Refutation of a pro-choice "c"atholic

The screen shot above is from a question I posed to a pro-choice “c”atholic on another blog site. You can visit her blog here. In trying to promote a form of dialogue, I’ve invited her to this blog to view my rebuttal of her answer. Although she doesn’t really go into full detail, what she does mention raises several red flags in her understanding of the truth of the Catholic Faith. I sincerely hope that my rebuttal causes her to rethink some of her presumptions and forces her to look more intensely at Catholic teaching.

Where do you find scriptural, traditional or doctrinal works that defend both your pro-abortion stance and your assumption of being a catholic? Are there some scriptures that you can demonstrate that show that the Catholic Church is/was pro-choice?

Not so much of the Catholic Church but actual scripture from the BIBLE. 

Right off the bat, she is attempting to justify a personally held belief by simply using scripture as the only form of authority. While this is useful in understanding Christianity, what she fails to understand is that as a Catholic, there are two other forms of authority that we hold to be true; that being, the Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the Catholic Church as well as Apostolic Tradition. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Christian denomination that uses these 3 sources of authority and, it is precisely because we have 3 sources of authority that the Catholic Church is considered to be so traditional, so conservative or so “stuck in the mud.” Additionally, it is because of these authoritative sources that the Catholic Church can proclaim and teach what She teaches; we also have something that other Christian churches don’t, that is, we have the pedigree that demonstrates our direct link (via Apostolic Succession) to St. Peter and thus to Christ Himself.

Since none of these sources of authority can ever disagree – they are after all inspired by the Holy Spirit – the only way that this “c”atholic feminist can rationally substantiate and validate that being pro-abortion is acceptable for any Catholic, is by her also citing any of the Early Church Fathers who taught towards abortion as well as doctrinal evidence that the Catholic Church supports her claim in addition to using the Bible as well. Alas, she cannot do this, instead she will attempt to quote a passage of scripture and try to squeeze out her personal point of view. For more information on the Catholic Church and Her authority, click here.

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: “so that her child comes out”], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Ex. 21:22–24). 

Bible passages like works of art can look from different ways…

Let’s just stop here for a second. What she is saying here is that the Bible is open to ALL forms of interpretation, unfortunately for her, the Catholic Church – the Church she claims to be a member of – says something a little different. CCC #111 states, there are 3 criteria in order properly interpret Scripture: 1) you have to be attentive to the content, 2) read the Scripture in light of Church Tradition and 3) to be “Be attentive to the analogy of faith,” which basically means that there must be an agreement of spiritual truths that conform to God’s design and His purpose. Unfortunately, she misses the mark on all 3 criteria! #1 – she doesn’t read this passage within its proper context; it is plain to see that this passage is simply describing Mosaic Law and Justice, not the right to an abortion. I challenge ANYONE to read the whole of Chapter 21 of Exodus and demonstrate how abortion is justified! #2 – Where in the 2,000 year history is there ever any mention of the “right” to willfully chose to abort a child? Where in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers do they ever, even remotely, suggest that a woman has a right to chose whether or not she wants to be a mother? Show me whole and entire documentation please, not selective sections of writings! Lastly, #3 – How exactly is the God of Life, the God that sustains us and nurtures us, the same God who knew our name from our formation in the womb, how is it that this God who creates is somehow reconcilable with the deliberate action of ceasing the continuation of life?

This is diametrically opposed to who and what God is, it is so counter to the nature of God that this premise alone could negate the existence of the Holy Trinity as we know it! So, there you have it, you can either chose to look at SELECTIVE BIBLE PASSAGES as “a work of art” or, you can read it WITHIN ITS PROPER CONTEXT and in its entirety and fully understand what God expects of you.

…but I feel this is a sign that if you take a woman’s right to have children or not, you are dealt with harsh consequences.

No, this is stating that life must be protected, why else would there be a penalty if a woman has a miscarriage due to violence? This passage is dealing with the unintentional act of causing a miscarriage NOT the conscious and intentional destruction of life. Additionally, this is an application of the lex talionis or “"law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury, in this case, it is establishing justice for the unintentional act of creating a miscarriage.  

Now the Church change their laws several time over two thousands like allowing girls to become alter servers but forbidding women to bless the eucharist (That law is new considering the early Church was controlled by both men and women.)

While the Church does and can change Canon Law by its own authority, I seriously doubt that abortion will pop up anytime soon as acceptable actions that can be done by the laity. Pope John Paul II maintained in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) that the Bible forbids abortion in the same manner that it forbids murder but yet, YOU claim that the Bible permits a woman to chose; so who’s right, the Supreme Pontiff or you? The Catechism (#2270-2275) states clearly that human life is to be respected and protected from the moment of conception and that abortion is a moral evil, Pope Sixtus V, in the late 1500’s, set church teaching that an abortion can get you excommunicated. Hippolytus writing in 222 A.D. stated that women who have an abortion are “lawless,” St. Basil in 374 A.D. states that a woman who deliberately gets an abortion is a murderer, I could go on and on but, I won’t.

The simple fact of the matter is that I can give you mountains of examples to justify the Church’s position but all you have is one simple passage that you took a cursory reading of and, taking it wholly out of context, you try to validate your pro-abortion belief. As a Catholic, the burden of proof is on you, YOU need to show demonstrable evidence that there is room for abortion in the Catholic Church, if you can’t, then why are you even calling yourself a “c”atholic if you can’t conform to its already established doctrines? If YOU can disregard the Church’s teaching on human life, then why not disregard adultery? How about doing away with the Real Presence in the Eucharist? How about we nullify the reading of the Gospel at Mass? You see, once you start to pick and choose what YOU like and what YOU don’t like, you become a schismatic, indeed, if I were to take an educated guess, I’d say you were a pro-abortion Protestant. You also stated that the early church was controlled by both men and women...documentation please.

Another question is whether the Zygote (yes we all started as Zygotes.) is human are not. That is up for debate…

Actually, it’s not. The Catholic Church has followed the explicit instructions handed down to it via Sacred Tradition since the beginning. Look at the Didache, written in the early 1^st century, in Chapter 2:2 it reads:

“...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”

That very first statement for the defense of life is the starting point for one reason that the Church views that life begins at conception. Furthermore, the untold truth about this Catholic teaching is that its condemnation of abortion are philosophical and humanitarian, based on the right to life of innocent human beings.

…but Scripture has pointed that we are born with sin, obvisouly original sin. Surely, because of the death of Jesus, we are free from original sin…

This is where I will ask with all sincerity: Are you really a Catholic or a pro-abortion Protestant that is pretending to be Catholic in the hopes that many will believe your heretical lies? The reason why I pose this question to you is for the plain and simple fact that: WE ARE NOT FREE FROM ORIGINAL SIN BECAUSE OF JESUS’ DEATH, we are freed from original sin BECAUSE OF BAPTISM, which washes it away. CCC #1213  states:

“...Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission...”  

At #1263 it says:

“By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin…”

So, sorry, but you are mistaken about the nature of Original Sin and the Sacrament of Baptism.

...thus we don’t have to worry about unborn fetuses going to hell because they are with sin because Jesus already saved us.

Looks like you may have to rethink that notion now in light of the fact that Jesus does not “undo” Original Sin, this statement you made makes no sense. If in fact unborn fetuses are with sin but Jesus has already saved them, then how do you explain what happens in 2 Samuel 12:14 where God tells King David that his first born will die because of David’s adulterous and murderous ways? Was this first born child saved by Jesus even though Jesus still hadn’t been born, crucified and died for us yet? Wouldn’t this mean that David’s first born child went to hell? Wouldn’t this also mean that the very first heir of King David – the child who would’ve had as his (or her) birthright the throne of Israel - is, right now, burning in hell because of what his (or her) father did? How is this justified through God’s eyes? I would really like to know how you would answer this.

Moving on, let me ask you yet another question, you made the statement, “Jesus already saved us” does that mean that none of us are going to hell because we’re already saved? Does solely believing in Jesus save us? Or, is it our faith what saves us? If you do believe that Jesus has already saved you then my question to you is this: Are you dead? Because the only way to truly know if you are saved is if you’ve already received eternal life. Are you really sure YOU’RE saved? In Matthew 24:13 Jesus says that Christians must endure to the end for salvation and in Revelation 2:10 Jesus says to be faithful until death, why would Jesus say this if you are already saved? In Philippians 2:12 St. Paul says to “workout your salvation with fear and trembling,” why didn’t he just mention that he was already saved in the same manner that YOU are stating? In 2 Timothy 4:7  St. Paul says that he has fought the good fight and completed the race and HAS KEPT THE FAITH, if he was already saved and he was assured of his salvation, why did he even bother to mention that? After all that St. Paul went through even he didn’t have assurance! How can YOU be so sure that you are saved? If we are indeed saved, then isn’t Satan wasting his time? Why should we bother praying? Why worship? Why go to Church? Still don’t believe me? Then look at what Hebrews 10:26-27 says:

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

The grace to come to salvation is a free gift. We are to cooperate with that gift in order to attain salvation. Automatically meriting salvation by virtue of faith is a wholly alien concept within Catholicism.

Also, Catholics believe that our bodies are disposable but not our souls.

Clearly, you have never heard of or unaware of the Theology of the Body. You see, the Catholic Church has this crazy view that the human body came from God (crazy right?!?!) and, it is in His image (weird right?). Since it is a creation of God, are you completely certain that it is just simply disposable? Is your body disposable right now? Was Jesus’ body, as it lay in the tomb, disposable? Are all of God’s creations therefore also simply disposable like disposing of a chopped up post-aborted fetus in a trash can? If the body is in fact disposable, then it means nothing, I would suggest to you that the human body means way more than what you think it means. St. Ambrose of Milan contended that the body can be made perfect by chastity and consecration, in this perfect type of body God can will all things as well  

Our bodies are a vessel or vehicles for the souls. Hence Catholics are so conscious about bodies because we have to “return to” when Jesus will rise us from the dead but hasn’t he done that already the moment we die, we enter a new life and join Jesus in paradise already?

Once again, you are assuming that YOU are saved and that when we die Jesus rises us up and take us all to heaven. Well, what about purgatory? Or have YOU chosen not to acknowledge this Divinely revealed truth? The assumption that you are saved is not only unbiblical, it goes against what the Church has always taught. Let’s see what the Church Fathers had to say about salvation:

“It is certain that few are saved.” -Saint Augustine

“What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! -Saint John Chrysostom

“Christ's flock is called "little" (Luke 12:32) in comparison with the greater number of the reprobates.”-Saint Bede the Venerable

“The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed.”-Saint John Mary Vianney

“The number of the elect is so small — so small — that, if were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world!”-Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

“How few the Elect are may be understood from the multitude being cast out.”-Saint Hilary of Poitiers

So then, the Catholic Church does not teach in automatic salvation based on faith alone, Catholic Tradition holds the same view (as just demonstrated) and, biblically speaking, automatic salvation doesn’t hold water (as demonstrated earlier). How exactly sure are you that YOU are automatically saved and destined for heaven?

Souls enter the body for a period of time and leave the body whenever.

No, not whenever but, when God decides so. As CCC #2258 states plainly (with my emphasis):

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

I, personally, believe when a baby is born, they receive their soul the moment they take their first breath.

So, in other words, YOUR belief trumps the truth of Divine Revelation? Pray tell, where exactly could we find this belief? Is it biblical? It wouldn’t happen to be from a simple cursory-out-of-context reading of Genesis 2:7 would it? It states:

…the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

Is this how you are attempting to support your notion that life begins when you draw your first breath? Well, let’s examine this passage within its original and contextual concepts; The Hebrew term used in Genesis 2:7 for breath is “ruach” which, coincidentally, is also the same word for “spirit.” So, what is being said here in the creation narrative is that God not only infuses man with mortal life but spiritual life as well – not from the moment of physical birth but even before that. Hence, even before a physical birth, God has already formed a new life of whom he already knows (Jer.1:5), who He has already “breathed life” into. Thus, to state that life only begins when a child physically breathes - from a biblical stand point is nonsensical and takes away from the Creator the very act of creating perfectly.

They are animated and are now born.

As I’ve demonstrated, children are alive before they are born. If indeed animation is a trait of life – and it is – then when do we see movement in life? Any biology book will tell you that as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, it begins to divide, that is, it has movement. So, by your own definition then, could we not state that life truly does begin at conception when the movement of cell division occurs?

But when we die, we have our last breath and release our soul in the air, leaving our bodies behind. Bodies of the dead are called “lifeless” because they took their last breath and their souls have abandon them. A soul is not bound to the body for eternity.

It is plainly obvious that you cannot defend your personally held position of being both pro-choice and Catholic for you fall into too many self-inflicted traps due to your illiteracy of the Catholic faith:

1) You cannot cite any specific Catholic teaching to support your argument for being pro-choice

2) You attempt to legitimize your argument – that a person can be pro-choice and Catholic – on the basis of proof reading 2 verses of Sacred Scripture taken completely out of context and twisted to conform to your liking without ever taking into consideration the proper way of interpreting Scripture.

3) You grossly and obscenely misunderstand simple Catholic truths (i.e. Original Sin, Salvation, Damnation, when life begins) to the point of total ignorance.

Do tell us why we should believe what you believe and do demonstrate to us why the Catholic Church is wrong ONLY AFTER you have a better grasp at what it is that you are trying to attack. As such, without you knowing theological principles behind the teachings of the Catholic Church, you not only have no room in the conversation but, you relegate yourself into idiotic banality.

I pray that you do your homework and really look at the issue and, more importantly, understand the issue from the Catholic Church’s perspective, that is, from the perspective of truth handed down to us from the authority of Christ’s One True Church and not from the ideology of feminism.

The slow descent into evil via the heresies of Protestantism on full display

Here are 3 examples of what happens when a church has no authority whatsoever. Since they can basically do whatever they want, they can even go so far as to accept basic intrinsic evils, that is, things or actions which by their very nature are evil.

Episcopal Church leaders set to consider blessing rite for homosexual couples

Sixteen fractious years after it allowed the ordination of homosexuals, the Episcopal Church appears poised to adopt a blessing rite for same-sex couples wishing to wed...

...Advocates of the blessing - already written, down to the "We have gathered here today" and "I do" and the exchange of rings - stress that it is not a sacrament and would not confer "marriage" on the couple.
Episcopal Church law defines marriage as the union of man and woman, and there are no plans to change that this year.

So, the Episcopal church that started to allow "ordained" - and I do use the term loosely - homosexuals and now, 16 little years later, they are blessing homosexuals who have chosen to commit sodomy and engage in what is clearly condemned not only in the Bible but throughout Christian history. So, why is this "blessing rite" a bad thing? Well, let's look at the Presbyterian Church of the USA. Note my emphasis.

Lesbian reverend at heart of Presbyterian gay marriage quandary

As the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.'s legislative body considers this week whether to allow ministers to perform same-sex marriages, Reverend Jane Spahr will not be present. But in some ways she will be at the center of the proceedings.

Spahr, a 69-year-old lesbian evangelist who has defied the church and been rebuked by a church court for performing same-sex weddings in California, has been an outspoken advocate for liberalizing church policy on weddings.

The Presbyterian Church allows ministers to bless same-sex unions but prohibits them from solemnizing such civil nuptials. But at its biennial convention, which is being held in Spahr's native Pittsburgh, church leaders are debating whether to change that and may reach a decision this week.

One proposal is to change how church doctrine defines marriage. Another would interpret the constitution's language on marriage as descriptive, rather than prohibitive, and allow pastors in states where gay marriage is legal to immediately begin performing same-sex weddings.

Notice several things: 1) the Presbyterian church, much like the Episcopalians, allow openly gay men and women to be "ordained" - once again, I use the term very loosely. 2) The Presbyterians are one step ahead of the Episcopalians in that they already bless gay unions. 3) What follows from these is the natural inclination toward accepting same-sex marriages, thus, the Episcopals are merely a couple of year away from performing same-sex marriages, and why not? These Protestant denominations have long ago thrown out the practice of having a celibate priesthood, a male-only priesthood, heterosexual men be their only form of priests, and of not accepting contraception as the evil that it is. It is from this last point that we can trace the steps towards damnation. R. Albert Molher, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently stated in an article the following:

Can Christians Use Birth Control?

The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age - and one of the most omnious. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.

Most evangelical Protestants greeted the advent of modern birth control technologies with applause and relief. Lacking any substantial theology of marriage, sex or the family, evangelicals welcomed the development of "The Pill"...

...For many evangelical Christians, birth control has been an issue of concern only for Catholics. When Pope Paul VI released his famous encyclical outlawing artifical birth control, Humanae Vitae, most evangelicals responded with disregard - perhaps thankful that evangelicals had no pope who could hand down a similar edict. Evangelical couples became devoted users of birth control technologies...

...we must start with the rejection of the contraceptive mentality that sees pregnancy and children as impositons to be avoided rather than as gifts to be recieved, loved and nurtured...

...we should look closely at the Catholic moral argument as found in Humanae Vitae. Evangelicals will find themselves in surprising agreement with much of the encyclical's argument. As the Pope warned, widespread use of the Pill has led to "serious consequences" including marital infidelity and rampant sexual immorality. In reality, the Pill allowed a near-total abandonment of Christian sexual morality in the larger culture. Once the sex act was severed from the liklihood of childbearing, the traditional structure of sexual morality collapsed...

...the Bible must be the ruling authority. For most evangelicals, the major break with Catholic teaching comes at the insistence that "it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life." That is, that every act of marital intercourse must be fully and equally open to the gift of children. This claims too much, and places inordinate importance on individual acts of sexual intercourse, rather than the larger integrity of the conjugal bond.

The focus on "each and every act" of sexual intercourse within a faithful marriage that is open to the gift of children goes beyond the biblical demand...

...Christian couples are not ordered by Scripture to maximize the largest number of children that could be conceived...

...evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed...

...Therefore, Christians may make careful and discriminating use of proper technologies, but must never buy into the contraceptive mentality.

Wow. Simply amazing. The President of the Seminary of the 2nd largest group of Christians actually admits that those crazy Catholics have it right in stating that contraception leads to other evils (see here) BUT, he stops just short of fully accepting the truth as it is laid out right in front of him. Talk about being stubborn, and that final statement, what a way to straddle the fence! On the one hand, don't buy into the contraceptive mentality but on the other hand, you can use contraceptives. W...T...F? How is this possible?

Mr. Mohler made it a point to distictively set Catholics apart from Protestant when he said that Humanae Vitae went too far in asking all Christians not to use contraceptives and that every time a married man and women share in the congugal act, it must remain open to life, always. This is, apparently where the Southern Baptist HAVE TO draw the line, because to agree with this Catholic statement is to agree with a whole slew of Catholic thought and teaching. This is where Mr. Mohler attempts to reconcile heretical beliefs with reality. He states that Catholic view "goes beyond the biblical demand" but, what he is stating is an absolute fallacy: Use contraceptives because you can but don't used them IF they're abortifacients and IF they somehow in some manner might, perhaps, contradict YOUR PERSONAL religious convictions which may or may not be acceptable as a Christian. In other words, Mr. Mohler doesn't even know if contraception is evil or not!

Instead of erring on the side of caution, he instead leaves it up to the Protestant to decide for themselves. No other explaination is needed other than this to sum up what Protestantism is: a personal conviction of a religious Christian belief with a collection of books canonized by the Early Catholic Church minus, 7 books. This is what having no authority breeds, it breeds ever increasing docrinal changes that are usually of Ceasar and not of God. Think about it, how much is the Episcopal and Presbyterian church willing to change? At this point anything is possible! Why their whole liturgy and worship could change and it would be perfectly fine, they could give Communion - and I do use the term in the loosest possible manner - to a dog and it would be okay. Have sex out of marriage? Don't worry about it, you're not sinning, because everyone is doing it just make sure you don't have a baby out of wedlock and don't become part of the contraceptive culture! What a joke, honestly, in 100 years would modern day Episcopalians and Presbyterians church members even be able to recognize their church? Would it even matter by then?

This is why the Catholic Church is what she is, the pillar and foundation of truth and, as such, the truth NEVER CHANGES. If Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, then He too can never change. If in fact all of these Protestant groups claim to be following Jesus, then why must they constantly change and update their fallacious doctrines to be in tune with society? Were they wrong in what they penned originally, because if that is the case, then they never had the Spirit of truth to begin with, right? Are they wrong now and simply biding their time until the next great societal change occurs so they can adapt their teachings to it and continue to evolve as a church?

The simple fact that Mr. Mohler can't address these questions and leaves the artificial contraceptive question obscenely open to interpretation could only lead a rational Christian to conclude that IF contraception could be construed to be a sin, why even entertain it?  IF there is the slightest chance that contraception could take you away from God, why even gamble on that assumption? How interesting that these Protestant churches could so easily look at evil in the face an yet not recognize it. As Matthew 7:16 says:

By their fruits, you shall know them.

Quite frankly, I've never been too fond of eating rotten fruits, are you?

Young priest lays the smack down on LCWR schismatics!

NOTICE: Video has been taken down. Click here to view.

Look good and look hard. For what you see here is the definition of what a priest should be: knowledable, compassionate and not quick to shy away from defending the faith! The video is a bit long but definitely worth viewing.

As a side note, I did a little investigative work on who Kim Franke - the organizer of this rally to support the LCWR sisters in their fight against the Vatican  and the main woman in the video - and I found some interesting things about her. To begin with, she's a member of Call to Action.

Just who are the Call to Action group? Well, according to their website's FAQ section, we read this:

Our vision is broad and rooted in the gospel message of justice. We hope for a Catholic Church where:

 - the call for justice in church and society is the church’s major priority,
 - the church is called to be a model of openness and justice at all levels,
 - theologians and church institutions are called to be free in their search for the truth,
 - laity and clergy are to be consulted in the formulation of church doctrine and discipline, including human sexuality, academic freedom, roles of the laity and liturgical issues,
the priesthood is open to all people: single, married, women, men,
 - the people of a diocese should be consulted in the selection of their bishops.

So, in their call for justice, they are demanding that: Church's should be "free to seek out" whatever it is that they think might be the truth, that regular shlubs (who may or may not have ANY idea of Church History or Doctrine) should have input as to what constitutes official doctrine and what doesn't, THE SACRAMENT of Holy Orders should include priestesses and married men and women and, the regular shlubs (who may or may not have ANY idea of Church History or Doctrine) should be consulted as to who becomes the bishop of the diocese. Wow. You wanna talk about heresy, here it is in plain view for all true Catholics to see!

This group of so-called Catholics want so have Jesus in their own way, additionally, they want the Catholic Church to hand over its full fleged authority to the laity because apparently only the laity know where the resources of our Holy Mother Church could be best distributed AND, to top it all off, they want priestesses as well as the power to select their favorite pro-LCWR/gay/women's ordination/insert-your-heresy-here bishop who, naturally, will do their will at the local parish level and bring a sense of gravitas to their heretical justifications.

Is it any suprise that in 2006, the Vatican supported a call to ex-communicate all members of Call to Action in Nebraska? Want to hear more heretical ideas from Kim Franke? In the Detroit, Michigan chapter of Call to Action, we read in the following exerpt, written by Eileen Burns a staunch supporter of women's ordination. In it we read that (with my emphasis):

In his book, The Future of the Eucharist, (Paulist Press, 1997) Bernard Cooke broadens our understanding of “real presence” and extends the concept to include Christ’s dynamic presence in the community. Cooke believes that while individuals may have specific functions at the Eucharist, the entire community performs the eucharistic action (pg. 32). If this is so, then the community gathered is the celebrant of the Eucharist. It is the community that “does” the Eucharist. This is another example of a type of intentional community. Kim Franke and Jim Rose, co-chairs of the Kalamazoo branch have worked to form an intentional community for a number of years, and now a seed of hope is germinating. “We began out of our frustration with parish liturgies that were not inclusive, nourishing or life-giving,” said Kim. “We are all tired of wasting time, energy and talent on trying to influence the hierarchy.” The group meets twice monthly to break celebrate Eucharist, open Scripture and enjoy one another’s company...

...The CTA-MI Board of Directors is committed to helping facilitate this process for anyone trying to form an intentional community...people are looking for communities that provide spiritual support and nourishment. “What could bring us together is dealing with our grief in losing our Church,” said one presenter.

Simply amazing. These heretics not only want to take away all of the graces that make the Catholic Church unique in every way to all other Christian denominations but, they also want to re-vamp the litugy of the Eucharist as well. Don't be fooled, these heretics are only out to destroy the Church, Her flock, Her message and Her teachings. They are a force of evil which seeks to undermine the Catholic Church's sole prerogative of getting souls into heaven, as such, this is a dangerous group of anti-Catholics heretics which need to be confronted and called out by what they are!

Kudos to the true light of Christ as it shone through the words of this young priest, let's continue to pray for more seminarians, deacons and priests like him. Awesome job Father! You've convinced me to go bone up on my Vatican II knowledge!

This Sunday at Mass, see if you can spot the "c"atholic dissenter in the pews

From article, read it in full here (gay website):

Yellow Ribbon Campaign Seeks Catholic Support for Gay Rights

A new campaign from the Las Memorias Project, which works to prevent HIV among Latinos, asks Catholic parishioners to wear yellow ribbons to support LGBT rights.

The Yellow Ribbon Campaign seeks supportive Catholic leaders who will show support for LGBT people and opposition to the Catholic church's antigay policies by wearing a yellow ribbon during Sunday services throughout the summer. In an open letter, Las Memorias Project's Richard Zaldivar writes, "[T]here is a campaign by conservative bishops to challenge our movement for wellness and equality for members of our community. [They] are using the pews of the Catholic Church to promote a political agenda. Church should not be used for politics nor should it be to prevent wellness in our community.

So it seems that the big, bad, judgmental, Catholic Church is at it again and needs to be called out for their abusive anti-gay and hate filled policies! NOT! This type of foolishness really makes me laugh and yet, I can’t help but to have pity when I read this about movement's analysis of Catholic teaching. You see, I laughed because it’s almost comical that the people behind this whole “yellow ribbon” campaign haven’t the slightest idea nor an inkling of, what Catholic doctrine is, nor what it says. And that’s part that also makes me sad...Let me explain.

This article says that the group, Las Memorias Project, is campaigning against the conservative bishops challenge to their movement for wellness and equality. A look at Las Memorias’ website, will reveal that they mostly deal with the GLBT Latino community and devote much of their time to HIV/AIDS related work. According to their mission statement, they are:

“...dedicated to promoting wellness and preventing illness among Latino populations affected by HIV/AIDS by using the inspiration of The AIDS Monument as a catalyst for social change.”

Truth be told, I can admire this group for its outreach into the HIV/AIDS cross-section of America in order to help them through the difficulties that they encounter due to the disease. Honestly, a more noteworthy reason, I cannot find. But, to use that as the soapbox from which to slam the Church because it doesn’t agree (nor will it ever) with the homosexual lifestyle, well now, it seems I should clear a couple of things up. To begin with, let’s address, the elephant in the room. Let’s talk about the Catholic Church and homosexuals. That’s right, I went there.

If no other document was to be mentioned, one only need to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358-2359 where it says (with my emphasis):

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

In these 3 paragraphs, the Catholic Church lays out not only what the official teaching for homosexuality is but, it also states unequivocally that homosexuals 1) cannot be ignored, they too are children of God, 2) should not be unjustly discriminated against, 3) that they are called to live chaste lives (like all non-married heterosexuals) AND 4) to bind themselves to Christ’s sacrifice so that they may be able to attain the gift of eternity with God. But we also have other sources, let’s see what the Church said in 1975 when the document Persona Humana, which looked at sexual ethics from a Christian point of view – was published. In Section 8 we find (with my emphasis):

“In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence.”

So, once again, the Catholic Church is reiterating that homosexuals MUST be treated with respect. Yup, sounds distinctly anti-gay to me.  >insert sarcasm here<

This is the reason that the pro-gay anti-Catholics really do crack me up. They start out by calling the Catholic Church intolerable and unaccepting of their agenda without ever having done any homework on WHY the Church teaches what it teaches. Indeed, how ridiculous! Do cut down the Church – if you must – only AFTER you know why it is that She states what She states, at least then there’s room for discussion and, perhaps, elucidation but, to unabashedly look down upon a religious institution’s teaching without ever really knowing or respecting why it teaches so is not only ignorant but cynically evil.

The director of this group also states that the Church is “using the pews of the Catholic Church to promote a political agenda.” Ok, let’s examine that accusation. What issues is the Catholic Church against that pro-gay activist might have a gripe against? The only two political hot buttons that come to mind that involve the Catholic Church are: the contraception mandate and gay marriage. So then, since contraception can’t be gripe of homosexuals, the main issue that they must have here has to do with same sex marriage. Another indicator that this is in fact the grievance that will manifest itself at a pew near you this upcoming Sunday is the fact that the heretical group Catholics for Equality and Social Justice are officially sponsoring this campaign against the truth. Let’s click on the link mentioned in the article for this group and see if they can shed some light on this matter.

 

Hmmmm…“Fortnight for Freedom?”

Sounds distinctly homophobic to me!!!      

Oh well, would you look at that. A pro-gay Catholic group. Just for fun, let’s see what their mission statement says (my rebuttal in red):

Catholics for Equality empowers pro-equality Catholics to put our faith into

ethical and effective political action on behalf of the LGBT community and their families.

Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, grounded in the Gospel message of Love (what about Divine Judgment for going against God’s Word? Methinks whoever wrote this mission statement forgot that close to 90% of the teachings we have of hell, damnation, Gehenna, etc., come directly from the mouth of our Blessed Lord Himself) , American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people of any religious group in the U.S. (so then, this makes it okay to go against Church teachings, right?)

Yet the official voice of the hierarchy increasingly advocates discrimination (uh, actually it doesn’t. What it does oppose is unjust discrimination and homosexual acts as quoted above) and opposes reasonable measures to secure basic freedoms for LGBT Americans (because homosexuals aren’t on T.V., in the music industry, nor are they in politics. They also can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t own a home, can’t start their own business, and they certainly can’t find jobs, right?).  Far too often, the anti-freedom voice of the hierarchy is portrayed as representing the moral values of American Catholics. (Far too often, the anti-Catholic voice of American “c”atholics is portrayed as represent the moral values of the Church’s hierarchy)

We believe this trend is a repudiation of Catholic belief (really? This repudiation is by-product of horrible catechesis coupled with heretical groups, such as yourselves, injecting venom into Christ’s One True Church) in the inherent dignity of every person. It further contradicts the American values of fairness and equality for all citizens under the law enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Well, okay, so they didn’t reflect ANY of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. Let’s check their FAQ and see…

Okay…Nothing really overtly Catholic here, let’s have a look over here…

Indeed, this IS the problem

AHA! There it is! These people are not Catholics, they’re just heretics who think gay marriage is a good thing and, in accepting that intrinsic evil, they’re promoting homosexual acts. Sorry, not Catholic. This group couldn’t be further from the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality; instead of preaching chastity, they encourage “safe” sex for homosexuals via condoms and free clinical services. Instead of telling a person who has same-sex attraction to pray and join themselves with Christ’s message and suffering, they tell them that they have the right to THE SACRAMENT of marriage. What a joke.

So, now you know. If this weekend, you happen to see a fellow parishioner wearing a yellow ribbon, do ask them if they stand for or against the Church’s teaching on THE SACRAMENT of marriage. Quote them all of the aforementioned sources as well as Matthew 19:3-12 & CCC #1603. Ask them why they disagree with the AUTHORITY that Jesus invested upon His Church. Keep them on the subject and don’t let them wander into some other topic and, above everything else, do so with charity and kindness in your heart. Remember, this nominal Catholic that you are talking to is a fellow brother/sister-in-Christ and deserves respect. Also, you are doing this in order to correct them not to anger them, as 2 Thessalonians 3:15 states:

“Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.”

Pray for our misguided brothers and sisters that they may have, not only the strength, but the courage to fight evil and truly proclaim the truth found in Jesus. As well as to be humble enough to acknowledge the fact that the Catholic Church was the only Church that was solely entrusted to advance His message.

A Eucharistic retreat at Kamiti Maximum
Security Prison in Nairobi, Kenya

Nuns on a Bus = Nuns for heterodoxy = Nuns for hypocrisy

Let’s stop for a moment and pretend that the LCWR isn’t under current Vatican reproval for demonstrating lax leadership with Church doctrine and even encouraging heretical behavior. For argument’s sake, let’s also say that these “radicalized” feminist nuns aren’t radical nor feminists at all and that they take Catholic teaching at face value. Additionally, let’s assume – if just for a moment – that the LCWR is in 100% accord with the Church and that there is nothing wrong with the Sister’s works and ministries.

A group of women religious have recently decided to go on a 9 state bus tour. This group, called NETWORK, has gone off to these states to protest the Republican’s proposed budget which, according to NETWORK’s website, will "harm millions of people."  They are attempting to highlight the fallacies of Representative Paul Ryan's (a Catholic and primary author of the proposed budget) view of Catholic Social Teaching. Click here to see the head organizer of the Nuns on a Bus tour on MSNBC’s Ed Shultz show.

Because there's no better way to protest

2,000 years of authority and established

Church teachings then with balloons and posters.

Like I stated, let’s throw out all of the questionable actions that some of the American nuns are currently facing and let’s dig deeper into what these nuns are really doing. The organizer of this bus tour, Sister Simone Campbell, in the numerous interviews (also here) that she’s done about this bus tour, has greatly criticized Rep. Ryan’s take on Social Teaching; indeed, I could argue that she not only cuts him down but insists that Ryan’s personal interpretation is diametrically opposed to what the Church teaches. How ironic, the very same group of women religious which the Vatican says is misinterpreting Catholic teaching, is the very same group that has honed in on Rep. Ryan for abusing his office and falling into heterodoxy!  

The interesting thing about all this is the fact that Sr. Campbell isn’t much for orthodoxy herself. In June of this year while speaking at a Jesuit parish in Charlotte, she was hesitant to call herself pro-life. The Charlotte diocesan newspaper reported that:

…She has avoided framing social justice concerns as "pro-life" issues, she said, "because I don't want to be thought of as in (the pro-life) camp. Because of my pride, as opposed to my faith."

Canada’s National Post, quoted Sr. Campbell as saying that the current situation between the LCWR and the Vatican is,

“It’s a clash of monarchy versus democracy. It’s not about faith. It’s culture.”

In other words, the Vatican is a monarchy, which is bad and the sweet, innocent, dissident nuns are the democracy that represents the laity, which is good. Sorry Sister but that analogy is far from being apt. The Church isn’t a monarchy nor is it a democracy, it’s the body of Christ who has been given the AUTHORITY to proclaim what is and is not Church teaching; you either accept or reject the Truth as it is handed down from the Magesterium or, not. It’s really very simple, if you chose not to then, don’t question when a bona fide source of AUTHORITY of the Church calls you out on it.

Atthe very heart of the matter, herein lies true issue: while the majority of nuns do excellent charitable work in servicing their communities, the ultimate source of the fundamental truth of servicing others comes through Christ and FROM HIS CHURCH. I simply have to wonder, if I decided that I didn’t like the rules at my job and decided to skew them to conform to my views, how long would it be before I would have to look for a new job? However dedicated to her religious life, doing a few good things NEVER erases rejecting Christ and His Church.

But I digress. Back to the whole reason for this bus tour. In an interview with – of all people – Steven Colbert, Sr. Campbell stated that:

“[Ryan’s budget] undermines the whole fabric of our society.”

Well now, let’s be a little intellectually honest here. To begin with, there are A LOT of other issues which I think undermine our society, one of them being abortion. Hell, you can’t have a society without people, right? So that is why it simply dumbfounds me that this so-called nun would call out Rep. Ryan for his twisted belief on Catholic Social Teaching and yet have the audacity to accept an award for her work in the Healthcare Reform law by none other than pro-death and pro-gay marriage “c”atholic politician, Nancy Pelosi!

That’s right, the good Sister sees nothing wrong with Rep. Pelosi’s blatant mangling of Church teaching but, if it’s a lay Catholic politician attempting to inject his personal beliefs into a budget proposal, well then, this cannot stand! Oh no! How dare he, a simple lay person trying to interpret what the Church teaches? Sisters unite! It’s time to get on the bus against this monstrosity of a bill!

How hypocritical that she would receive an award for legislation that is currently FORCING, er, excuse me, “mandating” the Catholic Church to go against its core teachings on the evils of contraception and yet she and her ilk get in a tizzy when a Catholic politico uses doctrine to form a bill. In an interview with PBS, Sister Campbell was asked about then Senator Joe Biden, also a “c”atholic, and his faith, she said:

“…it’s been hard to talk about our faith in a public forum because we believe that it’s the living of our faith, that is the key issue. But what I’ve seen in Senator Biden is quite touching…he’s a man of real practical faith, problem solving engagement and, he’s smart too.”

A man of practical faith? Do tell then good Sister, where was his practical faith when he wholly endorsed gay marriage earlier this year? Correct me if I'm wrong but, wouldn't a man who practices his Catholic faith have to be (by its very nature) against gay marriage? Was Biden living out his faith in a public forum when he said he “fully understands” China’s need to force abortions upon Chinese women due to their one-child-only policy? Was it quite touching when Biden admitted that the Obama-Administration “screwed up” on protecting rights of conscience when they issued its controversial contraception mandate? Hey Sister, much like Rep. Ryan, I too am a lay Catholic but, even I can see that these issues – which apparently you don’t take to task – ARE ENTIRELY AGAINST CHURCH TEACHING. 

But here’s the real kicker. The GOP-backed Ryan budge is simply a proposal. Let me state that again…PROPOSAL. As in, not a law. As in, a good educated take on the subject. As in, hey this is our idea, where’s yours? Indeed, that is the question, did President Obama submit a proposal for a budget? Oh yeah, he did and it got voted down unanimously in the Senate 99-0! Well how about the Senate, surely the chamber that the Vice President is head of must’ve submitted a budget, right? Oh yeah, that’s right, over the past 3 years, THEY HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE A BUDGET. In case you’re wondering, that's over 1,130 days without one. I guess it's better NOT to have a viable and working budget than one with hints of Catholic doctrine in it, the less fortunate are much better off this way, right Sister?

 

As stated in the beginning, if we rejected all of the accusations of flaccid adherence to Catholic teaching that are being put against the LCWR, what are we left with? Let’s reconcile: we have a Catholic politician who is against abortion and gay marriage and has attempted to insert part of Catholic teaching into a bill in the public arena for all to see. We have, on the other hand, other “c”atholic politicians who are against Catholic teaching on marriage, the validity of life and the usage of contraception as well as having been negligent in passing a budget per the Constitution of the United States. The crux of NETWORK’s argument against Rep. Ryan is thus unsound.

They claim that such a budget bill will harm millions of people across the country yet, why no bus tour into 5 out of 9 Presidential battleground states against “c”atholic politicians who are for gay marriage? Why no bus tour into Presidential battleground states against “c”atholic politicians who are for abortion? Why no bus tour into Presidential battleground states against “c”atholic politicians who are in favor for the contraception mandate? If in fact part of Catholic Social Teaching is to treat everyone equally, well then Sister, consider yourself the true definition of not only a heretical nun but, a hypocrite as well. Say a prayer for these nuns that they may open their hearts to Jesus and His One True Church. 

Ironically, there is more hot air and less weight

in their arguement then there is in those balloons.

The Catholic Mass. Wherever, when ever and in perpetuity

 

From fallibleblogma.com:  There is an estimated (at least) 350,000 Catholic Masses celebrated every day on planet Earth. It is celebrated in every nook and cranny on the planet, by every race and nationality, and using every language. And each of these Masses is celebrated (generally) using the same scripture readings and the same prayers.

Every single one of these 350,000 Masses is actually doing exactly what Jesus said to do in scripture (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:23-29) when he said “Do this in memory of me.” Catholics live that out as a Church over 350,000 times a day. That means there are 4 priests saying those precise words, “Do this in memory of me,” every single second of every single day.

Every one of these Masses is literally and continually making present Christ’s (once and for all) sacrifice on Calvary for all mankind. At any second you can join your own prayers to one.

When you participate in a Catholic Mass, you are participating in the same celebration as these other 350,000 daily Masses all over the world (you wanna talk about a “mega-church”?). We are all joined in the same readings and prayers and we partake of the same, specific Eucharist. And the rest of the time, when we are living out our faith outside of Mass, there are (literally) a billion other Catholics around the world continually offering it up on our behalf.

Now that’s unity (John 17:11). That’s communion.

Perversion of Catholic Doctrine, undone.

In my job of scouring the interwebz for false proclaimations against the Chruch and the Truth, I happen to stumple across this YouTube vid. The author of the video makes certain statements that I feel need to be explained only because of the way in which he twists the Truth of the Church in order to satisfy his selfish wants.

The author starts out by quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1643 and he goes on to say that:

"...the Catholic Church fundamentally rejects divorce, pre-martial and extra-marital sex, birth control, abortion and, any means of intercourse which would not result in having a child."

Well let's see...the Catholic Church rejects divorce, um, yeah -  I don't know too many people who get married with the projected outcome of getting a divorce. Since it's obvious that during the course of "your studies in your religion" you missed some important notes, let me give you a refresher as to why the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce. Matthew Chapter 19, verses 4 through 9 Christ says the following to the Pharisees who are attempting to entrap him :

"He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

Notice how Jesus - who fulfills the Law - says that, unless the marriage is unlawful, it is binding because that is how it was meant to have been from the beginning. Interesting, in just these 5 verses we not only prove that divorce is against what Christ taught BUT, in the same manner as Canon Law, only an unlawful marriage recognized by the Church can be annuled.

The author goes on to state that pre marital and extra marital affairs are wrong, duh. These two things are an offense to chastity (I'll deal with that one soon enough) and are to be avoided. He also mentions birth control and abortion; I'm not going to get into defending these two latter topics, instead, I'll provide a link to Humane Vitae because it's obvious that the author, during the course of "his studies in his religion," must've missed that class.

As for the Catholic Church rejecting "any means of intercourse which would not result in having a child," it once again boggles my mind that this person who has "studied his religion" and quoted from the Catechism, totally missed the VERY LAST PARAGRAPH OF THAT SECTION. Paragraph #1654 states:

Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

So...where exactly does it say that sex is only okay sans doggy-style?  Continuing on, he states that unless sex is only done within the confines of marriage with only one person, then you are intrinsically disordered, let's see what the Catholic Church says about chastity. Buckle up cuz I'm about to school this author.

CCC# 2337-2345 states in part:

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality...becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman...

...Chastity has laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin... 

...Chastity is a moral virtue. It is also a gift from God, a grace, a fruit of spiritual effort...

So, if you have pre-marital sex or, extra-marital sex, you have most certainly sinned and thus have become intrinsically disordered, that is, naturally against what you were made to be by the Creator. But, there is forgiveness that can be found if you repent, try to live a chaste life and devote yourself to Christ and his sacrifice at the cross. As this section says, it is through self-mastery that we can govern our passions and find peace.

The author also makes mention that, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and, to quote him, "this is the same kind of wording that it [the Catholic Church] uses for many other sexual acts." What are these acts? Here's a quick list that you can find in paragraphs #2351 though #2356 of the Catechism:

Lust
Masturbation
Fornication
Pornography
Prostitution
Rape

Why are these intrinsically disordered? Because they hold you back from being the person that God has made you to be. I don't know about you but, I personally don't think being a rapist is a calling from God nor do I think that becoming a prostitute or rubbing one out is the epitome of human excellence.These are stumpling blocks that will lead you away from sanctification and towards alienation from God. These are the things that not only violate human dignity but impede the Truth of God's grace from being recognized and affirmed by us as God's creatures.

And then we come to the authors main thesis; since law makers allow for all of these sexual acts to exist in society, then we should also allow for gay marriage to exist as well. Really? Is this really what this kid is saying? Let me get this straight: since the secular world allows for intrinsic evils to exists, what the Hell! Let's go ahead and add one more evil to the list! After all, what's one more evil on top of all of the other evils, right? >insert facepalm here<

This is the most idiotic, sophomoric and asinine reason for gay marriage I've ever heard. Think about it, what this author is saying can be summed up in the following manner: the Catholic Church catagorizes certain sexual acts as unnatural, homosexual acts happen to be one of them. However, society says it's okay to commit these certain sexual acts, therefore, the Catholic Church should allow for gay marriage because their very own definition of marriage, and what is sexually immoral, is at odds with what the secular world defines it as! (Someone must've forgotten Mark 12:17, especially in light of CCC# 1603)

My favorite line from this author is right near the end when he states:

"Therefore, Catholic lawmakers should either submit a bill redefining marriage along the Catholic Church's lines or, they should allow gay marriage to pass."

The Catholic position needs no legislation because you can't legalize common sense. Think about it, the Church says that divorce is bad but, the secular world says it's okay; nevermind the fact that divorce (more often then not) creates shattered homes. The Catholic Church has always held that birth control is wrong, yet the secular world embraces it; nevermind that over 50% of women who get an abortion were using contraception when they concieved - talk about a crap shoot. The Catholic Church says that homosexual acts are an offense to human dignity and homosexuals are called to live a chaste lifestyle, the secular world says that it's just fine; nevermind the fact that homosexual men are the biggest group of HIV and syphillis infections year after year. The Catholic Church says pornography is sexually immoral, the secular world states that it's good and healthy nevermind the fact that 56% of all divorces have one spouse that is addicted to pornography.

You see when you fall into sin, you fall away from God and when you do fall, the devil inevitably takes you toward another sin to further seperate you from the Truth, so deep will the Adversay take you that before long you either won't know right from wrong or you'll be too spiritually weak to recognize the contrary. I would ask - and I will pray for - the author to look beyond his preconcieved, perhaps indoctrinated, views of who and what the Catholic Church really is. Because the question really isn't whether or not the Catholic Church accepts you, it's whether or not YOU accept the Catholic Church.

Protestant Snake Handler believes handling a snake is the work of God

Read article here.

"It is the closest thing to heaven on earth that you could get," he said. "You can feel God's power in the flesh."

Guess he's never heard of the Mass nor the Eucharist.

Vatican: Dissident Nun's book not in conformity with Catholic teaching!

Read the actual press release from the Vatican here.

It boggles my mind. It really does. How is it possible, however remote, that this woman can call her self a Catholic? Additionally, how is it possible, that this nun completely forgot (or chose to forget) BASIC CATHOLIC TEACHINGS of sexual morality? I as a lay faithful who is truely in love with our Mother Church, I can easily see that what this woman wrote is not only against what our Church teaches but, is completely at odds with Christianity itself.

I will use the press release and the Catechism to prove my point. The press release states that Mercy Sister Margaret A. Farley states on page 236 of her book, Just Love: A Framework for Christian sexual ethics, that:

"Masturbation… usually does not raise any moral questions at all. … It is surely the case that many women… have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers. In this way, it could be said that masturbation actually serves relationships rather than hindering them. My final observation is, then, that the norms of justice as I have presented them would seem to apply to the choice of sexual self-pleasuring only insofar as this activity may help or harm, only insofar as it supports or limits, well-being and liberty of spirit. This remains largely an empirical question, not a moral one"

Wow, where to start? To begin with, notice how female masturbation is something good to be discovered by some women since they may have never discovered it with their husbands or lovers before...or lovers before...OR LOVERS. WTF? What the Sister here is implying is that a woman should be free to "sexually find herself" since a man - whether committed or a one-night stand - may not be able to sexually satisfy her. So, instead of preaching the teaching of chastity (we'll get to that in a moment), she instead chooses to wax lyrical about pre-marital sex and the selfish pleasures to found within it. I don't want to come off as a prude or as being "out of touch" with the real world here people but, it seems to me that as an authoritative figure of the Church, it's her job it's her duty to hold fast to the teachings of the One True Faith!

Methinks the good Sister forgot what the Catechism says in regards to chastity. According to the CCC #2352:

"Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

How such a beautiful and simple a statement could even be misconstrued and undermined by a heretic "c"atholic nun, is beyond me. Clearly, Sister Farley is more interested in testing the limits of established Church teaching instead of promoting them.

Another interesting quote from her book is found on page 295, she states:

"My own view… is that same-sex relationships and activities can be justified according to the same sexual ethic as heterosexual relationships and activities. Therefore, same-sex oriented persons as well as their activities can and should be respected whether or not they have a choice to be otherwise"

On page 293 she states, with regards to homosexual unions:

"Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love."

Oh where, oh where could we find out what the Church says about homosexual acts? Oh, yeah! That's right, it's in the Catechism just 5 paragraphs down from #2352! It says (with my emphasis):

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

According to wikipedia, Sister Farley earned her Ph. D. in 1973 from Yale Divinity School which means that 5 years before I was born, this woman (appearently?) knew more about Catholicism then me, it would seem though that I can easily say with 100% certainty that when it comes to sexual ethics, I and anyone who just read this, is light years ahead of Sister Farley in the area of sexual ethics within Catholicism. I would encourage everyone to read the link above because it goes on to discuss how Sister Farley views divorce and remarriage as well as her thoughts on the indissolubility of marriage; I wonder, if the good Sister believes that a marriage - which is a Sacrament - can be dissolved if a person "changes" or is no longer commited, can the Sacrament of Baptism also be undone? How about the Sacrament of Confirmation, surely we can renege and refuse to accept the chrism from our Confirmation - because we have more power then what the Holy Spirit endowed us with, right? Thanks, Sister Farley, the Devil must truly be proud of all your hard work.

Anti-Catholic propaganda continues...

According to the New York Times; the Church is in the wrong for dismissing abusive priests!

Read the full article here.

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee...

...a document unearthed during bankruptcy proceedings for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and made public by victims’ advocates reveals that the archdiocese did make such payments to multiple accused priests to encourage them to seek dismissal, thereby allowing the church to remove them from the payroll.

A spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed on Wednesday that payments of as much as $20,000 were made to “a handful” of accused priests “as a motivation” not to contest being defrocked. The process, known as “laicization,” is a formal church juridical procedure that requires Vatican approval, and can take far longer if the priest objects. 

I personally think that a key fact that is missing here is that $20,000 is less, on average, of what a priest makes per year. Take into account that in some dioceses priest have to pay rent or mortgage for Church property as well as their own bills and expenses, and what we have here is chump change in light of the fact that these sexually abusive priests where "paid out."

The fact that the writer of this article mentioned but failed to go into detail the about the lengthiness of the laicization process is a bit telling, especially due to the fact that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 1988, 17 years before becoming Pope, actually made it easier to laicize priest who are accused of wrongful conduct!

An employer paying out an employee for wrongfull misconduct isn't cause for scandalization, unless of course, it's the Catholic Church that's doing it, right? This goes to show just how far some anti-Catholics will go in order to paint the Church and Her works in a negative and destructive light.