my post to you: You are the chief definer/definition maker on CCD, yet your own definition of heresy doesn’t even make grammatical sense let alone being a correct definition. How about going back to that issue and addressing it square on instead of attacking the messenger? Or are you too busy studying up Alinsky? A palled.
Anonymous, I will now ask you yet again; with reference to Ann’s April 18, 2014 at 5:21 pm response to my April 18, 2014 at 10:40 am post: If YOU have something CONSTRUCTIVE to add to our discussion about “heresy” then please do.
Defenders Of Heretics
The “defenders” are those who do not interiorly adhere to the heretical doctrine but, nevertheless, defend it by word or writing against those who combat it. In the same category are those who protect by force or other unjust means the person of heretics against a legitimate persecution (1) resulting from this heresy (Jus Canonicum Wernz-Vidal, pg.451).
“Anonymous”, Very Cleaver! Now you attempt to draw attention away from my April 18, 2014 at 10:40 am post and Ann’s April 18, 2014 at 5:21 pm response to it by calling ME a “defender of heretics”! The only thing I have been DEFENDING is the Catholic faith!
We have too many “Catholics” sitting in “Catholic” pews who embrace Protestant teachings which states it is not only OK to use contraception, but it is responsible. Instead of adding something constructive to that conversation you instead have chosen to insert your self into the mix by spending the past week attacking the messengers!
Then I would say you are a defender of heretics, Anonymous, as you consistently turn a blind eye to the heretical Judas-priests that scatter the flock. I have never once advocated for any to leave their parish. Not once. Neither has Tracy as far as I know.
The same cannot be said for those clerics who also advocate for Catholics to partake of the religious ceremonies of non-Catholics for the sake of false ecumenism. (Write Cardinal O’Malley over his scandalous reception of a blessing from a female priestess.)
If you truly loathe heresy, go for the leadership that drives the flock away with heterodox, anti-Catholic practice. But perhaps you are cowardly and can only take on the hammering of individual sheep that have already been scandalized by those you seek to protect by your willful ignorance and self-imposed blindness. Those you brand to be heretical outside the actual teachings of the Church – in that they do not accept modernist falsehoods such as artificial birth control (a heresy you seem to embrace as you do not take issue with those teaching by omission that it is acceptable.)
But even so, you do those charitable souls here much good by your misguided persecution. Thank you for the graces, Anonymous, for there is nothing more salutary than to be persecuted erroneously by those who should welcome a body.
God bless and keep you, friend:)
You do not seem able to handle this discussion psychologically or emotionally. I am not taking your insults, calumny and false accusations personally because I have seen you do this to so many others when you feel criticized. You are not being persecuted. You are being corrected. It is important that each person adhere to the full teachings of the Catholic Church. You should not feel victimized because someone pointed out your error. And the errors of others do not excuse yours. (And as you know, I have no problem telling anyone of their errors. If I find a priest who seems to teach an error, I ask them about it and tell them why I have a concern. If appropriate, I notify others, including their bishop. Big mouth that I am. Oh- and I appreciate it when someone informs me if I am in error. Although, I don’t just take their word for it because I know how much error there can be in the laity. I actually study it and if I find they are correct, I thank them and I thank God for sending them to me.) Praying for you frequently.
Tracy, it is a mortal sin to use contraception. A person can be right about one thing and wrong about another. This isn’t just about contraception. It is about fidelity to the Church on everything.
If it is your observation that I am incapable psychologically or emotionally of handling this conversation, or one-line pot shots (which is how you began this), then where is your Christian charity, Anonymous? You are asserting yourself into a position of authority out of misguided zeal and self importance, based on your own data-mining efforts on a public blog. If I were publicly encouraging people to leave the Church, which I am not, then you would be well founded to say something. That is not the case, so your obsessive attention is out of line.
That is my correction to you, Anonymous, one you should heed for you will affect nothing but ill-will as prudence requires proper timing and not overreaching oneself. This is what you are doing. That is not ‘feeling’ victimized, that is just the reality of what you are doing.
As for insults, calumny and false accusations, look to your own guilt with regard to these matters, Anonymous. While I admit to having been rather sarcastic, I have made no calumnious statements nor leveled any false accusations. You need to assess your actions, or rather, your true motivations.
If your desire is to truly keep another from sin, then you must study your ‘patient’ and discern through prayer what is the best course of action, not repeat again and again that which you admit has only caused ill-will in the past.
God bless.
I understand it is difficult when there is more than one anonymous poster. I am not the one who took the one-line pot shot.
I do think that we should stick to ideas and not get personal like Dave admonished us. So here is the idea which corresponds to yours: Is it OK is people to use birth control as long as they don’t encourage others to do so?
I am sorry that you cannot admit the wrong things that you said because then you will not repent. This post, too, was sinful
I assume that you are stressed and need to degrade me to elevate yourself. It’s OK- most people are like that.
I will keep praying that you will adhere to the Catholic Faith. That is what is important; not anything you say about me.
Anonymous, there is nothing sinful in what I have posted to you.
Your birth control analogy is just another means for you to presumptuously place the label of schism or heresy on the SSPX. That decision is not yours to make, Anonymous, hence the new term “full communion,” from Church hierarchy. Not heretics. Not schism. That is your judgment.
Those who attend the SSPX are fulfilling their Sunday obligation. Any gray area is gray because those in authority are of mixed opinion, much like the gray area of the supposed abrogation of the Latin Mass. If you do not agree, the issue may just be that you haven’t thoroughly researched the issue yourself.
Sad to say, however, it is your presumption of hierarchical authority that is the issue here. Unwarranted browbeating is not the fruit of the Holy Ghost. Much like hiding behind an Anonymous cloak when you admittedly know the confusion it produces as evidenced by the use you consistently make of it.
Anonymous, are YOU opposed to contraception? Do YOU hold a heretical view with regards to the Church’s teaching on contraception? Are YOU, (accuser of Ann), baptized?
Tracy, Anonymous has been told by the Lord not to reveal his/her name. (That was mentioned on another thread eons ago.) I would imagine we’ll hear something now about a locution preventing anything save SSPX bashing, Anonymous’s lone calling.
But there but for the grace of God go I. So I’m grateful.
Thanks friend.
I do not know which anonymous poster you are referring to.
I will answer for myself and the others can answer for themselves.
I am opposed to contraception. I am baptized.
No one is accusing Ann Malley. It is an spiritual act of mercy to counsel the doubtful and admonish the sinner. (You did notice that she did not deny ever using birth control. She danced around the core of the subject. According to her prior posts she lived in mortal sin for decades and she committed all kinds of sins including divorce and remarriage. She has had very little exposure to the true Catholic Church and it shows in her writing. She has posted many inaccurate and untruthful statements about the Church. She is also the one who posted that it does not matter if what you write is true as long as it is said with authority. I say this not to ‘discredit” her but to ask why you are so merciless?
Many people here have tried to help her. You do her no favors.
Anonymous, very clever! You come on here as Anonymous and then you say that you don’t know which Anonymous I am referring to. I can see the wisdom of why many sites insist that everyone who comments must have a name of some sort.
Now you are stating that I have ‘admitted’ to the sin of divorce and remarriage? K-Anonymous, welcome back. And thank you for coming back with a vengeance of calumny.
You discredit yourself, friend.
As to exposure to the ‘true’ Catholic Church, what in your mind would constitute as much? Really? Is it your experience, K-Anonymous? Or what is actually happening in parishes beyond your particular neighborhood?
If you will recall, no one has said anything about the SSPX.
Locutions?
Really?
Also, K-Anonymous, I don’t take kindly to your calling Tracy merciless. That’s a case of the pot calling the porcelain plate black. In addition, if you believe that I have received such poor Catholic training, perhaps you would be willing to refund my parent’s trust the 40K+ it took to pay for my 12 years of Bay Area Premier *Catholic School* education.
There’s something to ponder :)
Context means a lot, K-Anonymous.
I am not K-anonymous.
On divorce and remarriage, I am referring to the post where you said that when you came back to the Church, you cut your husband off because you had an irregular marriage.
Exposure to the true Catholic Church-assisting at Mass in a Catholic Church. You are supposed to do that at least every Sunday.
Ann Malley, you have consistently complained about the poor Catholic education you received at you upscale Marin County high school.
Anonymous using the name Anonymous causes much confusion and pretty much several anony names come off as dissenters and seem to play much Trix. I would consider it logic to at least use a name that won’t confuse you with some of the other anonymous characters since there are several of them. Some even use anonymous and have used other names as well, some were even trolls.
Tracy, I’ve not weighed inher until now. You are the chief definition maker on this blogsite, from what I can tell, yet the definition you propose for heresy doesn’t even make grammatical sense. Just saying. Maybe you should spend more time reading and studying definitions, instead of propounding them all for those of us who have to pick up after your mistakes.
Tracy: Heresy — A opinion or doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs.
“A opinion”. We need look no further. This is obviously a made up definition, as Tracy loves to do. That is a opinion from me.
YFC
DJ 3, I have never complained about the poor education *I* received in Marin County. I said I attended Bay Area Catholic Schools. Even so, what is your point?
Sorry, k-Anonymous, but you may want to check your wild assertions at the keyboard. Your assumption that ‘cutting-off’ one’s husband equates to divorce is unfounded. You should have asked instead of jumping to conclusions and getting angrier about a term you don’t understand. Cutting-off one’s husband in this instance equates to living as brother and sister. So no remarriage here, you can relax. But that particular discipline was proscribed thanks to the traditional chapels you disparage as being un-Catholic.
The diocesan priest’s advice, given by way of his female parish marriage coordinator, was to just go to confession to feel better and not to worry about not having a sacramental marriage – until we could get around to it. (My husband would have loved that at the outset despite what my conscience dictated, but thanks be to God He led us elsewhere to get solid advice that, in turn, moved my husband’s heart to conversion instead of just joining along without any Faith.)
As for the supposed false statements you say I’ve made regarding the Church, please rethink your calumny and stop dancing around the issue of your own obsession.
God bless.
“I am not K-anonymous.”
“Little lies are very dangerous, because there are so many of them, and because each one of them scours upon the character as diamond-pointed.” – Henry Ward Beecher
Catherine, there is and never has been a poster named K-anonymous. I have been reading this blog for years and the only time that the name ever appeared was in your posts. Now, Ann Malley uses it. I assume it is an insult or a private joke?
Ann Malley, I apologize for misunderstanding the reason for you marital continence. You did not commit the sin of divorce and remarriage but the sin of contracting a civil marriage or living in sin? I think it must have been in the context of the other posts around yours that made me think that it involved divorce and remarriage. I do apologize.
False statement regarding the Church-let’s just deal with the one’s on this article. Perhaps there is something you want to clarify so that we don’t misunderstand. This whole dust-up started because of one. And there is a new one that would seem to say that belonging to the Catholic Church means obeying error.
As for calumny, I would not do that to you or to anyone else. I have repeated things that you wrote. And this not the first, second, third or fourth time, that a poster has repeated something you wrote and then you say it isn’t true. I noticed how you change the words of what people say. DJ3 said Catholic education. You changed it to education. Very slick. I will not post anymore to you or about you. It is an exercise in futility. I hope that someday someone will be able to say the right words to make you admit your errors. I realized last night that both you and YFC make the same errors but about different subjects. Neither of you have really understood the true nature of the Catholic Church.
I hear you trying to undermine Tracy’s definition of heresy, YFC, but how do you define it. Really? If Faith and Truth are determined by the ‘sensus fidelium’ (excuse any misspellings please) of an uncatechized ‘faithful’ then what is that except truth by popular vote?
Is that what Christ had in mind, you think? If so, why did He stress purity? Carrying the cross? I honestly do not grasp your take on theology and would, at some point, welcome a straight shot explanation of where truth is derived.
Your tendency to prevaricate is my point.
YFC, how has your input into this conversation provided anything unique from ‘Anonymous’? Your, entering the conversation, only serves the purpose of your attempt to undermine my credibility, by planting the suggestion that perhaps I make up the definitions I post here and in addition to drop the hint that perhaps I should refrain from posting here until I become more educated. :(
Once again you execute Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:
#5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” and
#12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
Lie about what, DJ 3? So far you’ve done nothing but sling shadows of your own design. If there is some lie you take issue with, point it out instead of inventing something.
Please stick to the matters at hand. It’s just such distraction that has folks in the pews using birth control.
God bless and good luck :)
Anonymous, I see that you have still not added anything CONSTRUCTIVE to the initial conversation Ann and I were having about heresy in the Church. YOU inserted YOUR anonymous SELF into this conversation Ann and I were having way back on April 18. All you have successfully provided since has been numerous distractions in the way of criticisms of both Ann and myself. And then surprise, surprise, YFC shows up as part of your team. :(
Sorry you think being straight forward is ‘slick’, k-anonymous. As for statements from DJ3, that individual is mistaken in his/her assertion about my attending Marin County Schools. Please do not confuse the errors of others with mine.
As for calumny, you may want to think twice before casting accusations and instead ask questions. That’s an easy way to avoid that particular sin.
And please do keep to your word this time, k-anonymous, and don’t respond to my posts if they tempt you to the sin of calumny or over zealousness. It is not good for you.
God bless
For clarification, k-anonymous, is the Anonymous formerly known as ‘k’. And yes, for me at least, it has become somewhat of a joke, but that is not Catherine’s doing, but yours ‘k’.
God bless.
Abeca commenting on your April 23, 2014 at 10:48 pm post; the devil almost always PREFERS to remain anonymous, he ALWAYS likes to promote confusion! He will only use “logic” if he thinks it will serve his evil intentions.
Saul Alinsky dedicated his book “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer
Tracy I don’t know if I would agree because there have been angels and saints who remained anonymous when in time of charity but if you are speaking in the case here on these blogs, well someone or many is sure causing confusion with that anonymous name but I can’t say it is a devil because as you already know, humans are sinners and some are lead by perhaps some evils intentions. Even people who DO NOT go by anonymous can be of bad will. The devil can hide even under user names too. So that reasoning is irrelevant here in this case.
But one thing for sure why would anyone who wants to be taken seriously use the name anonymous especially on these blogs. I don’t get it, especially if they are daily contributors to sharing their comments. Well as much as people harp that they don’t take Anonymous seriously, its hard to believe that because of all the replies, Anonymous gets a lot of them in return.
I completely agree with your assertion that the Devil prefers to remain anonymous, Tracy, something confirmed on Ignatian retreat, and do not find it irrelevant in the least. And just because heShe prefers to remain anonymous does not preclude others from occasionally seeking the cloak of anonymity.
As for those with names supposedly having ‘bad will’, the idea of giving oneself a consistent moniker takes off the cloak so that which is bad can be discerned by the pattern of identifiable messages. The whole idea of the ‘Anonymous’ in this scenario being influenced by that which is evil comes from the potential for a pack attack mentality, where assorted ‘Anonymous’ can poke, prod, undermine, and redirect and then say, ‘That wasn’t me,’ and play the innocent mis-identified poster.
So yes, that type of inherent confusion tactic is not from above as it is inherently underhanded. That said, I’m heartened that you have thought to call out Anonymous…. and glad that you do not confuse energized debate with harping or taking anything too seriously. So keep on keeping on.
Love the Rules of Radicals quotes, too. Spot on.
Abeca and Ann, thank you for your comments. I gave my input on “Anonymous” as related to the devil because clearly in this current thread, it is impossible to distinguish the tactics of “Anonymous” from the tactics of the devil. Even Jesus was quick to call out the religious leaders of His day as “Children of their father the devil”.
As Fr. John Hardon has said in his Video Series 714 – The Seven Seductions of the Evil Spirit: “…you will expose him and he will vent his hatred against you.” In this instance, “Anonymous” has been exposed as working on the side of the evil one and doesn’t quite like it.
Fr. Hardon’s reference can be found at approximately: 27:30 on Lesson #5.
God bless and congratulations yet again for being on mark with every post.
ann Malley – Heresy has a definition, an objective definition, which sits outside of my own mind. Try looking it up and comparing it to Tracy’s definition, or, apparently, your own. Dissenting on minor matters may not be a good thing, but it does not constitute heresy. And the bar is certainly not “established religious beliefs”. A opinion.
YFC, thank you for responding. You are correct in that dissent over minor matters – tastes, lets say – may not be a good thing. The dismissal of artificial birth control as a minor matter in the lives of those called to the married state , however, is a rather new view of how to classify the sinful nature of artificial birth control. (Kind of like a priest who wants to limit the size of his parish…. or perhaps have no parishioners at all because they are so bothersome and hinder those other things that will give him fulfillment in life.)
That seems to be the breaking point – not a big deal versus mortal sin with a vast, unforeseen fallout of losing Faith and the life of the Church.
I’ve seen this so often in vulnerable parishioners. When they have been convinced that something is “of God”, anyone who tries to persuade them otherwise is suspected of being from the devil. I see it most of the time with people who have been taken in by unapproved private revelations; sometimes it is people who have been manipulated by those who promote authentic private revelation but have added things to it. Occasionally, it is someone who believes that God has told them to do something and if you try to explain to them that God doesn’t tell people to do things that are against the Church’s teaching, they do not really know how to discern good spirits from bad spirits and will attribute anything that is making what they think God told them to do more difficult as from the devil. They can become very confused or they just reject the Church’s teaching (occasionally, the Church itself) because they think they have had a true revelation. Then they pride themselves for having stood up to the devil.
It might be a good idea, for you to take a Natural Family Planning class (NFP) at your parish. Even the saintly Mother Teresa of India taught NFP successfully!
Tracy thank you for clarifying. It makes sense. God bless you.
Whenever we try and fool ‘mother nature’ we get into trouble. All the female drugs that are flushed down the toilet and into the lakes and streams are ruining the gender of fish, not to mention the harm it is doing to men who drink the water. God is in charge, and when we pretend to know more than He does, and try to out smart Him, we end up in a worse condition than we were before we sinned. Our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Ghost, are supposed to perform certain functions. When we chemically or surgically alter them, not only is it a sin, but we cause ourselves pain, both physical, and emotional.
I agree Father. All those hormones have to cause some kind of issues to everyone.
Living through the era before the proclamaion of Humnae Vitae as a young, married Catholic woman, I can only say Right On to the comments of Fr. Karl.
By the time HV was proclaimed, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Just about EVERYONE was already using THE pill, and no longer asking permission from a confessor, which in the case of the late, former Bshp James J Shannon would have been granted cate blanc.
The hierarchy non correction of the NY Times ad by leading Catholic theologians opposing HV immediately after its proclamation cemented the acceptance of contracepion.
Think about it: Had the Amchurch not surrenedered their bully pulpit, would R v Wade ever have come about? I think NOT!
Until fecundity of the Marital Act IS taught, i.e the evil of contraception, abortion will go on and on and on and on.
Let us finally put the emphiasis for correction where it belongs: the evil of the use contraception.
Jill Stanek included an eye opening piece on her recent blog titled “Feminists mock Ricky Lake’s documentary on Pill dangers sight unseen.”
https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/02/feminists-mock-ricki-lakes-documentary-on-pill-dangers-sight-unseen/
Its alarming how many of our youth are hooked on the pill. I praise Jesus that for some reason, He protected me and I never used any form of contraceptives. I pray for more of His graces to help woman discern well and to turn away from this popular believe that the pill is the only way. God have mercy. May they be lead to believe and trust in God’s will instead.
Yes Abeca, you were truly graced by God……I wish my parents, or someone around me at the time had warned me about the dangers of the pill and the importance of waiting until marriage to engage in the marital act. Or mentioned HV to me–or the importance of chastity for that matter. I did attend Church on Sunday’s. Never heard a thing in 1968 on the subject/or maybe I couldn’t hear “Him” because I knew not how. My “trusted” doctor, who I trusted after the birth of my baby at 18 couldn’t wait to put me on the pill. He was no help, only the purveor of this deadly drug that ruined my health and the ability to have future children. I pray that all parents love their daughters enough to protect them from the pill and all the evil that it attracts. NFP is beautiful, easy and effective way to space out your children–and to show women how sacred their reproductive system is. Helps men to treat their wives with dignity as God ordains and not just as objects for personal satisfaction.
God bless you SandraD. Its a good thing that you finally found out about these truths. Some never do. You mentioned 1968, I wasn’t even born yet. : )
Growing up I did not hear much about what the church taught on said subject but something just kept nagging at me, telling me that it was not right and since my parents and grandparents never took the pill, I always thought it was a big no no. Praise God I saved myself for marriage and God called me to the sacrament of marriage and I took that sacrament seriously and still do. It definitely is a gift from God, His graces and what saved me the most was that I feared the Lord and did not want to do anything that would offend Him.
Like you said, our youth are not influenced enough on taking the better way, which is what the church teaches on said subject. We must not judge but we must be patient and inform our youth about these truths. Even if they reject it at first but pray that someday soon they will embrace these truths.
I fully agree with the comments of Fr. Karl and Tee. I also lived through that time period and can confirm that while Pope Paul VI fiddled the opposition won the minds of the “faithful.” Incidentally, look up the miracle that has confirmed the Sainthood of Paul VI. It is very doubtful if it would have been confirmed by the old Devils Advocate.
Contraception is a MORTAL SIN. Catholics contracepting must not receive Holy Communion.
Where have the Bishops been over the past 40 years regarding this Church teaching?
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).”
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. . . .
Amen to that Sally Anne
I had an opportunity to read the somewhat confusing entry, Ann Malley addressed to me. Still rather unclear what her particular “ax to grind” with me is…be that as it may, I’m not here to “champion” the clever prose of Friar Karl, nor do I believe he is a priest…be that as it may, I wish her the best and feel that as Catholics, we still have more in common, than not…
God bless you, Duncan, for your upbeat attitude. But whereas you say you believe that Catholics still have more in common than not, your undermining of Fr. Karl’s priesthood and even his wisdom of years and experience with regard to observing changes in Church practice is unwarranted. His experiences are not unlike many an older Catholic priests, and laity, even though they are often not the rosy tales we like to hear. (Just read CCD)
I’m sorry if you don’t understand that or if you find it confusing or consider it to be an ax. But much like young adults often find the seemingly stoic actions of their older counterparts confusing and perhaps questionable, in time, they too come to understand.
If, however, you have a particular question about what you supposedly don’t understand when I reply to you, Duncan, ask. Simple ask for clarification. I wish you the best too which is why I bother responding to what you write.
Duncan Father Karl is a priest. An apology to father would be charitable on your part. PAX CHRISTI
All those who are Catholic adhere to the Bible, and the CCC in entirety.
Otherwise they are Catholic heretics and/or Catholic schismatics.
I have nothing in common with heretics and schismatics.
It is a shame that the liberals when answering a posting in calcatholic, resort to name calling and doubt the sincerity of the person providing the post. To smear a priest, or to deny that he is a priest is a sin. Such scurrilous remarks should not be found in a Catholic website. I could be mean and vicious, as well as funny by saying, ‘what kind of a doughnut are you, Duncan?’,, because I have no proof that he is a real person. If we are called to be Christians, and imitate Christ, it is ok to disagree, but let us not hit below the belt, so to speak. We should be civil. We can object to the ideas being posted, but we should not be vicious and call people names, or call into question their integrity. That is what the pagans do, and it is NOT Christ-like. So, no more character assassinations, please! Ave Maria Purrissima
Kind of strange…you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to bolster the name of good (traditional) “friar karl”…methinks you protest too strongly, as does father karl (dripping with sarcasm)…I am curious what parish karl is the pastor of?…
I have hardly been vicious and certainly not scurrilous…I merely disbelieve that fr. karl is a priest, largely due to the fact that he makes some rather “outrageous statements” concerning the last few Popes, which leads me to believe he is a fraud, but more likely a lay-person, who is a sedevacantist”… by the way, my name is Duncan, but the global doughnut company is spelled “Dunkin”…short/slang for dunking… like “dunking” a donut in a cup of coffee…
I am curious how many sedevacantists post on this blog…sedevacantism is a grave heresy…these heretics deny the current Pope as being the Pope!…my question to those who are sedevantists is this…who was the last Pope, if this and our last Pope were not?…I will be waiting for a response…maybe Karl and Ann, can elaborate for me…methinks I’ll be waiting for a loooong time
Looking objectively at a person’s actions, even those of a Pope, does not render one a Sedevecantist, Duncan. Fr. Karl has never denied the Pope is indeed the Pope. Neither have I. In truth, having high expectations of the Holy Father and sometimes being let down in those expectations, is actually an outward sign that one acknowledges that person as having Papal authority. As in, he is the Pope, why doesn’t he DO something?! He has the authority, pray God, he should USE it! (Kind of like a child looking to their father to stave off the boogey man.)
Conversely, I wouldn’t say, why isn’t Duncan doing something about the state of the Church today?! Why? Because you have no authority save that which Our Lord has given you regarding your own duty of state. Single guy, married guy, father. If I were your wife, however, I surely would have commentary on how you made use of the grace God gives you to lead the family. And rightfully so as it would be my duty to help you correspond to God’s grace because we are all humans despite the varying amounts of grace we receive. In other words, we can and often do opt to say no to God or put Him off to our own peril and those of others because we’re afraid of what the fallout will be (folks not wanting to forego birth control and perhaps leaving the Church. Or in the case of parents, our kids not liking us.).
Papal actions are public and have far reaching effects. While we cannot judge the motivations, it is perfectly acceptable to say, “Gee, Humanae Vitae, would have been far more effective if it had been promulgated at the outset of the development of the birth control pill.” Because, Duncan, it would have been more effective in preventing a multitude of Catholics from using it with their pastor’s blessing. These things actually happened. Nobody is manufacturing that reality. It is Truth in that it is reality – and to deny as much would be a lie.
Duncan, it has been confirmed to us that Father Karl is a priest in a California diocese. It is reported that he has a lot of problems with his bishop.
Ann Malley is a person who was baptized Catholic, went through Catholic schools, left the Church for 27 years, came back and then left again for traditional chapels-not sedevacantist but not in union with the Pope.
Welcome to CCD. There are sedevacantists who post here. There are sedeprivationists (those who think the Popes since Vatican II have been heretics but do not deny that they are the Pope). There are traditionalists of a mixed up concoction of beliefs (such as Ann Malley). There are disgruntled Catholics, militant Catholics, progressive Catholics, loyal Catholics, charismatic Catholics, lukewarm Catholics, questioning Catholics and some non-Catholics.
For someone who apparently casually dismisses my posts, Anonymous, you sure do focus a lot. :) So while you’re data-mining, you might want to string together the significant context and the reality that my family has the faith, full and entire, and we got that gift chiefly via the SSPX. My Diocesan Novus Ordo ventures left my formerly pagan husband disgusted – me too – as none of it was Catholic at the core. Rather, many experiences, in too many states, undermined even the Real Presence and common decency.
Thanks to the consistency of the Society, my husband and my children are baptized *and* have the actual Faith. Far better than being baptized and then scandalized or lukewarmed straight to apostasy when things change in the next county. For folks who have been tasked with having to move a lot, that is every 2-3 years or more, consistency is even more essential. That’s why I like you, Anonymous. You’re consistent as a duck on a June bug and earn me plenty of graces.
But I have to say, “…it has been confirmed to us that Father Karl is a priest in a California diocese.” You calling yourself ‘us’ is weird. A little spacey and out there. Sorry. Unless of course you are really a band of trolls set to disrupt forums and attack folks just for kicks when they hit too close to speaking truth. So I know you think I’m the horrible heretic or scheming schismatic, but when it comes to speaking the Truth, Our Lord can use me if He likes. Just like He used Balaam’s mule.
God bless
Every sinner makes excuses.
Yes, like having to remain in obedience to that which is false.
Anonymous is right on this one.
“Unless of course you are really a band of trolls set to disrupt forums and attack folks just for kicks when they hit too close to speaking truth.” = Bullseye! The father of lies is never threatened by mediocrity or by the continuous protecting of the putrid status quo. God bless you Ann Malley!
Quotable Quote – Fulton J. Sheen
“Curiously enough, it is a fear of how grace will change and improve them that keeps many souls away from God. They want God to take them as they are and let them stay that way. They want Him to take away their love of riches, but not their riches—to purge them of the disgust of sin, but not of the pleasure of sin. Some of them equate goodness with indifference to evil and think that God is good if He is broad-minded or tolerant about evil. Like the onlookers at the Cross, they want God on their terms, not His, and they shout, “Come down, and we will believe.” But the things they ask are the marks of a false religion: it promises salvation without a cross, abandonment without sacrifice, Christ without his nails. God is a consuming fire; our desire for God must include a willingness to have the chaff burned from our intellect and the weeds of our sinful will purged. The very fear souls have of surrendering themselves to the Lord with a cross is an evidence of their instinctive belief in His Holiness. Because God is fire, we cannot escape Him, whether we draw near for conversion or flee from aversion: in either case, He affects us. If we accept His love, its fires will illumine and warm us; if we reject Him, they will still burn on in us in frustration and remorse.”
Thank you, Catherine, once again and God bless. I wish the Anonymous folks here, especially ‘k’, would take a look at what’s going on at Yahoo right now. There’s an article about the Holy Father being in Hot Water because of his call to a divorcee about her doing nothing wrong in receiving Holy Communion.
Now, this was a private conversation, the details of which we do not know. (And there is nothing wrong with a divorced and subsequently single Catholic receiving Communion. Or a remarried divorcee who lives with his/her spouse as brother and sister.) But to the point, there are countless on that thread who identify themselves as remarried Catholics who state that it was their priest who told them to go ahead and received communion. Either that or told them to attend another parish where nobody knows them to receive.
The various Anonymous seem to want to spread the notion that those living sinful lifestyles who fancy themselves in full communion are doing so of their own accord. Many likely do. But still there are those who do so with under the express guidance of their priests. And then there are those like, YFC, who are likely also being encouraged to receive communion and also be extraordinary ministers while living in the occasion of sin.
That’s no slam, YFC, but you are likely not acting on your own authority with regard to your position.
Here’s one Anonymous… off Yahoo:
Judy 10 hours ago
*******I am a divorced and remarried Catholic. I remarried in a civil ceremony. I take communion because my parish priest said it was OK. The annulment process is long and drawn out. It asks questions about your childhood and your sex life. I’m sorry. I am not answering those very personal questions for the church. My childhood was fine. I was in an abusive marriage. Period. My marriage to my husband now outside the church is surely blessed by God. It is strong and healthy and nonabusive. I am not happy with the church, but will always carry my faith in God and try to be a good person. *****
I’ll search for the other one.
AM I’m not taking your post at 5:38 PM as a slam. Certainly one does not become an extraordinary minister of ones own accord, which is what I think you were getting at.
I’m glad you didn’t take offense, YFC. And thank you for posting.
You are calling the Catholic Faith false?
No, Anonymous. Nobody is calling the Catholic Faith false, but rather that which is called Catholic in practice by those in authority, by action and inaction. That is not a dust-up provocation, but reality whether you like to see it or not. That is why the progressives who do that which offends you are doing what they do – because ‘someone’ has given them the go-ahead to word, deed, or omission to do so.
Perhaps you should hunt down those posters on Yahoo who say that their priest told them to receive Holy Communion while in the state of unrepentant mortal sin. Maybe you could track down those priests instead of tagging those who are trying to actually maintain the Faith.
I have read 1000s of the comments and have not found a single one that says their priest told them to receive Holy Communion while in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.
May God have mercy on you and may you have mercy on HIM.
Novena of Mercy-5th day (1218 Diary of St. Faustina) Jesus told St Faustina: Today bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics and immerse them in the ocean. During my bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart; that is, My Church. As they return to unity with My Church, My Wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate My Passion.
I am sorry you didn’t happen upon the comments I did when reading at Yahoo, Anonymous, but that does not mean that I did not read them. Or that there are not priests who advocate Holy Communion for those in irregular marriage situations. So while you are advocating having mercy on me and me having mercy on Him, please, have mercy on yourself.
I did just spend a good deal of time at Yahoo backtracking the article to lend you some peace of mind, but sorry, the expanded comments left me searching. If I find them, I will post them however.
But again, if schism is what bothers you the most, please pray for the the return of consistent teaching in word and deed from the hierarchy of the Church. That will bring back many good sheep.
Good night :)
Heresy-OBSTINATE post-baptismal denial of a truth which must be believed with a divine and Catholic Faith.
There is ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC FAITH.
“The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it…This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”
“I have read 1000s of the comments and have not found a single one that says their priest told them to receive Holy Communion while in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.”
You can also pretend or use your free will to choose to ignore or deny the one approved message or comment from Our Lady of Akita, Japan and also deny the ONE word that Our Lady used for those consecrated souls who are offending her Son and that word was “COMPROMISE.”
How many of Christ’s shepherds came out and openly admitted that they were knowingly shuffling serial child molesters in order to avoid law suits, prosecution or public scandal? Did the hiding work? Denial does not work either. It perpetuates wrongdoing. Anonymous is denying Christ when he/she dismisses reality and pretends that there was no enabling or encouragement on the part of church leaders and shepherds to use artificial birth control. If a shepherd can completely reject and ignore Humane Vitae then they can also ignore receiving Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin because they do not think that artificial birth control is offensive to God to begin with. Well, like Adam and Eve they were wrong. It WAS the truthfulness of a good shepherd named Cardinal James Stafford who confirmed this crucially disobedient compromise which led to the rotten fruits of the scandals and the scattering of the flock.
continued
continued from April 25, 2014 at 10:44
Anonymous’s continuous denial of the truth is just as unbecoming of a follower of Christ as was Peter’s denial of Christ. Please read the truthful facts. Like Adam and Eve fooling themselves by pretending to hide from God in shameful anonymity, this modern day anonymous hider is attempting to place a fig leaf over his/her conscience while denying the reality that the teachings of the Catholic Church were disobeyed and completely ignored…..hence the producing of the rotten fruit of the scandals that developed from grave disobedience to God. Denial does not remove the devouring worms. Denial enables the continuing assault on the Mystical Body of Christ. Our shepherds must collect themselves as Peter did when he too once fled from fear and denial and then he repented and received the grace to return to Rome in humility and obedience. No servant is greater than the Master.
See California Catholic Daily’s ‘ In 1968, something terrible happened in the Church’
FEBRUARY 27, 2012
Cardinal reflects on how dissenters to Humane Vitae tore the Church apart – and how rift left scars that remain to this day.
(Editor’s Note: We first ran this in summer of 2008 but wanted to re-run in the midst of the current contraception talk. This article was made available to us courtesy of Catholic News Agency, and is a piece written by Cardinal James Stafford at the request of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.) Humanae Vitae The Year of the Peirasmòs — 1968 By Cardinal James Francis Stafford
Catherine, why do feel the need to attack someone who has not done anything to you?
Why don’t you defend the Truth and the Faith and Church?
Whatever happened in 1968, happened in 1968.
This is 2014. The bishops and the priests and deacons of the Catholic Church in the US have readied themselves for imprisonment to defend the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception. Where you been?
Are there a few deviant, defiant, dissident priests? Yes.
Are they the majority? No. They are so few and far between that people can name them.
Thank you again, Catherine, and God bless. Despite your effort in documenting, however, I doubt Anonymous will either read or benefit from what is written as they seem to believe that sheep are the ones responsible for leading the shepherd.
What happened in 1968 opened the Church to the smoke of Satan, Anonymous. And if you believe that after the sorry performance from the USCCB that saw the reelection of the current administration is any assurance that the Bishops have now “…readied themselves for imprisonment to defend the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception,” you should ask yourself where you’ve been. In an indoctrination camp? Certainly not on planet earth or here in the United States.
That said, Anonymous, when YOU attack Truth, or try to obfuscate the real threat to the spread of Truth, you attack Catherine and every other believing Catholic. As to the few dissident priests, I suggest you look to Bishops and the power that they wield. For it only takes one bad bishop to despoil an entire field or diocese. So what happened in Vegas (I mean in ’68) doesn’t necessarily stay there.
Where did you receive your Catholic training, Anonymous? Or did you receive any?
“They are so few and far between that people can name them.”
Matthew 10:33 “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”…Douay – Rheims Catholic Bible
Is this why many of our children have lost or will lose their faith if they are sent to a Catholic University, school or even a dissenting parish? Is this why Mass attendance is at an all time low as well as the loss of belief in the Real Presence? Is that why Obama was elected and re-elected by the Catholic vote? Is that why Ted Kennedy received the send off funeral of a future canonized saint?
Lies are offensive to God. As the Church goes the world goes. Sacred Scripture does not lie.
Luke 18:8 Douay-Rheims Bible
I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
Matthew 22:14 … “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
I am sure that Adam and Eve’s conscience also felt attacked. ” I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I HID myself. And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?
Anonymous Catherine does seem to give a blind eye to Ann’s dissension, she’s ignoring your comments from April 25, 2014 at 11:08 am. She preaches but what I can not understand is her support of Ann Malley being away from the church. A behavior from an enabler. Is Catherine a member of the SSPX too? I’m beginning to wonder. Why would any good Catholic in full communion condone such behavior from Ann. I have nothing against Ann Malley, let that be clear.
Charles A, the SSPX is not in schism and her Bishops are not excommunicate. As for wondering why Catherine does what she does, it may be prudent to ask her and take what she says in context. Anonymous’s single minded blindness and hyper-focus on what he/she considers schism or heresy is obsessive as I have, despite my attending the SSPX, never once advocated that others should leave their diocesan chapels and attend the SSPX. Quite the opposite if you want to read what I’ve actually written and not listen to the exaggerated interpretations of ‘Anonymous.’ Or even those with names who on one hand lament and query ‘what has happened to our dear Church’ and yet seem to get off on slamming the Society for the schism of saying and root causing the exact same thing.
A number of zealous full communion Catholics, however, seem to want to misconstrue my not judging the SSPX as anathema, heresy, schism, you name it. This despite the hierarchy of the Church being undecided in the Society’s actual status and the rampant, unchecked anti-Catholic teaching that goes on under the watch of many a Bishop who is supposedly in good standing. They wonder at ‘why’ and ‘how’ certain heretical things have slipped into the Church while hammering at those who have done nothing but seek the Faith in its fullness – not every diocese is blessed with a right thinking Bishop. This scandalizes many, including newly formed Catholics who in turn can become malformed in what the Church actually teaches.
To Charles A cont:
That said, looking to the situation in which I have often found myself, looking to find consistent teaching in a rather inconsistent gypsy-like life to which I am bound by marriage, puts me in a situation of having to provide for my family as best as I can. Believe it or not, that is what I have been called to do Charles A, so the notion of ‘condoning such behavior’ is what I find intriguing in this discussion. The assumption being that I have ‘willfully’ broken with the Church out of a sense of pride, schism, malice, or you-name-it and that I seek somehow to harm the Body of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth, but Anonymous and others seem to think they can read souls. Taunts like ‘sinners always make excuses’ or ‘you don’t sit in a pew’ is just that, an unproductive, self-elevating taunt.
I have nothing against you either, Charles A, and actually appreciate open dialogue – a reason I actually post by name. This whole ‘dust-up’ as Anonymous termed it began because I asserted that the term ‘heresy’ is not taught from the pulpit. And it isn’t, Charles A, as other Christian sects are referred to as separated brethren, not heretics. And many practices that are still officially mortal sins are relegated to the unimportant or divisive. Like artificial birth control. How else to explain those who regularly attend mass, not fallen away Catholics, who use the pill?
Anonymous doesn’t seem to want to accept that reality, but rather redirect into unrelenting personal attacks under the umbrella of zeal and rejection of schism. But looking to the leadership of the Church for leadership is not schismatic, but rather the acknowledgement of authority. Sadly, authority that is often not exercised to the detriment of the flock.
Catherine, I do not understand your post at all. So I do not have a response but I wanted to let you know that I read it and am not ignoring it. I just don’t get it.
The blame game is as old as sin.
Genesis 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.”
The Word of God tells us the true reason.
Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
Ann Malley, no one has said anything about the SSPX.
You either have not understood the whole discussion or you are spinning things for your own ends.
Your beliefs as you have stated them here are not in conformity with the beliefs of either the Catholic Church or the Society of St Pius X.
Then explain yourself, Anonymous, and be forthcoming with explicit details. The only one spinning things to their own ends is you as 1.) you fail to identify yourself. 2.) You assert confusion on my part while doing nothing but purposely seeking to confuse. 3.) You post in perpetual vagaries save for pointed drive-by attacks based on false assumptions. 4.) And backtracking now on the SSPX because, as I have pointed out, there is communion there – not schism.
If you know of the SSPX, position, how is it that you do? Do you attend the SSPX chapels? Do you agree with the SSPX position? If so, say so. Speak, Anonymous, and let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.
This last assertion of yours with regard to my ‘conformity’ is nothing short of a complete joke. Or a sign that you have some serious personal issues. Have an excellent Low Sunday. :)
Read the posts. No one said anything about the SSPX.
The things you have posted indicate that you do not accept that there is ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church.
I have never seen anything from anyone in the SSPX that is like it.
However, I have heard that many sedevacantists and other who have false beliefs attend SSPX chapels.
Anonymous, you need to re-read the posts, and not just on this thread. I have always held that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – even when I wasn’t practicing. I have always held that the Pope is in fact the Pope, and not some guy named Herman living in his parent’s garage in Iowa or some such. I pray a daily rosary, when I’m at my best, and always pray for the Pope. He, of all people, needs our prayer the most.
I have said that I will not judge Sedevecantists (those folks don’t appoint their own pope) as 1) that is not my place and 2) this is a time of crisis and much scandal. But, please, stop using me as some scapegoat about what you fear or have heard about SSPX chapels.
But even so, there are those who are Protestant in heart that often attend the Catholic Church. That is there are folks in the pews that hold false beliefs. That is the the whole of the crisis as those false beliefs shouldn’t be there, Anonymous, at least not in the majority as it seems to be regarding many moral issues.
God bless.
Ann Malley, stop trying to hide behind the SSPX. I suspect that you try to take the spotlight off yourself and I’m not going to fall for it. I am glad to hear you say that you believe there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now will you say that the Catholic Church is the Church united with the Pope? and that any chapel not officially erected by a bishop of the Catholic Church is not a Catholic Church?
Ann Malley, the presence of a non-believer at a Catholic Mass does not in any way invalidate the Mass or the Church.
Anonymous, nobody is hiding behind the SSPX. As for saying anything to you, it is wasted as you have your own agenda.
Anonymous ?, nobody said that a non-believer at the mass invalidates it. (If you’d like to carry on an argument with yourself you can easily do so by assigning yourself a name and setting up the entire scenario.)
I am rather calling you on the carpet for not admonishing those who supposedly cry full communion while simultaneously preaching something else. Like the older brother who told his father he would go into the field and then did not.
And, if you can follow, I admonished you in this fashion because seem to think Catherine guilty of selective fellowship while you yourself fellowship with those who promote heretical views on CCD by your choosing not to admonish them – and downplaying the insidious impact such individuals play in the health of a parish.
Why is that Anonymous? Why do you only seek to correct those who you perceive outside the Church because they cleave to pre-VII doctrine, but have no word of chastisement for open heresy? Or those who relegate the use of birth control to an unimportant matter?
Your fellowship and fidelity to the Faith are in grave question, my friend. And your seeking to dismiss your culpability by backtracking and angry, puritanical bluster fools nobody. But it surely pleases those who seek to spread their nonsense to others in the pews.
Ann Malley, I asked you to acknowledge that you accept the Church’s teachings and you answered with another of your sinful calumniating posts, trying to portray the faithful as the heretical. Very sinful. Red herrings cannot cover your guilt.
You must really enjoy this….but I don’t and my duty to my Lord is done.
Your duty to the Lord was done a zillion posts ago, Anonymous, if it was truly the Lord you were seeking to serve. Anybody can say one thing and do another. So the feather for my seemingly requisite conversion will not go to you. I’m sorry. But that is the way of a true worker for Christ. That is those who reap are not always those who sow.
So relax. Be glad. Be patient. Be kind. Look to yourself. Pray. Pray for a bountiful harvest of faithful, holy, and dedicated priests. And perhaps, one day, your prayers will be answered. But I’m not putting myself in a situation for perpetual scandal – or my kids. YFC has just underscored on this post and another the precise reasons why I attend the SSPX. For while the Church officially teaches one thing, what is actually fostered on the ground is, in my experience, very often a scandal to even knowing the Faith, let alone practicing it.
Ann Malley, OK, I accept your decision to not go to a Catholic Church. You have free will. Now please-back to how this started. Don’t speak lies about OUR Church. If you want to lie about a church, lie about your own. And don’t refer to your church as Catholic-it is not. SSPX are in schism. It is not a formal schism but it is a schism. If you do not understand that then you should read the Catechism and Canon Law-use the ones from before Vatican II.
Learn the Catholic faith and you will return quickly to the True Vine. You will, I hope, forgive me for pointing out that you are not very advanced spiritually. What Catholic would even think the things you say? You do not even understand the basics. Please pray the Rosary; wear the Brown Scapular; pray the prayer to St. Michael. Please use the Sacrament of Reconciliation at the true Catholic Church and please try to find a priest in the true Church who can guide you. Maybe Father Karl or Father Michael or you could find a list of EF Masses in your area or state and I am sure that any priest would help you. Praying for you. I also recommend a little book called Humility of Heart. Or Conformity to the Will of God by St. Alphonsus Liguori. Please stick to authentic Catholic literature and websites.
Anonymous, I respect your God given freedom to falsely accuse the SSPX of being outside the Church, but you are not the judge of that situation. Saying it is not a formal schism, but it is schism is a pronouncement that is outside your realm of jurisdiction and so I would suggest you reread Conformity to the Will of God and humbly accept your position instead of overreaching. To be blunt, these matters are beyond you.
You also state: “…What Catholic would even think the things you say? You do not even understand the basics. Please pray the Rosary; wear the Brown Scapular; pray the prayer to St. Michael.” The above statement demonstrates your lack of comprehension as you assume all that is Catholic is predicated on what you think, assuming as well that others are not doing precisely what you advocate in praying the Rosary daily, wearing the Brown Scapular in addition to saying the requisite prayers (try the 5-fold, Anonymous), and or praying fervently to St. Michael.
Try the Ascent of Mount Carmel by St. John of the Cross. When you get the ‘nothing’, perhaps we can talk again. For it is precisely the writings of the Saints that has led me in conscience to where I am, Anonymous.
to Anonymous cont:
That said, I have not put forth lies about the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but rather presented the reality that is out there in the context of what I have seen and experienced. Something confirmed everyday on CCD and by those posters whom you prefer to ignore. If that is not your experience, keep quiet, pray for discernment or at least prudence, but do not falsely accuse others of lying. That is rash judgment on your part to which you will be called to account whether you believe it or not.
Finding a local ‘EF’ is not as easy as you seem to believe either, Anonymous, as I have said with regard to my family situation. I am currently faced with another move (to where we are uncertain), but identifying possible places to attend mass is part of the process of discerning where we will go. That is discerning the level of angst involved in finding where to go on Sundays. (I long to be back in the position for daily mass attendance, but that is my will.) Needs must, Anonymous, and often my family and I are not in a friendly situation regarding ‘just find and EF’ despite your simplistic belief that you have all the answers to relieve me of my particular crosses.
Again, your comprehension is limited. But even so your prayers are always welcome. God bless you for that. And yet if you do not see the conundrum you present in advocating that I use pre-Vatican II documents to understand Church teachings then I’m sorry, but you do not understand the crisis in the Church which has ‘advanced’ beyond those documents as the majority of those in the pews do not refer to those solid teachings.
God bless.
The pronouncement of SSPX being in schism is from the Holy Catholic Church. Saying they are outside the church is a term that you have made up.
Gee, your offended because I told you to do something that you already do. Know what 7 deadly that is?
I admit my comprehension is limited because I value obedience.
I cannot even fathom why someone would prefer be so ignorant and so obstinate when the Truth is so readily available.
You can use whatever Church teaching you want. They haven’t changed. The people in the pews are a lot more faithful than you think they are. And so are the Catholic clergy. And again, since you don’t go to the Catholic Church, your opinion on it is ill-formed.
You have a need to vilify anybody who stands up for the Catholic Church. Only you know why.
Sometimes, you can’t find an EF that you can attend. And you do have to attend the ORDINSRY FORM of the Mass. Do not fear. It is the re-presentation of Jesus’ Sacrifice on Calvary. You will be OK. Nothing untoward will happen. If there is something that you don’t like then you will have research whether they are wrong or you are wrong. If you find that they are wrong, show your kids and then tell the pastor or even the bishop. Keep praying. You are strong enough to do this. Your kids are smarter than you think.
I am glad that you value obedience, Anonymous. That is good. As for smart kids, yes, indeed they are smart. They recognize hypocrisy and scandal and that is why I keep them far from it – as far as possible.
That said, your assurances mean nothing. And you are incorrect in your assumptions regarding the Society of Saint Pius X. Much like clerics were wrong when the unlawfully suppressed the Tridentine Mass, having falsely promulgated the lie that it was abrogated.
As for Church teaching changing, I’ll leave that for you to discern and learn on your own.
God bless.
Ann Malley, assumptions? Look it up! Google CDF and SSPX. Tell you what, I’ll be nice and give you a link.
https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046
How would clerics unlawfully suppress the Tridentine Mass?
Clerics like the POPE?
Yes, assumptions, Anonymous. Try a broader context than ‘catholicculture.org’. As to clerics like the Holy Father in caps and your question about unlawfully suppressing the Tridentine Mass, you have much to learn about Church history, my friend.
God bless and do your own research.
I’ve been afraid of discussing church history with you, Ann, because if you think the Church is in crisis now, this is nothing compared to what has happened in church history.
Do you understand that when a Pope promulgates a new missal that the old missal is no longer used? Do you know that certain clerics such as Padre Pio asked for and obtained permission to use the old missal? I don’t have a problem with you saying that the old missal was suppressed (although I’m not sure that was the case) but that it was unlawfully suppressed. Could you explain what you mean?
Why be afraid, Anonymous? And it is not if *I* think the Church is in crisis that is the issue. The Church is in crisis. Even so, what do you constitute a crisis to be? Do not be anesthetized to that which is around you being normal – or not that bad – simply because you are accustomed to it. (Survey results that show the disparity of what Catholics *in-the-pews* believe as compared to what the Catholic Church has always taught is surely a serious issue. Isn’t it?)
And falsely suppressed as in the Latin Mass was never abrogated – forbidden – and yet Bishops stifled the offering of said mass as if it were forbidden. (They foisted Communion in the hand on us too as if it were the norm and fully permissible. It was not, Anonymous, as you will learn if you care to research.)
So whereas the ‘indult’ (special permission) was given by JPII for the offering of the Latin Mass, the Summorum Pontificum of BXVI specifically outlined that the Tridentine Mass was never forbidden therefore there was no ‘indult’ required. The laity have a right to it.
It was never abrogated, Ann Malley. That does not mean forbidden. It means done away with. And no, the laity have a right to the Holy Mass, not to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
I was wondering if communion in the hand was an issue for you. It is permissible. Permission was granted by The Pope. I really wonder where you are getting your information. And you don’t have to go “outside the Church” to find an EF. If you can’t find one, you are obligated to assist at the OF.
Father Karl is in good standing with his bishop. God bless Father Karl. We appreciate good priests like him. I wish I knew where he is from. I would be honored to visit his parish someday.
confirmed to us?…who is us?…confirm it to me, my friend…simple, tell me what parish he is pastor of…tick, tick, tick…
Duncan, well you are correct. Father Karl has never been that forthcoming. I doubt he is the pastor of any parish. Kenneth M. Fisher vouched for him that he was a priest. You are not the first person to question it.
Who are you, Duncan? Name, address, birth certificate, 3 unbiased witness to testify to your attendance at a diocesan approved Mass, an inquisitor to assure posters that your ‘wife’ doesn’t use birth control – methinks perhaps you protest too much.
But hey, the message is still no birth control pill. Our Lord could make the rocks cry out that truth and you’d likely shut them down because they didn’t pass your rock inspection.
God bless…. tick tick :)
Ann Malley good job! Here that Duncan? You made it about Fr. Karl, well now taste your own medicine and proof who you are! You are just a trixter, distracting people from real important issues!
Jesuista was wondering if I was a “real person”…as opposed to an imaginary one?…It would be hard to post here if I didn’t exist…my real name is Duncan and I am a traditional Catholic. Furthermore, I found it “very” peculiar that Fr. Karl would reference “mother nature”, as if this was an actual deity of some kind…
Ann…again, completely clueless what your issue with me is…other than the established fact that I don’t believe Karl is an actual Priest in the Catholic Church. Yes, I am married and my wife most certainly does not practice birth control. As an encyclical, Humanae Vitae is profoundly moving and spiritually enriching to read…so much so, that it is a document one can take on a spiritual retreat and read, and spend a significant amount of time reflecting/meditating upon… something to be grasped at…
Duncan, my only issue with you is that on other threads you say that you believe most of what Fr. Karl has to say and yet on others you undermine/attack him for speaking truthfully. I’m glad you find Humae Vitae to be such grand matter for spiritual reflection – IT IS! Nobody is denying that.
It is truly sad, however, that so many young families never came to be in the fullest sense because they began using birth control with the blessing of their priest and/or Bishop and became accustomed to the ‘freedom’ of not having children. These families have passed on this particular belief system in protest of HV, Duncan, and there’s lies the problem. If a shepherd delays crying wolf when the wolf is sniffing and even gobbling up sheep for a couple of years one is remiss in one’s duties. That is the reality that happened in our Catholic Church during the reign of Pope Paul VI with regard to birth control.
So since the topic here is ‘How we became hooked on the pill,’ that delay is, in part, the answer. You seem to reject that reality, that culpability of leadership because you are enraptured with HV. A key of the virtue of prudence is not only applying that which is needed, but knowing WHEN to best apply it. As a husband and father you will learn this important lesson as your children grow, but hopefully, not too late.
Duncan Father Karl is a priest and you can be assured that he is praying for us all especially those who do not believe he is a priest. God have mercy on us all. Doubting Duncan….
Also Duncan Beautified Pope John Paul was not perfect and even if he is to be declared a saint, (he is my Pope of my growing up years) does not mean that he was perfect while he was here on earth. But like anything, people can misinterpret even what saints say or do. Duncan your very own words bring me to be alarmed because you seem to have something against people who reason and use logic. Father Karl uses logic in many moral issues and I don’t understand what your beef is with him. You may disagree, then dialogue with Father but to insult him by trying to discredit him and by insulting people who may question some of the actions done by Pope John Paul. “For you to say becareful what you say about Pope John Paul”…….really? Why don’t you be careful on what you say to discredit the good guidance of a loyal Catholic Priest like father Karl. For all we know, he may be up for sainthood as well and you just decided to discredit him.
confirmed to us?…who is us?…confirm it to me, my friend…simple, tell me what parish he is pastor of…tick, tick, tick…
” tell me what parish he is pastor of…tick, tick, tick…” = Gestapo style interrogation tactics meant to intimidate, locate, punish and silence.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? …Luke 12:20
God bless you Duncan……doubting Duncan
One more thing Anne…nothing happens in a vacuum…not even Papal Encyclicals…it takes time to pray and receive the spiritual inspiration and activation, which is needed to produce an Encyclical such as this…one of the richest Encyclical’s produced by a Pontiff in recent memory…and maybe the most important
No, Duncan, nothing happens in a vacuum, but much happens when warning signs are ignored. It is a leader’s job to be vigilant and pro-active. That said, if times were changed and it was one of your children that was misled by what the Pope didn’t say and what his/her priest or bishop did say and started contracepting your grandchildren to the detriment of their soul, you’d likely react very differently.
Much like the sheep whose mother or lamb got gobbled up while all the signs pointed to a wolf in the sheep pen. As to the prep-time required for HV, it was nothing more than a double-down on what the Church had always taught – not a new invention, Duncan. The old saying ‘nip it in the bud’ would apply. Sadly, the flower was let to bloom and had already spread its seeds before being pruned.
Prior to the advent of the encyclical Humane Vitae Anne, how many women and families were destroyed by practicing “birth control”, due to the “blessing” of the local Bishop or parish priest?…could you give me a ball park maybe?…I am unaware of these” intelligence’s” you are aware of…never have I read that any Bishop encouraged, endorsed, promoted, or expressed a “laissez-faire” attitude concerning the spiritually injurious effects of using artifiical birth control…certainly a number of Catholics use birth control, but this is in violation of the Church’s teaching concerning contraception. This is a gravely sinful act, a mortal sin in fact! Priest’s are also supposed to be chaste and celibate…how many have molested and sexually assaulted adolescent males and even adults? Daily we become more aware of the poor leadership in the Church, on so many pastoral levels, it can be just disheartening and could even lead a person to despair, God in Heaven forbid! These illicit sexual acts, commited by these clerics, not only violate the “vow” or “promise” they took at ordination, but it also violates the 6th commandment and is a CRIME!…Sure, we have horrific priests floating around, many are thankfully defrocked, these scum should never have been ordained, let alone allowed into the seminary!. Bad Bishop’s, rotten priest’s and crummy laity abound…the Church is comprised like a basket…”a basket of wheat and chaff”…good and bad members…Remember, we have far more good, noble, virtuous priest’s than we do bad ones…and the Church is like a huge spiritual hospital…we are all afflicted with the same disease, that is killing us all…it’s called SIN!
Here’s an article to start you off:
https://americamagazine.org/issue/100/humanae-vitae-25-years-later
As for the number of ‘ruined’ families, look to those in the pews who believe there is nothing wrong with the pill. They didn’t just come up with that contrary notion alone, Duncan, despite what the Church formally teaches. Read Fr. Karl’s posts again. He was there during that time. Re-read the posts of others who were practicing adult Catholics during that time. And again, look to the statistics of those who consider themselves to be solid Catholics who contracept.
God bless.
Sedevacantism is heresy pure and simple…as is “liberation theology” and “modernism”…I am very traditional, and attend a very traditional parish…that offers the Tridentine mass, as well as a very reverent Novus Ordo liturgy, which my wife and I attend…
Duncan you felt the need to defend yourself here…more than what Father Karl has done. You even called him friar? Doesn’t seem like the words coming from someone who would be more traditional. We know father is genuine but how will we know that you are truly who you say you are and where you truly attend? Double standard? hmmmm
I find it hard to believe that you attend the Tridentine Mass? If you did, you would not be questioning Father Karl at all. Father Karl is devout just like the priests who offer the Tridentine mass. I’m questioning your integrity. Something isn’t right here.
couldn’t care less whether you question my integrity…are you serious?…too funny…
If you laugh at Abeca’s questioning your integrity, Duncan, what do you think those on CCD think of your dogged undermining of Fr. Karl and objective reality?
Duncan that’s fine. you can laugh now but later you will be someone much greater that will defend the faith to no end. God bless you brother in Christ!
Consider yourself highly blessed, Duncan, if you reside in such a diocese. But please, before tossing others under the bus or casting aspersions at their character and /or calling into question their fidelity to the Faith, understand that not all folks reside in your diocese. Would that they could!
God bless and wishing you the best moving forward.
Since the advent of this Encyclical, I have not heard of any Bishops who ADVOCATE or ENDORSE the use of the ‘pill”…after the Encyclical was diffused to the Church Militant in August 68, a few modernist Bishops opposed the encyclical, some went further down the road of “heresy”…still, I have yet to read of a single Bishop who encouraged his parishioners to defy the Encyclical and “ENDORSED”, the use of artificial contraception…the article, nowhere states this…
I have never endorsed, nor endorse the use of the pill…my wife doesn’t use it…in fact, I know of not a single Priest or Bishop who endorses or encourages the faithful to use it…seems kinda pointless, this argument…guess the real issue is, you take offense-because I don’t believe karl is a priest…I don’t…if he is, maybe he can tell us all where he is pastor of…after-all, he is in good standing with his bishop…i won’t hold my breath…that “mother nature” line was the clincher…and all his “zealous admirers”, who defend him…just bizarre…methinks you protest too strongly…
I’m not so sure about you, Duncan. A single-scope background check is going to need to be done, complete with witness testimony going all the way back to pre-school. Any wet-nurses will of course need to be checked as well. Then we’re going to need to see your passport to assess ‘where’ you’ve actually been. The same goes for the individual ‘you’ call your wife. Sounds suspicious to me, the fact that you go on about ‘her’ not using birth control. Makes one wonder about what ‘you’ are doing. Have to jot that down. You also mention sedevecantism a lot, giving one the sense that you know it intimately. Aha! I bet you are affiliated. That too must be thoroughly investigated. Again, we’ll need extensive interviews for you to prove who and what you are. As to priests you know – you likely do not know any and you purposely do not read so as to say you have never read anything contrary to your assigned objective. Better to pass the polygraph test.
And until these tests are completed, verified and notarized, everyone should be made aware that Duncan is likely lying or conducting black-ops when he states that all that glitters is not gold. Oh, the horror!
Oh Ann … Sounds hinky to me! I’ll get my brother the FBI agent right on it! Also, I am not a sedvacndist (see, I can’t even spell it!) I didn’t know what one was i until I read about it on CCD. Also I have never taken birth control pills. Let’s see,..what else can I non-confess to?
That’s okay, C&H, got my own connections for the SSBI, but thanks. Even so, perhaps we can join the NSA and really get into this ‘thorough’ investigation!
Have a great Low Sunday :)
methinks ann malley is a sedevacantist…
“It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.” – Henry David Thoreau
“methinks ann malley is a sedevacantist…” = Desperate Duncan gives himself away!
You have complimented Ann tremendously by desperately resorting to Rule #12
Saul Alinsky’s RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Thanks again, Catherine, you have said it. Even so, I wonder what Desperate Duncan’s tactics are in admitting that some modernist Bishops did oppose Humane Vitae and then went down the road of heresy while denying that anybody promoted birth control. What does this individual think opposing Humane Vitae is? Promoting loving thy neighbor and fruitful marriage?
God bless and thanks again :)
@Duncan and others, if you can not prove your point without casting dispersions on the character of others – – – – go to Confession.
CCC: ” 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
– of RASH JUDGMENT who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of DETRACTION who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
– of CALUMNEY who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.”
What kind of example are you all setting for others who are not Catholic, yet know Jesus said to love your neighbors ? Examine your conscience about your purpose for writing on a Catholic blog.
Any of you who do NOT adhere to EVERYTHING in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” is a heretic or schismatic.
Never TOLERATE Sin.
Never TOLERATE Lies.
Admonishing sinners and instructing the uniformed are two of the Spiritual Work of Mercy.
This does not mean attacking someone’s character.
You are correct. It is too easy to fall into that temptation. We should talk about ideas, not people.
Catherine you and Tracy are doing Ann Malley a disservice. Stop condoning her refusal to be in full communion with the church.
Charles A,
Please treat Ann with the same love, patience and dignity that those in full communion are taught to. Ann has treated you and everyone with patience and kindness. Ann has explained the reasons why she has made her choices and Charles A. for someone who claims to be in full communion you should trust that with truth coupled with kindness and love that God does work all things towards the good. It is through loving dialogue that Ann Malley and others who have been scattered may see that many ARE aware of the chaos and turbulence within the Church and that many are working for the fullness of truth as well as unity. The only thing that is being condoned is loving and truthful dialogue. Charles A, You are right to want everyone to be in full communion and at this time I believe that Ann would agree with that. It is interesting that we have posters who claim to be in full communion yet they do not accept all of the Church’s teachings and then we have posters who accepted all Church teaching who were scattered to other pastures by wolves in sheep’s clothing and then there are the posters claiming to be in full communion who are chasing the scattered flock with a duplicitous, prideful and mean spirited pitchfork. Jesus said, “Feed My Lambs”. Jesus did not say, “Attack my lambs who have been scattered by the wolves.”
Thank you again, Catherine, for understanding my position and for stating it so charitably. God bless.
Ann Malley of course you thank her. She is not your friend! A real friend will be honest with you, even if you don’t want to hear it! The enabler and double standard is an attractive package. Ann Malley understand this, I won’t beat around the bush! My family and I will pray for you. Bye now!
Charles A, you are a convert so I understand your zeal. Thank you and God bless you. Please, however, before you pray for me, pray first and foremost for the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and all religious, especially the increase of pure and holy nuns and brothers – the cloistered variety. It is that action of grace and sacrifice that we do not see that truly moves as that is the kind that makes us marvel.
Catherine that’s a lie! Ann has not, as you quote “Ann has treated you and everyone with patience and kindness. “. I remember coming into this a while back on an article of a holy nun group who became in full communion with the church. Ann was terrible in her attacks to those in full communion with the church and she did not start off so friendly with me! You give a blind eye Catherine and I question your faithfulness. Anonymous person may not be totally faithful but at least he/she is honest and has done a charitable thing on correcting Ann on that issue. You have not.
Charles A, you need to look to what you consider terrible ‘attacks’ and determine if it is actually a defense or sheer exhaustion with the taunts and misapplied self-righteousness and often blind zeal of those ‘you’ perceive to be holy. That is look to full context and history. Not all full communion Catholics are charitable when they get their dander up – this is also due, in part, to youth and an admitted lack of understanding of the subjects involved.
This is how I first encountered you. Not very kind:
https://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2014/02/04/marian-sisters-come-back-to-the-church/#comments
Back history is here:
https://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2014/01/28/gay-friendly-parishes-in-california/
Instigation and the personal bias of one who claims ‘full communion’ is here:
https://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2014/01/25/catholic-gays-have-been-taught-self-hate/#comments)
While stridently ordering others to confession, some individuals miss their own lack of honesty regarding their assertions, specifically they make things up to vilify individuals even as they claim that those reporting actual events of their lives and/or the experiences of others close to them inside the Church are lies. This was all courtesy of the prodding of ‘Anonymous’ who report they are doing good while in reality are doing little but sewing dissension and trying to negate even that which is reported HONESTLY on CCD about what needs to be rooted out within Holy Mother Church.
Charles don’t waste your time going over those threads that Ann added. I went through them and only found you commenting in the first one but the other two I have not found you there. This thread is terrible. It was about the pill then it just got ugly. Its not productive folks and some people will not change no matter what. My years of comments here, I don’t think anyone here has ever converted anyone. God bless you Charles in your charity but don’t waste your time. I was trying to avoid reading those past threads but only found myself going over them to see what you said that made you what Catherine has accused you of.
Catherine, I hope you are serious in trying to persuade her of her errors.
I know you are a faithful Catholic but I warn you that everyone who has tried to help her has just ended up attacked, falsely accused and demeaned by her. I will pray that her heart will soften so that your efforts will be successful. Perhaps if you explain to her why you remain in the Catholic Church it will help her. I will always be silent when I see your attempts so that I do not inadvertently undermine you. God bless you.
Define falsely attacked, falsely accused, and falsely demeaned, Anonymous. All of these terms seem to preclude culpability on your part for any instigation or misapplied zeal.
I pray you do not remain silent despite your promise to Catherine, but rather enter into true dialogue that discusses particulars, beginning with a unique moniker and a sense of your own situation. Not a rosy colored one either about how faithful you are, but something honest outside a dossier of what good you believe you do.
Specifically, I would like to hear of those situations that scandalized you (that is from the wolves in sheep’s clothing inside the Church), those meaty encounters you have had which tempted you to leave ‘full communion’ or gave you true pause about the well being of your children or your own soul, and how you overcame them. Something real, Anonymous, not an empty platitude or cold quote. That might be helpful. For honestly, if you have never experienced the things that I have in my lifetime, your persistent admonishment will ring hollow as you have not been tested. And that is often the measure of grace, Anonymous, not being in full communion.
Much like a mud-ugly spinster touting how pure and chaste she is and how she was never once tempted. Well, put the face and figure and social circle of Marilyn Monroe on that same woman, including all the attention that goes with it, and the story may be very different.
There but for the grace of God (God being the key word), go I.
Watching this spat amusedly, I have to admit, since Ann Malley at once is determined to not go to a Roman Catholic Church in full communion, yet taunts others to provide real world examples of where full communion was a challenge. Particulars, she wants. In other words, she wants others to take up and rant against the Roman Church. Rather than stand up to her own nearly schismatic decisions, made of her own free will, she makes it seem that the burden of proof lies in those who remain in full communion, and is attempting to manipulate us into saying bad things about our Church. If she had half as much integrity as she pretends, she would be the one giving real world examples of why her sin is justifiable.
So if you are the Marilyn Monroe in this story, then you are saying that it is ok for her to go off with a hundred men and leave her spouse behind, because she, by your twisted logic, is somehow more tempted because she had a curves? And that makes it ok? This is how you justify leaving behind the bride of Christ?
Other people don’t make you sin.
And the spinster comment was incredibly sexist and objectifying of women. And it is grave error. The temptation does not justify the sin.
As for all your horrible experiences with the Catholic Church-WHEN?
According to your stories (although they do change)
You spent almost 3 decades not going to church. You came back for a very short time and you left because your husband didn’t like some woman wearing a white bustier.
It doesn’t matter what happened during your short sojourn in the Catholic Church. You didn’t have enough faith to stay. Short story.
You seek to justify your disloyalty by inventing an idea that there is more than one Catholic Church. Heresy.
Follow the bouncing ball, Anonymous, and recognize the message. Give examples of how YOU have overcome temptation and or relay the stories of others who have been similarly put in stressful, scandalous situations so as to give credible, solid, practical advice on how to remain faithful in the way you seem to believe I am not.
Your throwing stones helps nobody, especially you. *If* your objective is to prevent sin and help in healing the wounds on the Body of Christ, then give the help that is needed instead of crying harlot as if you do not sin yourself.
I.E. Tell Marilyn to perhaps dress more modestly. Tell her she might try never going out alone, but rather always in the company of a true friend. Council her that perhaps she should not look men directly in the eye as they can’t handle it. Tell her that she needs to be very guarded in her speech because not all men find her jokes innocent, but find her innocent jokes provocative. Tell her to be careful who she ‘trusts’ because not all who claim to be virtuous and kind are trustworthy. Be Christ-like, Anonymous.
Don’t just decry whore, harlot, temptress, etc while all-the-while hiding your own sins (which you have) and a name (which you also have). That is twisted as you seem to seek purity by the outward vilification and purposeful misunderstanding of others. You seem to enjoy crying harlot or, perhaps in this case, leper. Or is that how you justify your sinful lack of Christian charity and prudence? Or assuage your own bitterness at remaining faithful when perhaps you would prefer other arrangements.
As for saying sins are okay, those are your conclusions, something you jump to with increasing fervor.
If you’d been following the ‘spat’ with such glee, YFC, you would know, and you do, that I have given the real world examples for my choices. Please do not add to the confusion, despite the added pleasure it may afford you, by stating that I seek people to bad mouth anyone.
Rather I ask for examples of how they overcame the temptation to run from a parish – perhaps yours, YFC – that leaves the faithful under the impression that homosexual sex is something to be embraced.
You have provided that scandalous example by posting here about your dear same-sex spouse while simultaneously being a Eucharistic minister. And even without asking. So if that is full communion, with ‘your’ Church – count me out.
As for integrity, I do not doubt yours, YFC, but that is with regard to a deviant sexual agenda, not Catholic Truth, as evidenced by what you wrote to Abeca:
“…this is one of those passages sited that discourage gay people from being true to themselves, and coming out as gay people. I just want to let you know that we are ignominious no more! We are out, and we claim ourselves without fear, because we know our internal worth that God and God alone has instilled in us.”
Don’t kid yourself YFC on who is really being amused with your latest feigning of loyalty to Rome while living in cooperation with a chosen darkness that offends Almighty God. Your finding of Ann’s posts which include tolerance and kindness towards you as amusing is nothing compared to how amusing a slavish tool you have chosen to be for the father of lies.
Sister Faustina’s Vision of Hell
“I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the Abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence…the devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God, What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: That most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell.” (Diary 741)
You out yourself as a modernist, Anonymous, by saying my analogy was ‘sexist’ and ‘objectifying’ (please) without responding to the ‘sin’ of the ugly woman. (That is her prideful delusion in believing herself above falling when she has not been tempted in the same fashion and her lack of charity in dealing with the other woman.)
Not to say you are that woman or that you are a woman at all. But your elevation of yourself while decrying others is ugly and sinful much like your tracking me on CCD like some pet project is disturbed.
What pray is the ‘grave error’ of pointing out the ignorance of the ugly woman? In truth, those who make the most spiritual progress often sin, but that is because they are actively pursuing the spiritual life out of a hot and compelling love of God. (In other words, they actually get out into the fray.) And those who are the most sinful often consider themselves to be pure and full of sanctity pointing fingers at ‘SINNERS!!!’
So whereas you ask me if I believe that temptations excuse sin… I will ask you. Do you believe the sins you wrongly perceive in me give you an excuse to omit true charity, prudence, and calumny to your own list of mea culpas? Also, you must know that if you believe my posts to be sinful, you are contributing to that sin by your non-stop baiting.
Anonymous,
Was Jesus patient with you when you at specific times in your life you chose to also left Him alone in the Garden to pursue some of the choices that you now realize were adding to the painful thorns in his crown? I have noticed that often it is the greatest sinners who have repented and have been shown so much mercy who are often the most brutal and impatient when expecting another person to be pleasing to God. Look how Jesus treated those who were crucifying Him and yet you feel that you have been given the special privilege by God to choose another way than his Son did. It was the consistent TRUTH and kindness that drew the crowds closer to listen more carefully to Christ. Our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been scattered by wolves in sheep’s clothing are entitled to as much love, patience, hope and kindness as the bending over backwards patience, kindness that is shown to those who are crucifying Christ from within the Church under the banner of being in full communion. Those who steadily attack without regard or charity have another agenda that has nothing to do with TRUTH or UNITY. In the pursuit of TRUTH and goodness we must be careful not to become the impatient thief on the cross who expected an instant miracle. Don’t be a wedge because we have not walked in their shoes but God knows their hearts and the purity of intentions and God writes straight with crooked lines. Speak the truth in love and humility like the good thief who was so pleasing to God that he was promised that very day to spend his eternity in paradise with Jesus.
Dear Marylyn Monroe Malley: You are very good at creating bouncing balls, so you can avoid the points people make. Put the burden of proof on people who stay IN the Church instead of keeping the burden of proof on those who leave. Bounce. Ask others to talk about their temptations to leave the Bride of Christ, hoping perhaps that it will make your sin look less evil. Bounce. Change the subject to my sexual orientation and my acceptance of myself as having been created in the image and likeness of God, sexuality and all. Bounce. Belittle others who, you feel, aren’t following your bouncing balls. Bounce. Make women out to be guilty for the sexual dalliances of men. Bounce.
Then God willing you will continue to bounce on down the road, YFC. For you have supplied the burden of proof – which I didn’t ask for – with almost every posting you make. Thank you. What you refuse to supply along with Anonymous of all varieties who are supposedly IN the Church are concrete examples of how to forestall the temptation to run like heck when faced with a pastor and/or diocese that refuses to address the error of assigning disordered sexual attraction to God. Or living with gay lovers.
The same parishes that perhaps do not admonish young women to be modest because – despite you being homosexual – I’m sure you understand what a flirt is. Even one who doesn’t think themselves to be a flirt. Why do you think God gave Adam and Eve (Sorry, no Steve or Joe) fur instead of the scant leaves they were wearing? Modesty. Innocent girls who want to stay that way do not dress scantily despite what you mean believe. So yes, often women are very culpable as they do not take into account human nature. Much like you don’t.
If you refuse to make the connections, that’s okay. If Anonymous prefers to remain in an atmosphere that promotes heterodox values, that’s okay, too. And that is not to say that every parish is like that. They’re not. But if what you are promoting, YFC, is an example of where ‘our’ Church is going, you fool yourself.
OK Marylyn Monroe Malley, without accepting that the burden of proof rests with those of us stay in the Roman Catholic Church, instead of those who leave its fold, let me offer you what IS a very strong temptation and in fact, an INVITATION to leave.
Temptation to leave the RCC comes in the very form of CCD which pretends that gay issues are THE defining issues for our Church, and even MORESO, the very many commentators on CCD who tell me over and over again that I am not, in fact, their fellow catholic. It is obvious that my presence in the Church is not wanted here at CCD nor in the pews of those who regularly post here. You yourselves create that temptation for me. Yet I struggle on. Unlike you, who gave in to what other people thought, said, and did. My home is in the Church. Like it or not, that is where I belong. As do you.
Catherine, I’m truly shocked at you and your double standards. What is it you call it? Selective something?
Ann Malley, vilify me all you want to. It changes nothing.
Sinners can always find like-minded sinners who will tell them that they are doing nothing wrong. The people who have the guts to brave your vicious ‘best defense is a good offense” attacks are your true friends. Just like Jesus when He came down from Heaven, we know how we will be treated. And we will be rewarded by Him as if you listened and learned to obey His Church, which is His Body with Him as the Head.
You stay in the pews, YFC, to press your agenda. That is not a ‘fellow Catholic,’ but rather an agitator. Sodomy is a mortal sin. You do not agree with that and are very vocal and demonstrative, at least if how you portray yourself is actually how you behave.
So while you opt to transform sodomy into a subjective sin and tout your full union with Holy Mother Church with whom you not only openly disagree, but actively exercise and publicize said dissent, excuse me while I seek to keep myself and my family far way from that mode of grass roots agitation so that we may actually keep the Faith.
And as I’ve said before, it is very obvious that you have at least one priest backing you up in this area. (That’s the issue, Anonymous. Priests and leadership. That’s what we need to pray for if we’re to end even perceived schism. So if you truly desire healing of the Body of Christ, pray for that.)
Then again, by your way of thinking, YFC, sin is subjective for some and so I should be excused as my experience – not just hearsay – has led me to this demand of conscience. But it seems you only hold conscience to bear in the demolition of Catholic Moral teaching, not in in the upholding of it. Odd.
For you have always been welcome in the Church, YFC. Everyone in the Church who posts here on CCD welcomes you to the Church. What is NOT welcome is one who seeks to pretend that sodomy is not a mortal sin in thought, word, and deed.
In case you are not following the other threads, Anonymous:
Your Fellow Catholic says:
April 28, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Sodomy certainly can be a sin, but only in certain circumstances which take into account the individual undertaking the act. This is just the same as any other act, as culpability cannot be determined by an outside observer.
**************
These are the kinds of statements coming from some in full communion, Anonymous. (Many of my own acquaintance.) That is not to say that YFC is quoting what the Church officially teaches. No. But rather, YFC, a Eucharistic Minister, demonstrates what is often taught at ground level by priests and I can only conclude Bishops. Not all, mind you. (Faithful priests, much like Fr. Karl, are often persecuted.) But YFC does not act on his own authority – not by any means.
That being said, despite your admonishments, my duty is to protect my family from potential harm – harm that can and is often done in the quiet of a confessional via malformed priests with whom I have had personal exposure. Sorry. And when one is unfamiliar with the parish and /or new to the area, it is even harder to determine the ‘faithfulness’ or climate of said parish.
Ann Malley, no Catholic can excuse you without partaking in your error. So no-we can’t do that. We can’t excuse YFC’s errors, either. But you should read The Catechism of Trent. Because traditional chapels are not in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I don’t know that you know the Catholic Faith well enough to catch the errors. As for being harmed in the confessional- if you just confess your sins and then get absolution, what’s gonna happen to you? Are you trying to use confession for something other than that? You should have stayed with the Shepherd. Now when He tries to get you back in the pen, you keep crying wolf. Jesus will take care of you. You can trust Him. You should stop painting all the clergy with the brush of infidelity. Nothing is going to happen to your family from attending a Catholic Church. If you go to the TLM, I am sure that you will find everything is OK.
Anonymous, read the current Catechism and look to the formation of the Bishops and clergy in the mainstream Church, not just those who offer the TLM when making statements about how ‘fine’ things are or will be. Where is the leadership? With the Council of Trent? No. That is why the Father Karl’s of the Church are persecuted and by those who fancy themselves in union with the true Church.
That said, I do trust in Jesus, very much, which is why I’m relying on His providence and doing what He calls me to do. I suggest you do the same. That is, you have been very vocal about not excusing my attendance at the SSPX, so you are not excusing anyone. But browbeating someone for taking note of the wolves that are still in the pen is no sin and helps nobody. Nobody is painting all clergy as unfaithful, but it is the reality of hit and miss that presents the danger for my little flock.
I’m not sure what you fear is being preached at Traditional chapels, but from my experience, it is very much the catechism of Trent. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Catechism of Trent forbids them to have chapels.
Your posts are totally illogical.
Your posts use words in ways that indicate that you have no clue what they mean.
You seem to be making up your own version of Catholicism.
You are a wolf in sheep’s clothing, silly.
You are not a traditionalist.
You attend the church of your choice. Your reasons don’t matter.
When you post something ignorant, someone may correct you.
It won’t be me because I’ve read your posts in the archives and I have seen all I need to see to know that you are not really serious about the Catholic Faith.
I know a lot of people like that. They believe whatever they want.
It does not matter what is in Scripture or Tradition. They are just narcissistic, self-willed people who honestly believe that they know better than the Church. I’m not wasting my time on you.
Blessed be God, Anonymous, I mean, Silly. I was hoping you’d finally see reason.
Maybe Catherine can explain it to you. I wish she would try. I am grieved that the unfaithful priests of the SSPX and other traditional chapels made a pen for you to run to and feel safe and feel pleasing to God. Had you not had that temptation you would have, hopefully, stayed faithful and grown in your faith. Instead of filling your mind with falsity (and not all that they teach is false) you would have, hopefully, become a strong member of the Church, instead of one of her detractors. It can still happen. Why can’t see how much God wants you to return?(and I hope it is not because your time is short). God never tells anyone to do something that is contrary to the Church, but the devil makes them think he does.
Catherine can explain no more to me than you, Anonymous, in truth. But thank you. Even so, take that grief to the foot of the Cross. Beg Our Lord for a turning toward the fullness of Truth – that is the teaching of it – within what you consider the umbrella of the Church. (Those you dub unfaithful are, in reality, attempting to be faithful to Our Lord and what the Church has always taught instead of giving way to that which, when you examine the fruits, is not so good.)
You are correct in that God never tells anyone to do something that is contrary to the Church. Church leadership, however, does not always adhere to what God wants. In other words, those things/people you deign outside the Church for following what has always been taught are not yours to judge. And not all those who are saints now were favored by Church hierarchy during their lifetimes, Anonymous. It is the doing of God’s will that I seek to do and thank Him immensely for the pen of the SSPX.
But think of it this way, if the Anglicans can obtain their own ordinariate, keeping prayers and customs for the sake of union, how much more deserving is the SSPX who keeps the prayers, customs, and fullness of teaching of Holy Mother Church. (It is not the whole of VII that the Society rejected, but rather the pastoral ambiguities that are regularly manipulated and have led to this crisis of modernism that was officially condemned.)
That said, the temptation was that of running like heck from the Novus Ordo, Anonymous, and the modernism and heresy. It was Tradition and the consistency of the SSPX that brought me back. So if that angers you, I’m sorry. Pray for the Church.
Ann Malley, the Catholic Church was trying to establish a personal prelature for the SSPX and they refused. Everything was worked out in 1988 and Archbishop Lefebrve had agreed to everything the Vatican asked and they were going to have a personal prelature in the Church. Archbishop Lefebrve did not want to wait for the Vatican’s timeline on ordaining the Bishops and committed his schismatic act. He and those who received the ordination were excommunicated. Lefebrve died “outside the Church.” Twenty years later those bishops asked Pope Benedict XVI to lift their excommunications which he did in hope that the schism could be reconciled. He and the Vatican ministers worked hard to achieve that but Bishop Fellay refused to sign the preamble. Fellay’s talks with the Vatican caused a schism in the SSPX and Bishop Williamson was expelled. Followers of Bishop Williamson believe the SSPX is in crisis and call their movement “The Resistance”. This is not the first schism in the SSPX. The SSPV split from them and also the FSSP rightly split and stayed with the Church. The basic problem with reconciling seems to be that the bishops of the SSPX do not trust the Vatican and fear that once they reconcile they will be forced to obey things that they do not want to obey.
Ann Malley, now you are saying that you did not come back to the Catholic Church and leave for the Tradtional chapels. Which is again changing your story. And no it does not anger me. It tells me that you want something other than the Catholic Church and you found it in traditional chapels.
I don’t think that you really understand modernism or heresy.
We have established prior to this that you do not use the terms modernism or heresy in the same manner that the Catholic Church does. You are the one who is judging and you are judging the Holy Spirit. Please pray for yourself and your children.
This post is indicative that you have rejected the Catholic Church and that you are not just attending illicit Masses to protect your children from the possibility of a priest saying something wrong.
If you refuse to be in communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope, you are a schismatic.
Anonymous, the Bishops of the SSPX cannot ascribe to that which is false and/or opens itself to misinterpretation as evidenced by the wholesale ‘pastoral’ approach that undermines the truths and teachings of Holy Mother Church. Research the ‘beginnings’ of Communion in the Hand in the United States. And also look to Cardinal Mueller who I have quoted to you before who also admits to the reality of ambiguity within certain documents. That said, the fear as you term it is fear of the Lord, not fear of the Vatican. And even though one can point to one’s leadership regarding sin and say, “It was their fault!” even that has its limit, Anonymous, especially as sheep get picked off by ambiguity under the watch of one who is called to shepherd. (Hence the hammering of diocesan priests get when they speak the full truth.)
And yes, Bishop Fellay’s dealings with Rome did, in my view, precipitate the breakaway group that calls themselves the Resistance. No news flash, Anonymous. But, and again this is only my view, that is not such a bad thing as it has taken many out of the Society who do not consider Pope Francis to be the Pope. As to the FSSP, they split because of the Archbishop’s consecration of Bishops, after a much protracted vetting process with Rome – that is yes, then no, then yes, then no – during which the Archbishop was in increasingly failing health. Remember, he was entering retirement when he was given permission from Rome to start the SSPX. And at that time, there was and is a crisis in the Church, Anonymous.
Your pronouncement of changing stories changes nothing, Anonymous. I haven’t changed my story as there is no need to change. Not for one such as you who seems to refuse any depth of discussion and/or insists on a preconceived judgment of schism. If that makes you happy, take away whatever you’d like from this discussion. The objective in our family is to keep the Faith.
With regard to what constitutes modernism or heresy, I’m guessing from your posts that you believe those two definitions to be eternally shifting dependent upon whatever ‘new’ teaching you happen to receive. Any blame or sin in that error being that of the one who taught you (Like picking up the habit of jaywalking from Dad only to blame Dad when you either get run over and/or get a ticket or cause an accident on the street. Mom, however, might not think it’s okay for Dad to teach jaywalking after one of the kids has gotten plowed by a semi, even though he is Dad. And no, she’s not undermining Dad’s authority or the family hierarchy when she instructs the kids to use the crosswalk).
If that is how you operate in strict ‘obedience’ that is your choice. Perhaps you’ve been blessed with a Bishop who sees the wisdom of crosswalks. That hit and miss luck of the draw, however, is not something I can afford to indulge in with regard to my ongoing situation – whether you see the wisdom inherent in it or not.
We are called to know ourselves, Anonymous, that means to understand what presents an occasion of sin for ourselves.
God bless.
Ann Malley,I think we established previously that what you mean by occasion of sin is not the same as what the Church means by that term.
Would you please tell me the historical periods in the Church when there was NOT a crisis?
I would like to have has a deep discussion but you always go into ad hominem attacks.
This article’s thread is getting to long. So let me just ask you this:
What conditions in the Church would have to occur for you to consider returning?
You have established nothing regarding what constitutes an occasion of sin for me, Anonymous, nor can you. As for ‘understanding’ I understand all to well what leads me to sin. That is the definition.
Your premise of perpetual crisis is ludicrous and negates reality that is one reason why deep discussion with you is impossible. You plumb nothing, but your own script. And your question regarding ‘return’ is moot as I have not left.
I may at some juncture, after perpetual moving is off my God given plate, have the opportunity to discern particular parishes that are sound.
God bless you for your diligence just the same. See you ’round CCD.
Ann Malley, do you twist what people say because you don’t understand it? Because you read something into it? Or because you are trying to salvage your pride?
I said nothing about establishing an occasion of sin for you. Just reminding you that on an earlier article you could not really say what sin you committed when you went to Mass. And you seemed to believe that if you hadn’t sinned or been tempted to sin, it was still an occasion of sin.
I said nothing about a perpetual crisis in the Church. I asked you to tell me the historical periods when there were not crises.
You said that you fled the Church, sometimes you said you were run off by wolves. Now you say you haven’t left. You seem to be bobbing and weaving.
And I don’t know what plumbing my own script would mean.
I feel like deep discussion with you is impossible because you don’t respond to what was written to you.
Anonymous, the issue here is you do not accept what I find detrimental to my keeping of the Faith, whole and entire, as sinful. You seem to believe that whatever I or my children may be led into would be the fault of the priest and so that would expiate any guilt or sin or even culpability on my part. That, at least to me, seems to be why you believe I’m twisting your words.
As to understanding, you believe the SSPX to be ‘another’ Church. I do not. So saying, I fled diocesan offerings in favor of the consistency of the SSPX. That may be the point you do not understand because you hold fast to the Society being ‘another’ Church, an opinion I do not share.
I don’t think it is a Church at all. It is an order of schismatic, suspended priests who do not take vows who find or establish chapels in which to say a Latin Mass. The chapels sometimes are called catholic churches but rarely. They know not to do that. They left the Diocese of Lincoln because the Bishop was going to excommunicate the priests and the laity because they were advertising themselves as a Catholic Church. No one’s opinion matters. It is a matter of fact whether a church, chapel etc is Catholic. Call your diocese and ask them. Or most diocesan websites have a list of their parishes.
Regrettably, Ann Malley has NOT MADE hHER case with respect to her decision each and every Sunday to depart from Roman Catholic teaching and practice, to attend Roman cathlolic Mass. And in this way, she appears to depart from Rome, form her teachings, and therefore sins each and every Sunday.
What case? I wish people would move forward with all this. If you know Ann personally go to her and dialogue but on here please stop distracting people from the real issues. What gets me is the confusion that some of these anonymous people cause. One sounds faithful and another one sounds like its playing games on many who have morals. Can we move on please? The anony that made the comments from April 27, 2014 at 11:17 pm was uncalled for. While you bash Ann, you neglect to point out the sins advocated here by the homosexual activist like YFC! Not once have I read any comments from an anony admonishing YFC for his dissent against the Natural law!
Going to Mass and receiving holy communion while living in a homosexual lifestyle is a sin, an offense against the Natural law! I’m not excusing one sin over another but what I can’t stand is the magnifying glass put on one due to personal prejudices against the one! There is a lot of hypocrisy, which I do not tolerate! Its not productive folks.
Abeca writes, “Not once have I read any comments from an anony admonishing YFC for his dissent against the Natural law!”
Are you kidding me? That is all I get here Abeca! Why are my sins more grievous than any other, especially one who intentionally goes outside of the family of faith and entices others to join her by posting their grievances with Rome?
abeca, just because someone challenges another to live a more faithful, grace-filled life does not mean that they overlook others who also need to be challenged. It is an ego defense mechanism (not talking about you here) for someone who is being challenged and feels threatened by it to try to find fault or imagine faults in the one challenging them. They want to believe that the one challenging them is unfaithful in some other serious way. I can only speak for myself, but there is no sin that I make or accept excuses for-in myself or in others. There is nothing that the Catholic Church teaches is a sin or even a imperfection that I advocate for. Sin is sin and we need to conquer sin. Every one is a sinner but not everyone is unrepentant of their sins or seeks to stay in a sinful state. I believe you are one of those who really tries to seek God’s will and do it. Sometimes when people are seeking God’s will they fall for a deceit of Satan or of man’s. There have been many times that the person YFC you refer to was put under a “magnifying glass” and he also has been unyielding in his error. I don’t think that with the number of posts on this article that we need to start that discussion here. There are other articles where that conversation is going on.
Perhaps YFC, because you noted that you believe that sodomy is not sinful for some, but it ‘could’ be for others. And that you hold the Catechism to be wrong when it states that same sex attraction is disordered. (And you attempt to teach that to others with nearly every posting you make.)
You may attend a mass in full communion, but if you hold those beliefs, you are not inside the Church, friend. But if you really do hold that it all depends on the circumstances as you posted in defense of your sodomy, then surely you would be the first to come to my defense of desiring to defend the fullness of the truth in teaching and practice.
Thank you yet again for another example.
It is also an ego defense mechanism, Anonymous, to remain Anonymous and hidden with regard to one’s own lack of faithfulness and perhaps charity or purity of intention when seeking to ‘correct’ another. But you seem immune to correction or even guidance in your shepherding techniques. That may not be a sin, Anonymous, but it is a fault as it prohibits you from producing the fruit you say you desire.
God bless.
Anony YFC is not in full communion with the church. Certain sins cause an unofficial excommunication and thus why many are continuing to live in sin. It just takes good and devout Catholics to charitably inform them of those serious offenses. Just because YFC wants to lie to himself and pretends he is in full communion does not mean that he is. He has already been told, so its not like he doesn’t know.
YFC writes: “…Why are my sins more grievous than any other, especially one who intentionally goes outside of the family of faith and entices others to join her by posting their grievances with Rome?
1) Sheep are not guilty of intentionally running outside the pen when attacked by wolves inside it, YFC.
2) The SSPX is not outside the Church (family of Faith) despite the irregular situation.
3) I have never advocated and/or enticed anyone to ‘leave’ anything, but rather answered questions put to me and commended those in diocesan chapels for their fidelity and fortitude. Or congratulated them on the blessing of their situation.
4) You report on other threads that it would be a SIN for Catholics to expect homosexual couples to deny their being ‘spouses.’ And yet you deny that sodomy is mortal sin. Or even sin ‘for some’. So as for your scandalized horror of my ‘war’ stories that seemingly entice you, would you prefer I deny my situation? That would be sinful in your estimation, YFC, as in other posts you seem to believe that the formation of conscience is paramount with regard to what constitutes sin…at least for you.
4) Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, YFC.
Abeca Christian, YFC support of gay “marriage” is not in communion with the Catholic Faith. IF he has contracted a civil marriage with his partner, he has committed a grave sin. He has said he lives chastely with his partner and we must believe him. Neither of these sins cause a latae sentatae excommunication- if that is what you mean by “unofficial communication.” If he has committed grave sin, he should not receive communion until he has confessed his sin. Just like all of us. Saying he is not in full communion is not the correct term for this. Being in full communion is a term used for ecclesial communities, not for individuals.
Ann Malley, really, I am not trying to manipulate you. You may name me and I will post to you with that name as long as it is not offensive to the Lord.
In reply Your Fellow on April 28, 2014 at 9:10 pm:
OK YFC yes its true. Its because we are called to correct any heresy or untruth that can potentially lead another into sin. We can not go against the church and due to the love we have for Jesus, we can not condone your “gay” theology. I was just pointing out to anony somethings because he/she keeps magnifying directly somethings about Ann and neglects correcting you.
YFC I pray and hope that you are not receiving holy communion in a state of sin. St. Paul warns against it and it is what the church teaches! Please for your souls sake do not receive our Lord when as long as you continue proclaiming your “gay” ideals. Its out of charity that I have to ask you. Pray to our Lord to bless you and help you have a contrite heart first.
Anonymous, to live chastely with one’s spouse means that one is faithful to one’s spouse and does not cheat – that is have sexual relations with another.
So when someone says they are a homosexual who has been living with their spouse for 12 years comes out as ‘chaste’ it means that they are having homosexual sex with the one they believe to be their ‘spouse.’
He said that he and his partner obey the Church’s teaching and elsewhere he said he is chaste.
Living chastely in marriage does not mean just that you don’t cheat. Please learn the Catholic Faith.
He has said Anonymous that sodomy is not a mortal sin for some and that it depends on conscience. YFC said that. Not me. So if you want to take the word of one who says sodomy is sinful for some and not for others who also touts that he is a Eucharistic minister, then so be it.
Learn to connect dots. And yes, living chastely according to one’s state in life (married vs single) means exactly that. For married folks, it means not having sex outside of marriage and not doing anything illicit within marriage. For single folks it means complete contenence – that is abstaining all together from the sexual act.
God bless.
Anony you keep losing me with comments like you just made on April 30, 2014 at 10:44 am. Are you neglecting the truth. Are we seeing you turn a blind eye on YFC? This is where you are wrong to come off as if you are protecting YFC. You may have it right on some issues on defending the church but you are dead wrong to protect YFC. Are you really for salvation? Sanctifying grace? Then if you say you care about Ann, then you must also care for YFC. Remember I do not tolerate hypocrisy either! Wrong is wrong!
abeca, wrong is wrong, Sin is sin. YFC has been corrected, too.
AM, regarding your post of April 30 at 12:28 PM. Please, if you are going to quote me, quote me accurately. If you don’t understand what I write, ask a probative question. But don’t put words in my mouth or misquote me. This is a violation of catholic moral teaching.
AM, replying to your post of April 29, 2014 at 2:59 pm. On the whole, your post is completely unresponsive to my suggestion that pouncing on the sin of another instead of dealing with ones own sin is a form of hypocrisy. But let me take your points in turn.
1) Ann Malley, I see no evidence whatsoever that you have been attacked by wolves inside the Church. This is a scandalous accusation for which you have provided no evidence. On the other hand, take a look at any of Canisius or McDermott’s posts, or very many other CCD commentators if you want to look a wolf in the eyes.
2) The SSPX is in a state of schism. Most of us consider schismatic movements to be outside the Church, so please don’t rationalize your behavior by denying what we all know to be the facts.
3) You have specifically asked CCD commentators to share their struggles with staying inside the Church instead of fleeing for SSPX or other situations. So while you implicitly acknowledge that your second point is not, in fact true, you lure others to dig up dirt about the Roman Catholic Church. Muck raking is hardly a Christian virtue, Ann, yet that is what you do here.
4) What I have said with regard to denying a person’s marriage, is that it is a sin to lie. With regard to “sodomy” (a term which means very different things to different people), what I have said is that indeed sodomy CAN BE a mortal sin in certain circumstances.
1) You are a wolf, YFC, for one. And if you do not see evidence in my life of having confronted wolves, it is either because you do not read the posts you do not like or more likely you enjoy wolfish company.
2)The status of the SSPX isn’t a matter of what you or ‘most on CCD’ feel or consider.
3)Asking for examples of how to ‘remain faithful’ in the eyes of others who are slamming one for a lack of faith is hardly muck raking, YFC. Although muck raking is a highly dramatic visual term and sounds really good when feigning indignation.
4)As to what you say about SODOMY, I lifted your own words from your own post via cut/paste. Muck covering and/or trying to go down the ‘sodomy’ is really a lack of hospitality malarky is beneath you. Why? Because of your posts which I do read.
And so I’ll tell you that sodomy is mortal sin. I would say go to your pastor to talk over the matter, but I’m thinking you already have which is precisely why I need my children to avoid such scandal. If the assorted Anonymous on CCD cannot grasp the depth of my obligation before God on this matter, I hope they will seek you out for further explanation.
A violation of Catholic moral teaching, YFC? What’s that if sodomy is sometimes a mortal sin by your interpretation. Please.
The editors saw fit to significantly edit my post to Ann Malley, significantly changing its meaning, to my post which appears today at 10:33 AM.
The editors removed my question to AM regarding her proposition that gay people should be encouraged to lie. I said, and hold, that lying is one of the first sins that we are all told about. Do we not all agree that lying and encouraging others to lie is a sin? Thus, encouraging gay people to lie about their sexual orientation or their relationships is itself a sin. Can we all at least agree that to lie is to sin? That to encourage others to lie is also a sin?
Replying to AM at 12:20 PM:
1) You referenced wolves chasing you out of the Church. You blamed said wolves. Now you make me into the wolf that chased you out of the Church? Really? How? When? What did I do or say that “chased” you out of the Church? Obviously, you are just making stuff up, AM, to justify your leaving the CHurch. No wolves. Just your imagination.
2) The status of SSPX is that it is schism. I’m not sure what you are even trying to say about that point. Let me say again, SSPX is in schism.
3) Asking others for their worst encounters in the Church is INDEED and IN FACT muck raking. I’m sorry you fail to see that, but that is indeed and in fact what you are doing. Do we even really need to debate this point? What else would you call it?
4) You in fact did NOT quote me. Your claim that you used cut and paste is utter nonsense. You misinterpreted my words and claim that you are quoting me. Period. Look it up.
Abeca, I want you to know, and know deeply, that I too truly hope that I do not receive communion in a state of sin. You seem to doubt my sincerity about this matter because of my “gay ideals”. I honestly don’t know what you mean by that. I am gay. I hold what I think are pretty good Christian ideals. I don’t somehow hold a separate set of “gay ideals.” Honestly. I wouldn’t even know where to begin to create a set of gay ideals. Brunch on Sundays, pumps on Fridays, glitter on Wednesdays? Is that what you mean by gay ideals? Can we be real for a moment? I honestly, truly, don’t understand it when you imply that my ideals are different than yours.
Repeating the same calumny over and over again won’t make it stick, YFC. And you are lying yourself each and every time you try to promote yourself to be faithful to the teachings of the Church when promoting a homosexual agenda. So yes, you are a wolf, however, no longer in sheep’s clothing. Much like those exposed here on CCD – the religious heads of ‘Catholic’ schools for example.
The same goes for your calumniating CCD which you do often regarding their supposed intentions in posting articles about the scandalous infiltration and attack of wolves against the Truth.
Your twisted double speak equating keeping one’s private life private as encouragement to lie is grotesque, much like your feigned ignorance to Abecca’s post about your obvious homosexual ideology.
That said, your insistence on what constitutes schism, especially because of your assurances, means the exact opposite to me, YFC. So thank you again for your firm clarifications as your conscience has not, from what you’ve posted here, been formed in that which is sound, but rather that which seeks to re-shape.
Ahh dear schismatics. Continue to bounce balls all about so that we don’t have to face the fact that no wolves chased you out of the Church, as you claim. Follow the bouncing ball so we forget schismatic ideologies and encourage others to dig deep into their own discontent with the Church so that you may feel better about your lack of obedience to Rome. Lie about those in the Church, and encourage others to lie about themselves. These are the marks of a true Christian?
Your every post is a balm to the conscience, YFC, as you give me proof of wariness in your continued misrepresentation of the Church. Not that you accurately represent Her. You do not. But your posts are illustrative of the pervasive rot that needs to be avoided by the young and unformed especially.
Your sheepskin is off. Take that however you will as you are spreading the seed of zizania (not rice, but rather Latin for noxious weeds in the grain). So saying, there’s no need for a ball to follow when we have you, YFC :)
That said, if more wolves can defrock as you have, the scattered can come back, bringing their offspring.
Catherine, you have not let the wolves scatter you. This is like someone saying “I would never get an abortion, but I can’t tell another person that they can’t.” or “I would never attend a gay marriage but I can’t tell them not to.” You would never fall for that stuff, so why do you it with this? Because the sin doesn’t offend you or because you understand the temptation. So it is OK to let people go to hell for a sin that you don’t think is so bad. If a person stays in the Catholic Church and they are misled by a priest into believing something wrong, the responsibility is on the priest. If a person leaves the Catholic Church because they did not agree with something a priest said, the responsibility is on the person, not the priest.
Anonymous writes: “…If a person stays in the Catholic Church and they are misled by a priest into believing something wrong, the responsibility is on the priest. If a person leaves the Catholic Church because they did not agree with something a priest said, the responsibility is on the person, not the priest.”
You still do not understand, Anonymous, and seem to think that the only motivation is where the ‘blame’ goes. As for the simplification of leaving because of something the priest said or that one doesn’t agree with is just that, an over simplification.
If that logic works for you and girds up your conscience, great. But I have no desire to have my family led into something that displeases God – even if the blame isn’t theirs. It would be mine because I do know better, Anonymous. That said, I am compelled to make use of the means God has provided whether or not you falsely label that means ‘outside the Church’.
I am glad to see you acknowledge that you are to blame.
I pray that your children will find their way to a licit Mass and receive the graces that God desires them to receive.
God has a perfectly Good Church in the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Rebellious men formed the traditional chapels.
There is nothing I can say except to remind you that once Satan begins to destroy a family, he will not stop.
I can already see that he has dulled your reasoning ability, hardened your heart, convince you that lies are truth and piled up a mountain of pride in you where there should be humility. More prayers coming your way. Please, remember, people don’t become heretics because they decide they want to be wrong. They become convinced that they are right and the Church is wrong. That is why modernism is the synthesis of all heresies and why those who claim the church is wrong about anything are modernists. The modernist believes that his interpretation of Divine Things is equal or better than the Church. The modernist believes that the Catholic Church has no special grace or revelation from God. There is no small heresy.
wow…more weird by the minute…what was the name of Friar karl’s parish again?…I mean, after all, you have confirmation, right?…he’s in “good” standing with his Bishop…Fr. Karl…where is your parish?…If I’m guilty of slander, Fr. Karl should be happy to share with us, where he is pastor…I’ll apologize for my transgression…tick,tick,tick
Duncan no Fr. Karl has nothing to prove to you. If the Holy Ghost isn’t helping you discern, then there is a problem with you guy!
Sorry charles, that my disbelief is a shock to your sensibility…the red herring for me was his “nod” to mother nature…kinda odd for a priest to allude to this fairy-tale…kinda like referencing “the great pumpkin”…tick, tick, tick
Duncan and what do you call your tick tick comments? What are you some kind of kid? “The great pumpkin” you say? What is that all about? “sensibility”? I think it shocked your sensibility when Fr. Karl gave his two cents. OK apology accepted.
I have not apologized to you, or the faux padre…I have done nothing that warrants an apology
Well, I do not know about anyone else, but I am alive today because I never got hooked on the damn, and I do mean damn, Birth Control Pill. Over a twenty-three year period I have had estrogen susceptible cancer three times and survived it because I have never taken any kind of hormones with estrogen in them, even though a doctor wanted to give me the Birth Control Pill. I listened to my priest who told me not to take them. As a friend said to me, “I guess there is something to obedience.” I told her, “I guess there is. It saved my life.” You all can say whatever you please, but I am elated that I never took the damn things.
I should have said that I never took the Pill for birth control. When I was in my mid twenties a non Catholic doctor did give it to me for about two to three months to regulate a period. Nevertheless, he was a doctor who instinctively knew that it could be harmful to the body and never pushed it on me. Therefore, I went off of it right away and never took it again for anything as I never liked putting anything in my body that I thought was unnatural, including illegal drugs. I guess I can be thankful to God that that non Catholic doctor was an “old fashioned” one. He, too, helped save my life. God bless him and bring him to the fullness of the truth, if he is still alive. If dead may his soul through the mercy of God rest in peace. The American Life League and websites such as the Couple to Couple League have doctors who can tell a woman better ways to regulate a period, etc., without using the dangerous Birth Control Pill. Look them up and take their advice.
God bless Ricki Lake for what she is doing, also, in helping to save and bettering women’s lives.
Yes Anne T God bless Ricki Lake for her good efforts. Our prayers are with her and everyone on this divine Mercy Sunday.
How does the late Saul Alisnky get to be everybody favorite reference?
Get a Bible!
“Anonymous” Please show us where it says in the Bible NOT to know one’s enemy and his evil tactics? Jesus made it His business to recognize His enemies when they came around. Are we not to do the same?
The devil always prefers to cause havoc in the souls of the elect of Christ in secret. The Bible tells us that he shows up as an “angel of light”. Saul Alinsky’s tactics work precisely because they are meant to deceive.
Do you know what Saul Alinsky used his tactics for?
I can show you where he tells you to love your enemy. Will that do?
Matthew 5:44
Speaking of dissent, didn’t Anne Malley mention she is a member of the Society of St. Pius the X? This Society has NO canonical authority in the Church and it’s priest’s have no canonical jurisdiction…Anne is quite critical of PPVI, yet freely admits her association with this society of “spurned” Church members and clerics, who openly dissent with the current Pope and his predecessors, post Vatican II… I do think Ann is a sedevacantist…
God bless you, Duncan, but you have just demonstrated your complete ignorance with regard to the Society and Sedevecantists. Have a great Low Sunday :)
And you have demonstrated that you are a sedevacantist anne…
Notice how Ann Malley dances around the questions of whether – or not – she attaches to a parish in communion with Rome and whether she is a sedevacanteste. Or whatever that awkward term is. Me thinks her sideways advances proclaim her among those so accused!
Anon ~ I just learned about the SSPX and sedvacandists here. I talked to my pastor and looked both up on Wikipedia. Basically, I think the SSPX believes their is a true pope, currently Francis, but think he John Paul II and Benedict XVI are wrong on just about everything. OTOH, the sedvacandists believe that the past popes are heritcs because of Vatican II and a heritic can’t be pope. I looked at some of their webites. Some of them seem crazier than anyone who posts here!
C & H, If what you say is true, they are all HERETICS and SCHISMATICS, and should be shunned, and exposed publically as such.
Its hypocritical because you would rather welcome the sodomites yet not try to help the SSPX unite once again? How about the protestants who hold the same morals as our true Catholic faith? Should we shun them? NO! We should shun those who do not fear the Lord because they are the ones who will go out of their way to lead others into sin, they will lead and become activist for sinfulness such as the “gay” movement, and the abortion movement! They are the ones who are building the fire in hell much more higher! There is hope for all sinners but we must discern who are really the dangerous ones. Especially the ones who scandalize the little children, remember that our Lord has warned against scandalizing the little children! Correct all schismatics and heretics yes to that! But discern well and pray about it before one does! Do it out of charity and humility!
I pray that God will favor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI with the favor of seeing the SSPX re-unite with the Catholic Church before he goes to his eternal rest. I pray for the unity of all Christians. I pray for the conversion of all sinners. I pray for the release of souls from Purgatory. The Chaplet of Divine Mercy is an excellent prayer for these intentions. Also the Holy Rosary and prayers to St. Joseph and St. Michael. I will also add prayers to Peter and Paul and all Popes. Please pray for all these intentions. I think I know what you are saying but please remember that the sins of the faithful are more offensive to Jesus than the sins of those who do not know Him. God have mercy on us all. It is not OK to commit any sin. If you will read the Catechism of Pope St. Pius V you will see that the sins which cut a Catholic off from the Body of Christ are apostasy and heresy. Of course the correction is done out of charity and humility and correction also to those who may unwittingly be supporting them without understanding the depth of their errors. There are people who cannot stand to be corrected. You know why and we don’t want to start THAT again.
OK Anony you made your case. Glad that you are also praying about it. It is noble of you to defend the faith and to pray for all sinners. It is good.
A good holy priest loved the zeal we each had for praying for all within our church but he asked us to not neglect to nurture our own soul. He made a good point, it reminded us to be humble.
with that said, Anony, I think that your not the only anonymous person, there are several and thus again confusing to us because we don’t know with which one we are dialoging with. But I do appreciate your loyalty to the church. Its a noble one and God will bless you with much graces. Well anyhoo…. God bless you and help you continue on that good path. God bless us all and help us all. I pray that pride will not blind us to ignore truths no matter where they are coming from, even from some anonymous persons. But Anony know that some people have already written off all anonymous persons as bad or not faithful. I too have felt that way. I tried to just judge by what is currently posted because all that confusion is not good and we do need to address what is wrong at that moment and we can also agree to agree or disagree on matters that are not of salvation issues.
Thank you, abeca. I am not opposed to using a name but I can’t think of one that I am comfortable with. Some people on other sites that require names use the first word or two from their posts. Some people use their real names but internet security people say not to do that. There are things we can disagree on but not matters of faith and morals. Is that what you meant by salvation issues? In terms of posting, I want to be told if I’m wrong. I don’t want to hold opinions that are contrary to the Church so if I did think something and found out the Church said something else, then I would change. If I make a comment, I consider it like serving a ball and another person can return the ball with their own take on it. It is not a infallible statement. I understand that there are people who find it painful when someone contradicts them or corrects them or disagrees with them. It isn’t a matter of me being right or the other being wrong. It is a matter of what is in conformity with the Church’s dogma, doctrine, discipline and administration. Maybe I am too blunt, but I really don’t like it when people soft soap me so I don’t do it to others.
If anyone is confused by the personal opinions of those who post – some of whom are not Catholic, or are Catholic heretics and schismatics –
If you want to know the truth of what the Church teaches:
—– 1) Read a Catholic BIBLE (imprimatur and nihil obstat on the copyright page);
—– 2) Read the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”;
—– 3) Use the VATICAN WEB site to check true Church references.
As a homeschooler, I have noticed that when homeschooling families use outdated materials from some Catholic homeschool providers, they start to doubt the Catholic Church and look for traditional Masses that fit the curriculum that they use.
Huh? That does not make any sense Aonny? Why does it seem like you are throwing stuff out there now? Can everyone just move on please…..
Traditional mass is the Tridentine Mass, Latin Mass….they say that those who grow deeper in spirituality also enjoy the dept and richness that the Latin mass is. Please move on….you are going over board that you are now beginning to risk losing some of the main points that truly matter.
Abeca Christian, I am quite confused by your replyto my comment. I know you have asked to move on, but I would like to explain this to you. If you attend EF Masses (indult Masses, they used to be called) you will see young families with many children, the females wearing veils. They are not of an age where they would have been familiar with the Mass prior to Vatican II. There are many Catholic curriculum suppliers that sell not just catechisms, but readers, history books, music books which were written prior to Vatican II. (I remember one book that was written by an Italian woman in the 1800s that we discontinued reading because as beautiful as it was, it was no longer accurate. I don’t believe that the wheat for the Eucharistic hosts is planted and harvested in blessed fields by innocent children anymore. The priests here in the US, even at the indult Masses do not do and say the things that were described in the book so it would only confuse the children.) So, after you have read these lessons where things like communion kneeling and taken on the tongue are explained to the children in very eloquent ways, how do you go to a Mass where everyone is standing and receiving in the hand? When you homeschool, you really only have time to teach the children and it is difficult to find the time to research and explain the difference between what is in the book and what is at Church. Plus, you know the appeal of the Latin Mass.
Ann Malley, please prayerfully consider
John 1:37
AM what you seem to fail to understand is that happening to stand in the shadow of sin is no excuse for committing sin. Your post today at 12:25 PM tries to eviscerate your violation of catholic moral teaching by distracting others to whether sodomy is or is not or is sometimes a mortal sin. The sin in question is your OWN sin.
Well, YFC, if my supposed sin entails keeping me and mine away from those who have taught you such rampant falsehoods (outright heresy) with regard to what sodomy is (mortal sin) or isn’t (just an orientation), then that is GREAT!
This thread about my supposed sin began because I stated that the idea of ‘heresy’ was not something that was spoken of from the pulpit these days. And it would seem, at least in your parish circles, that this is very true.
So again, thank you for underscoring my point. Keeping the faith. Staying clear of that which is heretical, etc. But whereas Anonymous posters may want to go after you later for promoting a homosexual agenda, I would say it would be more charitable to go after those in positions of authority who HAVE ALLOWED and even LED, YFC to believe the things he does as he is not acting alone in attempting to pervert Catholic Moral teaching.
That said, this posting is about how ‘we’ became hooked on the pill. And, YFC, duh, the fact that it hasn’t been preached against is the problem. Folks just cannot seem to wrap their minds around the mutual culpability of laity and, very often, ‘leadership’.
Ann Malley, No it was because you said inflammatory things about why heresy isn’t preached from the pulpit.
I would like to know what week in the Church Year that you think it is appropriate to discuss heresy and what heresies you think should be discussed and why?
How about the heresy that God provides an alternative Church for those who are not obedient to the Holy See?
This is what I said, Anonymous: “Speaking of ‘heresy’ is specifically avoided, Tracy, for fear of appearing non-ecumenical or divisive or ‘driving people away from the ‘Church” And that is the truth, Anonymous.
If you don’t like it, that is your issue. As for when it is appropriate to speak of heresy, I will also leave that to you. (Your question as to the timing of a ‘heresy’ sermon rather answer the lack of you hearing as much from the pulpit.) But, suffice to say, the Church had no difficulty fitting into its previous calendar or official teachings in days gone by.
Well, so much for deep discussion. This has been your pattern for a long time, Ann. Here is the truth of what you wrote (not the partial truth that you now claim is the truth.
“The mentality is very much like that pointed out by Good Cause with regard to birth control. Don’t speak truth or else folks will not want to be Catholic anymore. (Fortunately, Humane Vitae came out even though it was late in coming. A formal teaching on heresy would be great, too, but rejection would almost be assured as folks in the pews have been led further and further toward the Protestant notion of conscience…much like a good many clerics. It’s easier and sounds a lot nicer in today’s sin-is-just-self-expression society.)
Unfortunately, while that kind of mentality might keep folks in the pews, it won’t keep the actual faith in their hearts. That’s why we hear the abhorrent statistics of how many supposedly Catholic families use artificial birth control – the whole of the congregation is treated like the neophyte, incapable of handling the truth even though they are supposed to be confirmed soldiers of Christ not mercenaries.”
It is “mindreading” of clergy in a church you don’t even attend.
Anonymous writes: “It is “mindreading” of clergy in a church you don’t even attend.
Thank you for clarifying your issue with me, Anonymous. It is not the reality of what I’m saying that seems to bother you, but rather your issue with who (one you perceive as an outsider) is saying it. Sorry, but despite your belief that the motivation not to offend people is not part of the reason why Catholic clergy do not speak openly and forcefully against that which should be condemned, is a large part of the problem.
That is why brave clergy are hailed as heroes for preaching Truth full and entire by faithful, practicing Catholics. And the same reason why the same faithful clergy and nuns and faithful are decried and lambasted by a malformed faithful who equate calling sin sin as being haters.
So please, if you want to have dialogue regarding observable reality and truth and experience in the Catholic world, stop the personal prejudices and ask yourself why many Catholics are hooked on the pill. Or believe it is no biggie. Wasting your energy on me won’t make that problem go away.
They edited what I said.
Catholics use the pill for the same reason they do anything the Church says not to do. They feel no need to obey the Church. They do not really believe that the Church is the voice of God.
Guess you haven’t been to church lately. Both clergy and laity are adamant against the HHS mandate that requires employers to provide coverage for contraception.
Most of the statistics on the use of contraceptives by Catholic women are misleading. They are from surveys of those who are pro-abortion and anti-Catholic. 98% of women identifying as Catholic claim to have at some time used a contraceptive method. 68% of Catholic women who are trying to prevent a pregnancy use a contraceptive method not approved by the Church. Now that excludes all faithful Catholics who are open to life, all pregnant women, all women past that age or of any age, who are in no relationship where they are doing things that could get them pregnant, all couples trying to conceive. Statistically, it’s is only useful to those trying to make our Church look bad.
OK Observable reality it is-How many priests have told you that they want to talk about heresy but don’t because they are afraid people will leave the Church? How many priests have told you that they are afraid of appearing non-ecumenical (whatever that is)? How many priests have told you that they are afraid of being divisive? How many priests have told you that they don’t speak truth? How many priests have told you that they feel their parishioners cannot handle truth?
Here is my observation-Everything you said is not true. Priests spend half their lives hearing from disgruntled parishioners. It can be about something they did, something another parishioner did, something the bishop did, something the Pope did, something Catholics in general did. Priests develop early the ability to let stuff roll off their backs. Priests do not kiss up to their parishioners. A lot of priests spend hours listening and counseling the doubtful. They spend hours reconciling people with the Church. You aren’t a priest and you don’t know what they think or why they do what they do.
Whatever happened to padre karl?…LOL!
There was a study done on why some people recover from horrific events and why some people have their whole lives destroyed by them. Those who did not cope with them well were people who thought “Never again. I never want to suffer like that again.” The people who survived the best were the people who realized that they had suffered and suffered greatly and that they could endure suffering again if called to. My point is: there are hundreds of independent “catholic” parishes and there are thousands of Catholics who attend non-Catholic protestant churches simply because they did not want to hear or see something again-whether it is that birth control is a mortal sin, or taking communion in the hand or gays can’t get married or encouragement to go to an ecumenical prayer service or women can’t be priests or altar girls. Stay in the Church. Accept no imitation. There is only ONE Catholic Church. All the rest are imposters and the priests are suspended. They cannot licitly perform the Holy Mass. Tough it out. Satan wants you to leave, because he knows it hurts God. You have been given the Holy Spirit, who is God, who guides the Catholic Church infallibly. Do not throw Him away for any reason. Stay in the safe harbor of the Catholic Church united to the Pope. Never stray for any reason.
There are very many posts here about what constitutes mortal sin. Comments like:
“sodomy is a mortal sin!”
“contraception is a mortal sin”
“gambling is a mortal sin”
“driving while drunk is a mortal sin”
“blah blah blah is a mortal sin”
Folks, please understand that there is not a single action, not a single one, that the Church condemns as a mortal sin this way. There are specific circumstances that differentiate between an action, a sinful action, and a mortally sinful action.
Please learn our faith. If you want to have a discussion about the prior issues, we can have them, but please don’t pretend that your claiming that an action is a mortal sin stops all conversation about it.
YFC, you are NOT a Church authority.
Neither is any other poster with all their personal opinions. (Some of which are unrelated to the posted article and trivial, because they fall into the trap of being pulled off target.)
Here is the OFFICIAL teaching of the Church regarding CONTRACEPTION directly from the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition” which contains the Doctrine of the Faith.
CCC: QUOTE – – – ” 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.
Yes, so where in that passage does it say that contraception is a mortal sin??
The “intrinsically evil” part.
There is no excuse for ignorance amongst literate Catholics in the USA.
They merely have to read the CCC, and if they do not, it is their own lazy fault.
Willfully dulling one’s conscience is sinful, YFC. As to learning the Faith, I suggest you seek out a faithful priest and parish in which to be re-catechized about what is objectively, mortal sin.
The blah, blah, blah about intentionally perverting the conscience and/or leaving some in perpetual blindness about what offends God is helpful to no one. And, no, YFC, claiming that a particular action is mortal sin does not stop all conversation. It most assuredly hasn’t stopped you. But oddly your focus seems intent on dismissing or discounting that which is sinful. Why is that? Are you seeking to change the Church into what you think She should be?
YFC, sorry, it just how us “old folks” talk.
We know the conditions.
I think it is good to use the term grave or serious because that is the current use in the Church.
On confession-the Church says we must confess all serious sins.
Using the terms venial and mortal sin designates the seriousness of the sin and its potential consequences. We are not judging the knowledge and will of the sinner.
Not correct Anonymous. The seriousness of the sin must be serious or grave for a sin to qualify as mortal, but being grave alone is not sufficient for the sin to be mortal.
A sin is mortal is it is grave, done with full knowledge of its sinfulness and done with full consent of the will.
CONTRACEPTION and voluntary sterilization are MORTAL SINS.
(Read your “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.)
One may not receive Holy Communion in the state of Mortal Sin.
Someone contracepting may not receive Holy Communion until going to confession, repenting of the sins, and promising not to commit the sin again.
______________
There is way too much personal and unnecessary postings on this thread, that are unrelated to the posted article.
Church teachings get lost amongst the trivial. Please stop.
For official quotes from Saint Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis regarding the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” go to:
“What Catholics REALLY Believe SOURCE”
https://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com/
There is no excuse for ignorance of the Faith by literate Catholics.
CCC: ” 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.
In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. “
Today’s sermon was about how we need to seek after those who have walked away from the Church. He mentioned particularly those who left the Church because priests did not live up to their expectations.