The following comes from a May 22 story on Huffington Post.
Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis received a hostile greeting in Los Angeles Thursday morning, when life-sized posters depicting her as Abortion Barbie began popping up throughout the city ahead of her fundraiser there.
The posters say “Hollywood welcomes Abortion Barbie Wendy Davis,” and they show Davis’ face on a mostly-naked barbie doll with a plastic baby in her belly. Conservative pundit Erick Erickson nicknamed Davis “Abortion Barbie” earlier this year because when she was a state senator, she stood on her feet and spoke for 11 hours straight to filibuster a draconian package of anti-abortion bills.
Davis’ campaign told The Huffington Post that it spotted at least five of the posters in different outdoor places around the city, including one on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles. Although it’s unclear who is behind the posters, a Davis campaign spokesman blamed Davis’ Republican opponent, Greg Abbott, for the political attack, noting that Abbott thanked a supporter last year who called Davis “retard Barbie” on Twitter.
“It seems that Greg Abbott can’t let a week go by without showing how out of touch he is with women,” said the spokesman, Zac Petkanas. “This is just another in a long line of offensive actions and comments by Greg Abbott in an attempt to demean Wendy Davis.”
Abbott’s campaign said it does not know who put up the posters. But the San Antonio Express-News reported Thursday evening, after this story was published, that the posters were funded and commissioned by Kathryn Stuard, a conservative political donor in Texas. She said she paid a street artist in Los Angeles named Sabo to create a total of 20 posters.
“It hits people with the truth,” said Stuard, 53. “The artist is very edgy….”
To read the entire posting, click here.
This is terrible, just terrible! It may have damaged Wendy Davis’ self esteem!
Allright, Feeney, you are being sent to Sensitivity Training, or its the Re-Education Camp for you next time.
Self-esteem is a personal responsibility, and adults should be grown-up enough to handle painful situations we all face in life! Especially, adults in public life! Adults are NOT BABIES!! And Wendy Davis has grotesquely sinned against Almighty God! People are justifiably ANGRY about this, and desire to do all they can, to defend poor, helpless unborn children! Today, every single American mother has the HORRIFIC legal “right,” in our Nation– to either keep or KILL her baby!! NO MORAL CONSCIENCE!! May God have mercy on sinful America!
Keep or kill. Adults are not babies. Those are your quotes, Linda Maria. I agree with you. So stop treating adults like babies, and allow adults to make adult decisions.
Okay, YFC, so you’re ‘personally’ pro life, but also pro choice in allowing others to legally kill their children?
The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution as prohibiting governmental intrusion into the decisions of the mother. I support either Amending the constitution or following it. What I cannot abide by is undermining it by trying to get around the constitution or insulting the Constitutional framework which includes separation of powers, by which we all live. What I was taught, and what I think is the correct “civics lesson”, is that if a law is declared unconstitutional, then the people have the ultimate right, which is to change the Constitution. And if it is a state constitution that has violated federal laws or the federal constitution, then the federal laws and constitution prevail.
As for me and my life, I am what you would call pro-life. Seamlessly so , by the way.
And yet if a woman were carrying a child that was due an inheritance upon birth, the court would support the rights of said child to inherit.
The Supreme Court’s ‘interpretation’ seems greatly to mirror the interpretation of other legislating bodies that would appease the people who seek license, not liberty. So saying, the Constitution says that we are endowed ‘by God’ with inalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first being life. The Constitution also states that we are ‘created’ equal – not born equal. And human beings are created in the womb. Not in the mind of the woman who suddenly decides – yes – that is now human life.
So the “civics lesson” can take a back seat to the Spirit of the Law, that is the law of God and the law of the land. Catholics under the guise of being seamless in their pro-life stance have voted in rampant baby killing. That is not treating all created life as equal for it gives a woman (as if she immaculately conceived) the license to kill. She has no ‘right’ to do so.
So yes we should follow the Constitution. We should follow the laws of the Church too. Not constantly seek to wheedle between words and phrases so we can seem to follow the letter by endless reinterpretation based on current trend and kill countless souls ‘under the law’.
That’s not honest.
YFC, you said, “The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution as prohibiting governmental INTRUSION into the decisions of the mother. HOW ABOUT PROHIBITING GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION IN FORCING AMERICANS TO FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS?! Abortion giant Planned Parenthood gets over $500 million in our tax money to destroy innocent human beings! In addition they care less about the teens and women’s lives they destroy in the process.
Tracy, the Supreme Court has not agreed with you, and in fact, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the governmental funding of abortions.
Ann Malley, as I said, if you think the Constitution as written does not pursue “life”, then seek to amend it. This is civics in action, and please stop calling the rest of us dishonest because we happen to be awake that day in class.
Please stop portraying yourself victimized by my comments, YFC. I’m saying that those who love God and put His laws first as we should are not being honest with regard to their Faith when they support abortion because – well – the Constitution has been interpreted that way.
If that pricks your conscience, that is on you, YFC, not me. That is Faith in action, a class perhaps not slept through, but tuned out on purpose. And doubling down on one’s civics expertise will not make that disconnect go away.
AM, I have never claimed to be victimized by your comments. That would be giving your comments far too much credit. I simply ask you to not falsely accuse me of being dishonest, when all I am trying to explain to you is how our system of government works and what you need to do if you want to change it. You have to admit, ending a comment by resorting to name-calling someone you disagree with “dishonest” just isn’t even tactic worthy of true civic debate. Like it or not, the law of the land as it now stands as interpreted by the Supreme Court is that people have a right to arrange their private affairs according to their own desires. If you think women should be excluded from having that right, then you have an ability to amend the Constitution. But don’t come crying to me about being my being dishonest because I was awake that day in civics class!
YFC, I happen to disagree on numerous rulings the Supreme Court has made in the lifetime of the court. They are men and women, not God. Are you saying that because the Supreme Court has ruled, I should not therefore state my opinion?
STOP TURNING OUR TAX DOLLAS OVER TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD!!!!
I’m confused. You harshly declare, “no moral conscience” in huge capital letters. But isn’t that exactly what we have here: Catholics and (hopefully) everyone of conscience use their own consciences to choose to abort or not. And if we have formed those consciences properly, why aren’t we confident they will make the right choice?
Teach, pray, love. These seem to be more effective means to getting to what we all want, rather than rant, rant, rant.
And what of the little ones in the meantime that get killed, YFC?
Rant, rant, rant? You advocated something to the effect on another thread that only horrific parents would eject their children from the house. But you seem to have no care for those who are actually killed. I don’t understand you. Not at all.
Ann Malley, you raise a good question when you ask “And what of the little ones in the meantime that get killed, YFC?” It IS a good question, and it made me think a little bit. And I think the answer is that “Teach pray love” is still the best long term strategic question, and but that perhaps something other than rant rant rant is required for both the long term question and the short term question. Those people who are willing to adopt potentially aborted children probably have a lot to teach us about the short term question.
But I DO want to thank you for engaging a good, important question, and I do understand why you might have seen some confusion in my posts. I do want you to know that I stand by the notion that only horrific parents would eject their children from the house. It is hard for me to see how ejecting a 14 or 17 year old is morally superior to ejecting a 14 or 17 week old. If you have insight about that, let me know. I think it takes a truly cold heart to have raised a child for over a decade only to toss them to the curb like trash.
Ejecting a 14 or 17 year old from the house is no easy decision, YFC. While there are bad and/or lazy parents, to be sure, I cannot agree at the outset that it is always a vile act or that it is attributed only to the cruelty or hard heartedness of all parents. If only that were true.
Many parents suffer nightmarish treatment from their growing children. Their younger siblings suffer as well – and I mean suffer, YFC. And whereas a 14 or 17 week old child will die without parental care, the same cannot be said for every 14 or 17 year old who often seeks to provide their own rules, care, judgment, etc will not.
Many times the ‘Mom and Dad threw me out’ is really Mom and Dad gave me an ultimatum because they are at their wits end how to curb my destructive behavior. Behaviors that ‘child’ is so heart hearted in pursuing that they do not care about what effect they have on their parents or their younger siblings. (Parents have an obligation to protect their other children as well.) But the so-called rejected child often won’t tell that part of the story, just that which will make the folks out to be evil.
Often, getting booted out and living hard for a while is precisely what brings kids around. As in, they quickly come to understand that it is no easy business out in the world and they have much to be grateful to their parents for – even if that gratitude includes paying the rent of respect, obedience, and deference to the parents who raised them and cared for them since birth.
I once knew an atheist who despised Catholics and the reason was that Catholics could justify anything.
Yes, Catholics just like any other person can engage logic to justify or explain their behavior. Then again, rebellious kids often seek to justify their rebellious behavior by way of an entitlement mentality that we all as a society have to suffer under.
Increasingly indulging and funding that behavior is no charity. So tell that to your atheist friend.
If you think that there is even a remote moral equivalence between indulging and “funding” bad behavior on the one hand, and throwing your own child out onto the streets on the other hand, then I think we need an entirely different catechesis than what any of us – any of us – have been talking about on California Catholic Daily.
YFC, you need catechesis in something other than the homosexual lifestyle and being liberal to a fault. Your overly emotional tagline of ‘throwing your own child out onto the streets’ speaks of nothing but sentiment gone overboard.
You might want to step down off of ‘remote moral equivalence’ and talk to those with practical experience. Life is not some perpetual high operatic drama. There are such things as common sense, logic, and one thing naturally leading to another. Those rearing children must deal with those realities everyday, outside of emotion.
Much as you may like to believe, parents don’t typically toss their little sweetling to the street on a dime. And your attempts to paint one party, that of parents, as evil just because you may have a different view of what is evil (something perhaps that you embrace as good) doesn’t mean you are correct.
Ann Malley please stop claiming that I am painting all parents as evil, or that parents typically toss their sweetlings to the street on a dime. Fortunately, most parents are not evil. Most parents don’t toss their kids to the street. But those who do, and then turn around and claim that they are the victims, is just absurd on its face. Cruel and absurd. What parent can honestly believe that the best thing for their child is to live without a home and on the streets? Any parent who does that, and then claims to be the one victimized, really needs treatment.
YFC, you need to step back and stop taking things so personally. That is why I suggested that you might feel victimized. Because that is how you react.
I did not call you dishonest. I said the bipolar approach was dishonest. And I didn’t say that bipolar approach was your approach either. .. although you do tend to all or nothing premises when it suits.
As for your question about parents, you get the answers, honest ones, but you reject them because they do not mirror your perception of how things should be.
Prayer and/or treatment may be in order to correct that problem, unless, of course, you’re only asking to waste time and position yourself for another double down on supposedly cruel parents. Statements made, I might add, by someone with no parenting experience.
Everyone who isn’t a parent always has such great and wonderful advice and such deep and intense feelings about what it should be like to rear a child – until they actually have one and reality sets in.
Good try, friend.
“What parent can honestly believe that the best thing for their child is to live without a home and on the streets? Any parent who does that, and then claims to be the one victimized, really needs treatment.”
YFC, Heaven is your true home and yet you honestly want fellow Catholics to consider you a helpless victim and enable you to not to get to heaven. Any clergy member who tells you that your lifestyle is pleasing to God REALLY needs treatment too and yes, you also need treatment. There is not a one of us who does not need some form of treatment for a particular sin or vice but to post as a fellow Catholic while you consistently undermine the teachings clearly points to a serious disconnect that really needs treatment.
Where your heart is so is your treasure…..Matthew 6:21 Douay-Rheims
YFC, You claim to be victimized but the sad part is that you have been denied treatment by those who truly victimized you and who should have treated you with the TRUTH. Everything in your posts revolves around the perspective of first promoting homosexuality as a gift or just another norm. What faithful fellow Catholic can honestly believe that their first precious goal should be the ultimate seeking to have a society think that unnatural acts are to be viewed as a normal?
It’s quite a stretch to imagine that parents who eject their children from the house and onto the sidewalk as though they are garbage to be thrown away are victims of their own children. Have you ever met a homeless young person? Talked with them about what their life is like. I met a woman who was homeless for almost 30 years just last evening. She looked barely 30 herself, and given that the streets usually age a person, she must have been in early grade school when she was kicked out. It was at a benefit for an agency that works with these kids, and her story was amazing. Unfortunately, this agency had to reinstill the dignity that was stripped from her when she was stripped of her home by her parents. Fortunately, this agency was there to get her cleaned up, in a home, and back on track.
Do you understand that there is almost certain likelihood that these kids end up undereducated, drug addicted, chronically homeless, riddled with scabies hepatites and STDs, and a nearly permanent financial and moral burden on society? But your heart goes out for the poor victimized parents who in all likelihood psychologically and possibly physically abused their own child. Pity.
Maybe you ought to think and pray more deeply on the seamless garment.
Perhaps it is a stretch for ‘you’, YFC, but that does not mean that parents are not victimized by their own children. You need to widen your area of observation. (Remember, I was responding to your statement that it was always wrong of parents and only cruel parents would kick their kids out of the house. You do not know the circumstances of every situation, not even based on the woman you met yesterday. You also only know her side of the story. And it does, in these instances, help to hold judgment until one hears the other party.)
Maybe you should think and pray more deeply on the seamless garment and realize that parents are part of that garment, too. Children must also pray deeply on this issue and realize they have an obligation to their parents.
If you are not a parent and you have not been in the position of watching your own child or those of people close to you change in the manner I have described (due to bad friends, drugs, sex, and all manner of cultural influences coupled with the societal push to break down the familial structures and authority) that is your deficiency of experience. That does not negate the reality of teenage rebellion and oppositional behavior. Not by any means.
You seem to have a very polarized view of many things.
Evil parents need not stretch at all, Ann Malley. Just sayin.
That is not what you were saying, YFC. You said that parents who kick their children out for any reason are hard hearted and evil. That is untrue and patently unfair.
Just as it would be unfair to paint all young people who are kicked out of their parental home as deserving of said treatment. But many are, YFC, and actually ask for it with their actions. That is with their ‘choices’.
Like it or not, growing kids have free will, too, and often use it to their own detriment despite having solid parents. That’s why there are those kids who, despite having bad parents, can also turn out quite all right.
How ignorant! Learn about youth homelessness before you spout off.
It is just incomprehensible to me that you are defending parents who kick out a 14 year old onto the streets as though they are garbage. How in the name of God can you justify such a horrific thing and then claim the parents were victimized by their child.
Methinks you must have some shame in your own history, because to actually and repeatedly write posts defending such a crime says to me you must be trying to justify an action you can’t allow yourself to regret.
According to YFC any parent that does not actively their child’s lifestyle “choice” ie sexual perversion is “evil”
I’m saying parents who throw their children to the curb like garbage are evil. For whatever reason, Anonymous. If you think its ok for a child to be tossed aside, maybe you should ask yourself whether you are truly pro-life.
YFC, I was talking to Ann Malley.
No I do not believe it ever OK for a parent to throw out a minor child. It is also illegal.
I’m a parent, YFC. That is my crime. That and having actual experience in the world of rearing children and having to deal with them. Your crime seems to be promoting an excess of hyperbolic sympathy to that which is in your imagination.
And keep repeating “14 year old tossed to the street like a piece of garbage” does not equate to real life experience, good or bad. You live in a dream world, Sir, and seek to paint the characters of your so-called reality with only the colors you accept instead of what is actually out there.
Funny contradiction from someone, that is you, who is always spouting how your fellow homosexualists are so misunderstood. But nobody else is and no other situation is, I suppose.
And no, no tossing poor wee babies out on the streets in my personal history. But my husband was kicked out at 15. So weep over that. And yes, Anonymous, it was illegal.
So while you assuage yourself with being pro-life (while doing everything to dismiss the topic of unrighteous baby killing) perhaps you should ask yourself if you are pro-reality. But I can determine, at least from what you write here, that you’re not.
You may call it ignorant, Anonymous. But then your standard of ‘knowledge’ doesn’t seem to include anything outside of an Am-I-right book. Try practical experience and living the life. That might help you tremendously in relating to those who you find so outlandishly uninformed.
Love the indignant huff, btw. Fits right in with the ‘shocked’ persona.
Why do you have a need to be nasty and snide?
What kind of practical experience and living the life would make me understand a mother who would throw her minor child out of her home? It is a fault in the parent. Usually uncontrolled anger, often combined with substance abuse and/or mental illness.
Anonymous, ask yourself, “…Why do you have a need to be nasty and snide?” And why so dismissive and judgmental with regard to parents whose situations you do not know or have not had to endure. That’s the experience I’m talking about, that of having a beloved child turn into someone you no longer even know.
So easy to dismiss with ‘usually uncontrolled anger, often combined with substance abuse and/or mental illness’ the hard choices of others. Those issues of substance abuse and uncontrolled anger can often be those embraced by the minor child.
Oh that’s the same BS they say about abortion.
So Ann Malley, you are espousing a relativist view of the morality of parenthood. Let’s just be clear about that. Either it is objectively evil to toss your child to the curb when the Child is in your care and dependent, or it is not. Which is it?
You are the one who now compares it to “homosexualism”. Whatever that means (I asked for a definition and got derided just for asking). So one thing, the tossing of an dependent child to the curb, over against the capacity to love another and care for him for life. Which do you think is worse?
I’m sorry about your husband having been treated like garbage. Trust me, many gay people have been treated like garbage to as adolescents and as adults. So I know PRECISELY what reality is. And the reality is that what you call “promoting an excess of hyperbolic sympathy to that which is in your imagination” is what I call COMPASSION.
One cannot shove compassion down another’s throat, YFC and Anonymous, as what started out as a virtue can shift to that which is cloying and repellent. Those ‘children’ who exert themselves against parental authority often want nothing of being cared for – quite the opposite. That said there are times when people choose to treat themselves and their parents like garbage – by their own free will. It is incredibly sad to see. I never said btw that my husband was treated like garbage. That’s you projecting a syrupy bias, YFC. Not that I don’t believe the situation could have been handled differently. (Much like Wendy Davis who I believe dumped off the responsibility of her own child. Interesting.)
We are all children of an all loving God and yet some go to Hell. Not because God doesn’t love us enough or isn’t merciful enough. But rather because some folks just aren’t interested in what’s being offered. That’s no mark on the goodness of God, but rather a mark of human stubbornness.
Call that BS if you’d like Anonymous. But it would seem you and YFC are disinterested in discussing the reality that not all parents in the situations described are evil, ill willed, horrible, and or cruel…. they are actually respecting the free choice of another in often the toughest, most heart-rending situations.
Ann Malley, every. single. day. You and others here lecture me on the grave moral danger of loving another human being. Every. single. day. you. lecture. me.
You have no interest my real life and my situations.
Yet when YOUR real life, and YOUR situations are at play, whether it is in your attendance at congregations not in full communion with Rome or with your opinion that parents who kick their kids out of the home are the ones being victimized, then you get all “situational ethics” on me.
People smell hypocrisy a mile away, Ann Malley.
We were not discussing runaways. Teenagers can get rude. So what? Teenagers can be disrespectful. So what? They are teenagers? Teenagers can exert themselves against parental control? Especially if the parents are arbitrary or too strict. So what? This is how babies grow up. They get over it. The problem usually comes when you have a strong-willed parent vs. a strong willed child. We have had a lot of this in my extended family. The phrase “When you are 18, you can live where you want.” comes to mind. No one ever ejected a child, even after 18, because by 18, it’s long over.
Sorry, WDYJS = YFC
YFC, it’s your penchant to emotionalize and polarize with ‘all’ ‘always’ ‘never’ ‘no one’ etc that I cannot accept in your outside looking in judgments on parents. You are the only one erroneously stating that all parents are the victims in these situations. I said that not all parents in these situation are cruel and heartless. But whatever the dynamic you seem to seek the ‘victim’ to rally around in an attempt to vilify the other party and perhaps gain allies in your group of fellow victims.
And yes, Anonymous, teenagers can get rude and be rude much like adults. They can also attempt to insert everything in the home and go far beyond testing merely arbitrary rules or those that are ‘too strict’. If that is your experience, again, good for you, but thank God. Some teens are far more than just strong willed, but strong acting as well. And the ‘they get over it’ nonsense might be true with less difficult children, but it surely does not encompass all. Not by any means.
That said, I cannot help but imagine that at least a portion of homeless teens were given a choice, cease and desist some undesirable behavior or find another place to live. THAT, Anonymous, would mean the teen leaving made a choice to leave. Not that they were cast aside like garbage.
So yes, YFC = WDYJS = Anonymous, hypocrisy is stinky. Much like supporting baby killer and sodomy advocates as the Democratic party does with increasing fervor.
Her “church” allows sodomite “bishops” and, of course, baby-butchering.
Sounds like a great place for many self-proclaimed “Catholics”.
More evidence that this world has gone completely MAD………
The real shame is that this abortionist Protestant will get the votes of the majority of “Catholics” in Texas. A sad commentary on the state of the Church.
There is an old maxim which goes, ‘All is fair in love and in war’. We are at war with the abortionistas. For too long we have been dealing with them, wearing kid gloves. It seems the Church militant is dead. To be a true Catholic means we must fight the devil, the flesh and the world each day. I am glad at least some pro life groups are not pulling any punches in describing how horrible a sin abortion is, and what wicked people are behind the pro death movement.
Father Karl, all is not fair in love and war. We are not at war with abortionists. We are praying for them and trying to reduce their clientele by showing the women who are tempted to abort that they can deliver the baby and all will be OK. Please stop this rhetoric which could be used to justify acts of violence.
No Anon we are at war, deal with it especially those wonderful clipped haired ghouls with signs that read “abortion on demand and without apology” if you do not think they are evil and need to be defeated then there is something very wrong with you not Father Karl
Exactly Canisius says!
The Church militant is called the Church militant because we are to be at war with evil, Anonymous, like an army. Please stop your rhetoric of milquetoast apathy that encourages Catholics to not even use their vote as a weapon.
Even Christ Himself picked up a whip and used it when need be. Would you call Him out as inciting violence?
Ann Malley, may I gently and warmly and fuzzily remind you that in order to be in the Church Militant it is necessary for one to belong to the Catholic Church? Which means you have to attend a Catholic Church.
We are to fight evil in ourselves. It is important to use our knowledge of God’s Will to do what we can to bring about the fullness of God’s Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven to the best of our abilities. But voting is not a behavior that determines whether one is a member of the Church Militant. People in mortal sin are still members of the Church Militant. Apostates and schismatics and heretics are not. You don’t get to redefine Church Militant any more than other people get to redefine marriage.
Please do not be warm and fuzzy, Anonymous, just accurate.
People in the state of mortal sin are cut off from the Body of Christ which is why they need to receive sacramental confession prior to receiving Holy Communion. The reason being is that Holy Communion is considered a Sacrament for the living – Baptism and Confession are those sacraments open to souls who are spiritually dead (in mortal sin), their function being to give initially or to restore the state of grace. Being in the state of grace is what qualifies one as being part of the Church Militant – not sitting in the pew or giving donations or even being on the Church roles, but not showing up.
You may have been taught that voting is not sinful, but when one elects those who promote sodomy and baby killing, it certainly can be. Mortally, too. Something to think about as more and more ‘Catholics’ absolve themselves of sin while voting for that which is killing our children and perverting those who survive.
Also, you seem to miss the point that apostasy and schism and heresy separate one from the Church Militant precisely because they are considered mortally sinful. It is the state of mortal sin that cuts one off from the Church Militant. So you may want to get your definitions in order before you accuse others of attempting to redefine terms.
‘Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons…But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.As to the dead members; that is, those who are bound in the thraldom of sin and estranged from the grace of God, they are not so deprived of these advantages as to cease to be members of this body; but since they are dead members, they do not share in the spiritual fruit which is communicated to the just and pious. However, as they are in the Church, they are assisted in recovering lost grace and life by those who live by the Spirit; and they also enjoy those benefits which are without doubt denied to those who are entirely cut off from the Church.”
Read the rest in the Catechism of St. Pius V Article IV
The Sacraments of the Living are Holy Communion, Matrimony, Holy Orders and Confirmation because one must be in a state of grace to receive them fruitfully. Should one receive the Sacraments of Matrimony, Holy Orders and Confirmation when one is not in a state of grace, they are still valid but the soul will not obtain the fruit until the state of grace is restored.
Sacraments of the Dead are Baptism, Confirmation and Extreme Unction because one can receive them when not in a state of grace. They give or restore sanctifying grace.
The Church Militant is the Church on earth, still struggling with sin and temptation, and therefore engaged in warfare (Latin militia) with the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Ann Malley, the Sacrament of Penance is not valid in the eccesial communion you belong to, just a reminder. The minister of that sacrament must have valid faculties for the sacrament to be valid, and Rome has been quite clear that SSPX priests do not enjoy those faculties.
Sorry. I forgot to give my source for the post at 9:00 pm. It is Father John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary.
YFC, I would rather rely on the Church supplying in this state of crisis then placing myself beneath uncertain council, even in the confessional.
But thank you for your concern.
Thank you for the clarification on Church Militant, Anonymous. I stand corrected. And you should be comforted for I am no infidel, heretic, schismatic, or excommunicate. For whereas you mistakenly believe the society of priests I rely on for the sacraments are schismatic, they are not. But even so, I am a lay person and therefore do not qualify as an official ‘member’ of any society save the Catholic Church. So I am part of the Church Militant.
Again, thank you for the clarification.
Ann Malley, the “church supplying” is not applicable to your situation. SSPX priests are not an example of “the Church supplying”, they are an example of priests who do not have the authority to hear valid confessions and issue valid reconciliations. If you had crash landed somewhere in Borneo, and you happenned to have an SSPX priest there to hear your last confession, then the church supplied idea works. In your case, it’s just a misapplied concept that you may have been mistakenly taught.
Ann Malley, the Church does not supply in the state of crisis in the way that you intend it to mean. It is schismatic BS. That section of canon law means that if a priest is in a diocese where he does not have faculties and there is an emergency-like a dying person-he can absolve their sins with sacramental confession.
Ann Malley, of course you are a heretic. Of course, you are a schismatic. Of course, you are excommunicated.
You worship there because you think God set up an alternative Church. You refuse to join with those who worship in the Catholic Church.
You obviously don’t want what you believe to be wrong but it is.
You are no different than people who say “God would not have made me gay unless he intended me to act on it.” You are as confused as people who believe that it is wrong to legislate pro-life measures because God gave people free will. This is the same depth of your confusion and your denial and your refusal to submit to the Eternal Wisdom.
Praying for you and your family. Please go to confession with a priest who can really absolve your sins. There are many priests who can guide you back to Truth.
Ann Malley, I want to remind you that heretics don’t choose to be heretics because they want to be wrong. They sincerely believe that they are correct. Same with schismatics.
They are not bad people. They just misunderstand or misinterpret something and rather than submit to the Truth of the Catholic Faith or the surety of being in union with the Catholic Church under their local bishop appointed by and in union with the Pope, they think that they have recognized something that Rome got wrong or that Rome hasn’t realized yet or that Rome has abandoned some truth of the Faith or some practice that they want to preserve. Of course, anytime someone tries to help them, the devil instills in them a fatal pride that reignites their error and suggests to the poor soul that the one who is attempting to aid him is faulty or critical or misguided or even has ulterior motives. Please pray for humility and docility and of course in this time of novena, the gifts of the Holy Spirit: knowledge, understanding, wisdom, counsel, piety, fortitude, fear of the Lord. Please, I beg you, find a priest who is not suspended that you can trust and submit to him your spiritual life.
Ann Malley, when you go to confession, the priest there is Jesus. Do not fear uncertain counsel. You truly fear the wrong things.
YFC, you are no judge of the Church supplying in anyone’s situation.
Thank you YFC and assorted Anonymous mind readers. God bless you for your concern for me. I would that you showed equal concern for the upholding of Truth in its fullness. If such were the case, there could be true unity. But trying to explain as much to you is time wasted again and again.
That said, I think Wendy Davis had the abortion Barbie more than coming.
Sorry, Ann Malley but I have been upholding Truth all during those decades that you were not attending Church and not getting your children baptized. The reason I try to help you is to uphold Truth. It will take Divine Intervention for a post of mine to convince you to obey the Lord Holy Will because you have convinced yourself that evil is good. But maybe it will keep someone from being misled by you. Please seriously consider how you know what you are doing is wrong and that like every intrinsic evil there is no excuse for it.
Ann Malley, here is a thorough analysis of the concept of ecclesia supplet as it applies to SSPX confessions. Insult me all you want, but canon law is pretty clear on the matter: https://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/sspx_confession.html
Ah, yes, Jimmy Akin. The expert. Just keep the paycheck a-comin’ apologist. Sarcasm intended.
Fish else where for someone to play opposite your victim, YFC.
I do not understand why someone would say that the Church Militant is dead. The Church Militant is the Church on earth. It is joined with the Church Suffering in Purgatory and the Church Triumphant in Heaven. To say it is dead would indicate that the person did not really know what the Church Militant was.
Father William Most:
The Church, the Mystical Body, exists on this earth, and is called the Church militant, because its members struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil.
You can look around you, even here on CCD, and see self-proclaimed Catholics who vote in pro-abortion leadership, pro-homosexual agenda leadership, and even promote Church leadership that advocate openly against what the Church teaches and yet you do not understand why someone would say that it appears that the Church Militant is dead?
Father Karl did not say the Church Militant was dead. He said it ‘seems’ dead. And it does seem dead when one considers that these lovelies that are now corrupting our society even further were voted in by Catholics. If they are not dead, then they are certainly being lulled into coma by the pied piper who would make friends with the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Father William Most on the Church Militant:
Speaking of full membership in the Church, Pius XII, in his Encyclical on the Mystical Body, said it is the society of those who have been baptized, and who profess the faith of Christ, and who are governed by their bishops under the visible head, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome…
The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints. When St. Paul uses the word “Saints” in opening an Epistle, he does not mean they are morally perfect. He has in mind Hebrew qadosh, which means set aside for God, or coming under the covenant. Being such means of course they are called to moral perfection. But of course, not all have reached it in this world.
What Church leadership that advocate openly against what the Church teaches?
You have a long history of making false claims against the Church and its hierarchy.
I ask you to explain yourself.
I will use your own words: Do your own homework, Anonymous. Read. Listen. Seek to understand.
You might want to listen to Fr. John Hardon’s talks online if refuse to accept that there are those in the hierarchy that speak against Church teaching.
Don’t blame the messenger, Anonymous. For the long history isn’t mine.
I have done this homework many times. I have never found anything that substantiates your allegations. There was a bishop in Australia that Pope Benedict made resign because of teaching the possibility of female clergy, but he is gone. You are making very grave accusations against the successors to the Apostles. This is very sinful.
To be blunt, you have the lowest accuracy rate of any person who currently posts here on Catholic teachings. I don’t know that you thinking a bishop was advocating for things against Church teaching would mean that he actually had.
Father Hardon died 14 years ago. Some of the writings on his website go back to the 50s. You will really have to give me more than the index of archives to make your point. I love Father Hardon but I am a little leery of spending a lot of time looking for something that isn’t there. Could you narrow it down a little?
I do not deny that there were bishops that upset Father Hardon and I myself had difficulties with some of the bishops and their focus and priorities but I do not ever recall one advocating openly against what the Church teaches. (And sometimes it wasn’t the bishop but someone else at the chancery who would sometimes be later reprimanded by the bishop.) And those men are all dead except for one or two who are retired.
“…You will really have to give me more than the index of archives to make your point. I love Father Hardon but I am a little leery of spending a lot of time looking for something that isn’t there. Could you narrow it down a little?”
Anonymous, I am not seeking to make any point with you. The crisis in the Church isn’t ‘my’ point. It just is. If you are leery of seeking knowledge, then so be it. But if you ‘love’ Fr. Hardon as you say, you would do well listening to his sermons as there is much to glean from them.
And no, his is not a name names tell all, but rather a clear, insightful indication that all is not what it is made to appear to be. So even if I pointed to a talk about the crisis in the Church, you could refute it based on your standard of judgment. But how is it that you can state that you have ‘never’ found anything to substantiate ‘my’ allegations only to assert that there was the ‘one’ in Australia and then go on to say you are leery of spending time looking for what isn’t there. (You’ve already convinced yourself there is nothing there.)
It’s so easy to say nothing is wrong when we do not bother to look or to blame ‘someone else in the chancery.’ Those are cop outs, Anonymous, and can at times be considered gravely sinful depending upon one’s duty of state.
Ann Malley, you fill your head with the rebellious garbage of schismatics. You refuse to attend a Catholic Church. You attack God’s Holy Church and its ministers with lies and insinuations. You consistently post error. And you are worried about it being gravely sinful to identify who is a problem and who is not. Give me a break! You have accused the bishops of advocating openly against what the Church teaches. You got caught in your insidious attack on the Church, again. Now of course, you can never admit that there is anything wrong with you or your spirituality. You can’t even admit that you don’t go to a Catholic Church. So why would you admit that you make stuff up. Your sins mount up to the heavens and you have no way to get them absolved unless you return to the Catholic Church. Stop your attacks on Jesus Christ.
Guess you don’t love Fr. Hardon as much as you think or say you do, Anonymous. Too bad you are too lazy to fill your head with the truth, but prefer instead to believe the doublespeak that has Catholics voting for the likes of Wendy Davis. It is easier though, especially when those cozying up to the Democratic Party are Catholic bishops.
So you may be part of the Church Militant, Anonymous, but you are sound asleep and seemingly happy to be so. And it is precisely that kind of attitude that lends folks to believe the Church Militant appears dead.
Love of Christ has been replaced with love of complacency. So why not heed your own words and stop the attacks on Jesus Christ. That is the TRUTH, not individual Bishops.
Gee, now I don’t love Father Hardon, I’m lazy and I believe doublespeak and am being linked to the election of a pro-choice politician and the Democratic party. I’m not so sound asleep that I couldn’t catch another one of your false witnesses against the clergy of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Why can’t you just admit that you made it up?
Ann Malley, love of Christ has not been replaced by a love of complacency. What are you talking about? Complacency? In what? about what? Tell that to those who stand out in the rain and snow to pray during the 40 days outside the abortion clinic where the abortionist has threatened people WITH A GUN! Tell that to the people who take the night hours at the Eucharistic Adoration! Tell that to the people who sit all night with those who are dying and have no family! Tell that to those who drive 2 hours every Sunday to attend a LICIT Traditional Mass! Tell that to those who pray the WHOLE rosary daily! Tell that to the young men who get up to serve the early Mass! Tell that to the permanent deacons who spend hundreds of hours studying to become a deacon and then live their lives in service to the Church! Tell that to their wives and families! I could go on but I’ve told you more than you deserve to know because you have rejected the Holy Church of Jesus Christ.
Then trust in God instead of your own perceived superior righteousness, Anonymous. Take a page from St. Monica who learned that backing off and praying was the answer as it gives God room to work. It shows true Faith.
That said, if you believe you’re the only one with a long drive to attend Traditional Mass think again. (Again ‘k’ you must be miffed that you have to drive 2 hrs instead of attending the Society mass close by… save for the imagined feather in your cap for doing so.) But I understand getting cranky over the long drive. I miss greatly the 3 minute walk to mass I used to have and having my son serve daily…although he is able to do so now as he is not at home. I miss him very much. But am happy he is receiving the graces he needs to remain firmly inside the Holy Church of Jesus Christ.
You know not of what Spirit you are, Anonymous. And if you do perceive yourself to be more greatly blessed with Faith and fidelity, then get on your knees and thank God for His bounty during the ‘gift’ Our Lady has given you to pray the Rosary- all of it (another feather?). Do not harass others with what you prize as yours lest it be taken away.
Anonymous, the rosary IS a weapon! Why do you think the abortionists and their supporters hate it so much?!! They are at war with unborn babies and their mothers. We who pray the rosary have joined the war to defend and liberate these mothers and their babies from those evil aggressors.
Now when you said “Please stop this rhetoric which can be used to justify acts of violence”, don’t you realize that it would be more beneficial to the war effort if you had directed that comment to our opponents, (the abortionists and their supporters, such as Wendy Davis), and not to a priest who is on our side? :(
Anonymous, I don’t know about you, but I have not joined the war effort on the side of the allies solely to “reduce abortionist’s cliental”, but to save as many babies as possible from death and ultimately to see the day when their murderous business is returned to an illegal occupation!!!!!!
Re: both comments
Pray the rosary. It is the most powerful weapon, but the abortionists are not the ones we are at war with. It is the evil spirits. We pray for the abortionists to recognize the evil and convert. It is not us against them; it is us for them to Jesus through Mary.
Yes we want to save the babies. Yes we want abortion to be illegal.
All is not fair in love and war. We do not believe that anything goes in love. We do not believe that anything goes in war. We are not to sin. I’m sure that Father did not mean to encourage anything sinful.
Anonymous, I beg to differ with you, we are at war with the abortionists AND their supporters. These are either willing soldiers or slave soldiers in the army of their master the devil and they hate the rosary just like their master does. Those that are converted do learn to love it, however.
For those who tell you that the Wendy Davis Abortion Barbie posters are offensive and over the top, you should show them the latest example of how the pro-baby-killer-crowd portrays pro-lifers who dare to attempt to make abortion illegal.
This from an article posted today on LifeNews.com:
“Seeking to demonize those pro-life people and rally abortion backers to oppose Amendment 1, a political group calling itself “Tennesseans for Preservation of Personal Privacy, Inc.” paid for large ads to be placed in papers across the state on Sunday. Each ad refers to pro-life Amendment 1 as the “Tennessee Taliban Amendment” and urges voters to vote NO.”
YOU REALLY NEED TO SEE THE CARTOON WHICH ACCOMPANIES THE ADD!!! It portrays pro-lifers as a Taliban character with his face covered, stomping on a woman.
Tracy, that is because their “patron saint” is Gosnell.
“Onward Christians soldiers marching as (notice the word “as”) to war with the cross of Jesus going on before.”
Semper Fi. Hoorah!
Tracy, I guess we now belong to the official Catholic Marine Corp. (Lots of laughs). Have a great tomorrow since you will probably not read this tonight.
The Marines have the best uniforms, too, Anne T. So yes, indeed, the Catholic Marine Corp!
Anonymous writes….” I have never found “anything” (WOW) that substantiates your allegations. ”
Anonymous, How is the diabolical disorientation of the world looking so far? No evidence of any “anything” wrong there either? Anonymous, You may attempt to try and fool yourself and others but you cannot frost dung successfully. The horrific stench eventually rises through the sugary coated facade. The bride of Christ is spotless but many in authority have lost their salt and in some cases their faith. As the faithful vocal authority in the Church goes the world goes. How faithful does the world look? How faithful do our Catholic schools and institutions of higher learning look? Denial of reality goes hand in hand with the denial of truth. What delicious weakness has you so anesthetized and paralyzed to such a degree that you are consistently stumping for mediocrity instead of vigorously defending and upholding “all” of the truth. Charity is essential but false charity protects, confirms and enables unfaithfulness.
Luke 18:8 But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Catherine, good to hear from you. I’ve been concerned that you were not well or something.
Ann Malley made a specific charge: that Church leadership (I was assuming she meant the bishops) openly advocate against what the Church teaches. She could not support her charge. You have not supported it either.
I have started to search out every bishop in the US. I am searching for controversies. Most of the time the controversy involves moving priests or closing parishes or schools. Occasionally, the bishop does not live up to someone’s expectations, either by doing something or not doing something. I have still not come across any controversy involving one of them openly advocating against what the Church teaches.
Your empty rhetoric does not support that charge. Give me facts, not metaphors. Let’s deal with the truth not with exaggerated impressions. Give me the names of current bishops and what they said that advocated against Church teaching.
Thanks k for your loving concern. I mean that sincerely. I am very sorry to read that you still consider the truth rhetoric. I specifically remember that Father Hardon SJ told us that there were three cardinals who were working underground to destroy the teachings of the Church. While some of these cardinals are now retired they have all taken great efforts to promote those who also rail against the teachings of the Church while under the banner of pretending to be in full communion when it serves their agenda. Please take notice that Our Lady of Akita did not mention the specific names of the cardinals and bishops who she said were accepting compromises. Our Lady of Akita was not using rhetoric when she said the following on October 13, 1973:
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them.”
Father Hardon lived through the dark night that we all lived through. And, occasionally a shadow still appears.
Now, when one alerts the diocese to a problem, it is addressed.
The devil is implacable against souls consecrated to God (and to Mary.)
Part of his plan is to turn the faithful against the clergy, especially the bishops.
k, Father Hardon said that only heroic Catholics will survive what is to come. Father Hardon did not warn the faithful because of experiencing a dark night. Father Hardon warned the faithful because he was faithful. You also used the word “lived” through as in referring to the past tense even for yourself as if everything is now just fine. Willful blindness is not a virtue k.
“It is better that scandals arise than that the truth be suppressed.” – Pope St. Gregory the Great
Matthew 23:27 Douay-Rheims Bible
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.
Matthew 5:13 Douay-Rheims Bible
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.
Code of Canon Law – under “OBLIGATIONS and RIGHTS of ALL the CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL”
” Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church
and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
1) Those Bishops (and their Diocese Priests) who do not actively and publically encourage the literate Faithful to read the Bible and the CCC – are NOT doing their ‘first task’ jobs of teaching.
2) Those Bishops who do not teach/correct Catholics who commit public scandal remaining obstinate in grave sin, are not doing their jobs.
Code of Canon Law 915 and 1399.
3) By NOT doing their jobs (#1 & 2) many BISHOPS PROMOTE – – – DISUNITY,
and CONFUSION within the Church.
Any rational person can agree with this.
” POPE FRANCIS: The Church Needs BETTER BISHOPS; go find them ”
Anonymous seems to practice clericalism in the extreme, believing that ordination and being raised to the episcopacy somehow eliminates the potential for sinning and leading others astray.
God bless, Catherine. It’s good to see you around CCD :)
There you go again. We know that ordination does not eliminate the potential for sinning. You made a specific accusation which you cannot support. Now you want to humiliate me to distract from it. Propaganda indeed.
Thank you and God bless you!
I think the Michael McDermott rule is proven once again: it’s best not to follow Anonymous critters (nor Fellow Uninformed Catholics) down a rabbit hole. Nothing substantive advanced, plenty of vitriol though.
Thanks for the reminder, Steve Phoenix.
Dr. Anthony Daniels (hat-tip Michael McD 5/22/14): the purpose of “propaganda is not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better.”
These are the Church definitions:
CCC: ” 2089 INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
APSOTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
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.”
The Church has given Catholics the Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
There is no excuse for the literate to be ignorant of any Church teaching.
“ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine,
attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture,
the Apostolic Tradition
and the Church’s Magisterium. ” – Saint Pope John Paul II (CCC pg 5)
“….. let us ask ourselves if we have actually taken a few steps to get to know Christ and the truths of faith more,
by reading and meditating on the Scriptures,
studying the Catechism,
steadily approaching the Sacraments.” – Pope Francis, May 15, 2013.
A parent who would throw a child out of the house and call it respecting the choices of the child has some serious issues. It could be narcissistic personality disorder. People with NPD see their children as mirrors of themselves and when they don’t like the reflection they either try to break the mirror (manipulating or threatening the child to reflect what the parent wants to see) or they throw the mirror away. People with NPD only rarely can recognize that the problem is in themselves. They almost never seek help for professionals. And when they do they usually spend the whole time finding fault with the counselor.
Actually, people with NPD see everyone as a mirror of themselves.
That is why people disagreeing with them is so painful to them. The mirror reflects imperfection and they cannot tolerate that.
It is a very painful disorder with very little than can be done.
Professionals mostly recommend staying away from them, but sometimes they are family members that you cannot get away from.
They are toxic individuals that leave their loved one’s reeling in pain and confusion.
Their victim’s usually benefit from counseling but they sometimes feel too guilty to seek help and feel guilty for thinking anything bad about the NFP person.
Catholic parents, those who take seriously the duty to rear their children to love and fear God and follow His commands, seek to establish God’s image in their children – not their own. When older teens reject this teaching and seek by their own free will to introduce into the home that which is scandalous and detrimental to the sanctity of the home and the formation of their siblings and themselves are not seeking to do God’s will but their own.
Sometimes, sadly, these situations culminate in a war of wills even though the parents are the head of the home. And while parents have an obligation to care for their children, they also have an obligation to protect their younger children from corrupting influences.
So do I believe that some who consider themselves to have been tossed out have chosen to be tossed out by their choices, yes. Some priests, not counselors, may have a problem with that. Others, no. Why? Because the criteria is not modern psychology.
What part of this are you not understanding?
It’s a felony. You can go to prison.
Parents are responsible for their children and their children’s behavior until the child turns 18. You are required to support them. It does not matter what you or your priest thinks.
It’s a crime.
The criteria is not psychology, it is solely the age of the child.
Nobody is debating legality, Anonymous. That said, it’s pretty disingenuous and steeped in self interest to try and paint avoiding going to jail as being compassionate to one’s child. That’s not being the true shepherd or the true parent, but rather playing the part of the hireling.
But if your only criteria in life is what is considered a ‘crime’ by the state, that may explain why crimes against God and true Charity are committed hourly by so-called Catholics.