Washington Post: "The Catholic Church is like a dysfunctional family."

Read the entire article here.

Mommy and daddy are fighting, and the anguished children don’t know where to turn.

This is the state of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States today. A small group of very conservative bishops has hijacked the church, or at least the public voice of the church. The bishops are playing the role of the authoritarian father. In case after case, their message to the faithful is “Do it because I say so.”

This is how this article starts. It starts by depicting the Church as a family (which it is) which is having some serious "daddy issues." These issues of course are because of the more conservative bishops exercising their authority to remain true to Catholic beliefs and values. I've already done a post in which I spoke briefly on the non-sensical notion of conservatism vs. liberalism in the Catholic Church and showed how idiotic it is to even remotely suggest there to be such a thing. Because in all honesty it comes down to two things: orthodoxy vs. heresy, and to attempt to artificially inject politics into the Church is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to justify a personally held political belief. But, I digress...

As I was saying, the Washington Post would have us believe that these so-called conservative bishops have put the average Catholic in the pews in an uncomfortable positon. To begin with they talk about the HHS contraceptive mandate and state that:

"82% of American Catholics believe birth control is morally acceptable..."

followed by this little gem:

"A much larger group of more moderate bishops has stayed mostly silent, fearful that to take a stand against the brethren would be to lay bare intramural fissures. They play the role of the silent and frustrated mother."

That's right, the so-called conservative bishops are a bunch of mysogynistic-type bullies! And of course, the victim in this relationship has to be on the side of logic and rational order. Quoteth the article:

"Only one brave bishop has so far explained his refusal to sign on with the authoritarian minority. Like a parent who prefers to work on marital disagreements in private, rather than expose the kids to disharmony and force them to choose sides...he wanted the bishops to do more consensus building."

A "brave" bishop? Really? One who is open to FORCING a religious body to go against its established teachings? How is this, pray tell, "brave?" Sounds cowardly to me. I especially like the part where he is asking for consensus, since when did the Catholic Church become a democracy? There is a link to this "brave" bishop's statement and, surprise, surprise, this California bishop published his offical statement in the left-leaning Jesuit magazine America. So I must ask myself the question: who's playing politics here? The so-called conservative bishops who are holding fast to Catholic teachings or the left-leaning bishop who is calling for compromise on established Church teaching?

Orthodox bishops are cruel and unrelenting! Moderate bishops are brave and pioneering for a better solution! The average Catholics are stuck in the middle not knowing what to do! All is lost! Oh no! Won't somebody please think of the children??? Thank God for the Washington Post! For it truly cares about the children; it is towards the end of the article is where we hit pure journalism [fool's] gold! The article states:

"In the middle, of course are the kids, who love their parents and want them to get along - and hate, no matter where they stand on issues of sexual morality and religious liberty...[they] continue, in their anguish, to attend Mass on Sundays, holding out the hope that future family happiness is somehow possible..."

Now if that doesn't pull at the proverbial heart strings and get you on the side of the "kids and the mother" then I don't know what will. So much of this article is intended to do just that, to depict the Catholic faithful and the "brave" bishops as being on the end of a short stick because of the so-called conservative bishop's evil, manical, traditionalist views! What...A...Load. Here's a newsflash to the anti-Catholic folks at the Washington Post: Daddy is always right.

If in fact, the Church is made up of this so-called family that the Washington Post would have us believe, then let's see how this would be in real life. The father wants what is best for his family, he understands, knows and practices what he preaches. The kids in the family, being children, have unfortunately been told and fed a lot of things inconsistant with what the father has always held to be the undeniable truth; they've sometimes have rebelled, acted contrary to the dad's wishes, even embarassing him a few times but, they're his children and he loves them. The mother is trying to avoid the strife between the children and the father by relenting her role as mother, she would much rather be on good standing with her children then the disciplinarian. She unfortunately has thus put the father into a bad light, and has served as a catalyst of sorts in this whole familial distopia.

In this case, "the father" are all of the true bishops who are holding fast to opposition against governmental intrusion into The Church's affairs. "The mother" are those bishops who are content in giving up some part of ESTABLISHED TEACHING for the common good perhaps even for political reasons (?) and, "the children" are us, the lay faithful who either refuse or accept what "the father" knows is best for us. Refusing to deny and use birth control can be hard for some of us "children" but, daddy knows it is best for us not to use it because of the potential disaserous consequence that it can lead to. Refusing to accept certain teachings from our faithful "father" such as, indulgences and opposite sex marriage only, can be difficult for some of us as his "children" but, he knows why he teaches these things; he teaches them in order to become better human beings and grow in love, charity and humility with Christ our Lord.

Make no mistake, father knows best. For any Catholic to go against what is taught by the Church out of ignorance is one thing but, to deliberately and willfully go against our Father and His Holy Church as well as what Jesus Christ commissioned the Church to do, is another. I would ask that any parents take stock of this post in light of your children and ask yourself, why did you have to discipline your children, if not to correct them? Doesn't the Church, in full communion with Christ and all of the Angels and Saints, have the same authority to do so whether you like it or not? Think about it, if you had to severly punish you child for something that he or she temporally did, how much greater would the spiritual punishment be if the child refused to obey the authority of the Church?

A Catholic politician sees the light!

Read the entire article here.

Democrat Committewoman, Jo Ann Nardelli, recently resigned from her political party due to her Catholic beliefs. Jo Ann Nardelli isn't just a regular old run-of-the-mill democrat, quite the contrary, she has a long and extensive history. She's the president and founder of the Blair County Federation of Democrat Women as well as being the Vice President of the Pennsylvannia Women's Caucus. She's met with Hillary Clinton in the past and has even given Vice President Joe Biden a rosary.

According to the article: 

Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she's felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.

She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. "I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work," she said. "I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me."

...She said it started a few weeks ago, ironically as she and her husband were getting ready for Mass and watching Meet the Press when Joe Biden, a Catholic, cited his support for gay marriage.

This shocked her. She said she'd always related to Biden. She said he reminded her of her father. But this announcement shocked her. And then, shortly after, President Obama announced that he'd "evolved" into supporting gay "marriage."

And then as a Democratic committeewoman she received her agenda from the party espousing the same position. "To stand up and agree and sign off on this I couldn’t do it," she said. "So I talked to our priest."

Without a doubt, this is a truly brave and couragous woman. Pray for her and her future endeavors and that she may, in her own way, shine the light of Christ and Truth in other people's lives.

Ex-Planned Parenthood Director talks about her journey and her new book.

Abby Johnson, author of “unPlanned: the dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader’s eye-opening journey across the life line”, is a courageous woman who has brought forward not just the Planned Parenthood story (at times nightmarish in their behavior), but more importantly, her story…the journey of conversion, forgiveness, and witness.  She didn’t go looking for the spotlight, but she didn’t say “no” when it fell on her and now she is standing up for life and exposing the reality of Planned Parenthood and the beautiful options for life that are truly available.  She can truly say, with all integrity, that she knows both sides of the battle, and she is choosing life.

Here the entire interview here. Another interesting fact about Mrs. Johnson is that she's a recent Catholic convert, she left the Episcopal church because of  the "church’s reaction to her conversion from pro-choice to pro-life."

Pick up her book here.

A look at true a vow of poverty in service of the Church

This man’s name is Dobre. A Bulgarian man living in abject poverty, but who has donated over 20,000 euros to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Everyday, he stands in the church and begs, but not for himself. All money given to him, he gathers and donates to the church. He is the biggest individual donor to the church in the past few decades. He walks several kilometers to the church each morning, and several kilometers back at the closing of each day. He is known as “The Righteous from Bailovo”, and has entered the 99th year of his life. 



Raw data from the 2010 Religious Census

 Among other things, the census found that although there were less Catholics in the Western U.S., more Catholic Churches grew in the West! The picture above shows that Catholics (in purple) are the largest religious group second to the Southern Baptist (red).

The picture above shows the percentage of Catholics per population, if its in red, it's over 5% or more of that counties population. Unfortunately, Catholic numbers in the NW have dropped somewhat. :-(

It's on. 40 U.S. Archdioceses sue the Obama Administration.

"This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference," the archdiocese says on the website. "It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs."

Check out the website here and learn more!

Need a reason for "boys only" alter servers?

The USCCB released the annual Survey of Ordinands to the Priesthood and, as it turns out, 2/3 of all of the new priest for 2012 were alter servers in their youth!

This keeps in conformity with last year's survey that reported 71% of the new priests that year were past alter servers.

2010's survey revealed that around 60% of the new priest were alter servers.

Something to keep in mind when a young girl whose been an alter server all her life says "girls should be priests too."

Devout Catholic, 21, ignores doctors' advice to abort unborn baby and gives birth to healthy girl.

"When Daniella Jackson was diagnosed with cancer at five months pregnant her doctors quickly advised her to have an abortion.

They said she needed a termination to allow her lung tumor to be removed before it killed her.

But the 21-year-old, who is a devout Roman Catholic, refused, saying she felt too close to her unborn child...

...Toward the end of her pregnancy, Miss Jackson’s lung disease was giving her asthma attacks on a daily basis. But she managed to battle on and, four months ago, gave birth four months ago.”

The power of faith when combined with truth, is unstoppable. Read the full article here.

Same-sex marriage was a Christian rite! Right? WRONG!!!

In scouring the interwebz this weekend, I couldn't help but notice the latest attack on Christianity by attempting to somehow justify same-sex marriage by linking the early medevial Catholic Church to same-sex unions. Right away, the first thing that came to my mind where all the different false "christian" heretical movements of the medevial period. I did so because I've noticed that often times when some outrageous claim is leveled against the Early Catholic Church, it usually is based on some heretical movement of that era and has noting to do with the Roman Catholic Church!

So I did some research on the Bogomilism movement of the 10th century, nothing! The Berengarians, nothing! The Petrobrosians, nothing! The Fraticelli, Flagellants, Lollards, nor the Waldensians, I could find nothing! The only heretical sect that perhaps came remotely close to same-sex marriage were the Albigenses who, among other things, actually believed marriage to be sinful. I attempted to do some more research but alas, I couldn't find any resources to lead me in the right direction, that was until last night when I went to National Catholic Register's website! But first, a cople of points the article makes.

According to this much ado about nothing article:

"a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men...Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself?..."

"...While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate...In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple..."

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."
Over at Jimmy Akin's blog, I found the true and rational (duh) answer to this ridiculous proposition. Kudos to Jimmy Akin for once again doing an awesome apologetic explaination. Here's his excellent disection of this empty topic:

Aaaaaargh! Another "c"atholic politician speaks. Forgets that God too discriminates.

"My religion has, compels me--and I love it for it--to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination."

U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), states that it is because of discrimination that she, as a "c"atholic, has to support same-sex marriage. Well, in 2003 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a letter stating the Church's 2000 year policy of what marriage is and why it won't recognize same-sex marriages. It said in part:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."

In other words, God made us male and female; only men and women cooperating in marital love together can truly become one flesh, and only marital unions further God's purpose of creating new life that is welcomed, loved, nurtured and educated by both mother and father. Is this too radical an idea? I mean, come on! If in fact you are a Catholic, Mrs. Pelosi, then can we agree that there is a powerful and almighty God that created both sexes in His image and to be His children? If we can agree on that first, then the next question should be the easiest one: Why did God discriminate and make two different sexes???

Think about it. Right from the beginning, God discriminates. I'm not talking about hateful discrimination that the secular world and the media like to portray as the only form of discrimination there is but, I speak of just and merciful, indeed perfect, discrimination. Let me explain.

First, let's define discrimination. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary states that the root word discriminate, is defined as:

"To mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of; to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; to distinguish from another like object; to make a distinction; to use good judgment; to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit."

Look really good at that definition and you'll note that each action of creation is an act of discrimination, as Peter Kreeft notes:

"In the book of Genesis not all discrimination and differentiation is between good and evil, God introduces distinctions into creation, including the distinction between male and female, for good...light from darkness, living, animal from plant, birds from fish, one species from another, man generically from animal and, male from female."

Additionally, God could've chosen ANY ethnic group to be His chosen people but, he chose the Israelites. He continued to discriminate even within the Israelite community by chosing one tribe, the tribe of Levi, above the other tribes to be His priests. Is it fair that the Isrealites were chosen above the pagans? Is it fair that the Levites were the only tribe to be deemed worthy to serve in the Temple? Is it fair that God treated different things differently? When it comes to marriage, God ordained it to be man and woman. To challenge this notion is to challenge God's intent within creation, as CCC# 369-373 readily affirms, God made man and woman because He willed it so and, "the respective 'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband," also, "God created man and woman together and willed each for the other."

These are VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPTS for any Catholic to understand! They underscore not only the amazingness of our loving God but they also affirm that it is by the will of the One true God that man and woman are made and it is His will that they are made for one another by virtue of their distinctiveness. CCC #372 is most telling:

Man and woman were made "for each other" - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh", they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator's work.

Take notice at how God, by creating life, transmits life through the creation enacted by His will! This simple yet fundamental fact can thus be extended to different facets of human life, especially, that of contraception which by its very nature is designed to impede and block God's plan to transmit life. This can also extend into abortion and (getting back to the subject at hand), same-sex unions. The Catholic Church isn't against homosexuals, it is against anything that runs contrary to the will of God. Period.

So, I'll ask the same question  I posed at the begining of this post but, this time, to all "c"atholics: can we still agree that that there is a powerful and almighty God that created both sexes in His image and to be His children? If so, then the issue of same-sex marriage has a Catholic answer and, that answer is, "no." Any Catholic who states otherwise is gravely mistaken.

Protestant preacher "has the dissident nun's back"

I just finished reading an article in the Huffington Post penned by Jim Wallis. The article simply and clearly states that the dissident nuns aren't doing anything wrong and it is the big, bad Vatican - and the all-male hierachy - that's missing the big picture, that is, that the nuns are doing Christ's work. I didn't know who Mr. Wallis was, so I clicked on the link and read his bio. While I can't say that Mr. Wallis is anti-Catholic, it certainly is obvious that his personal Christian beliefs run counter to that of the Catholic Church.

It turns out that he is owns a website, http://www.sojo.net/, that is particularly concerned with social justice issues, but, as usual, the devil is in the details. Turns out that the Sojourner's website is for same-sex marriage and Mr. Wallis' wife was one of the first women to be ordained in the Church of England- two things definitely opposed to Catholic teaching. To his credit however, it would seem that his ministry is against abortion and he even came out in 2009 in support of Pope Benedict's encyclical Caritas in Veritate. Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis is at the wrong end of this arguement.

It seems kind of ironic when you think about it because here we have a man that, for all intents and purposes, has a belief system that fundamentaly is at odds with Holy Mother Church and yet, he is trying to defend the heretical actions of women who violated their authority. Like I said, Mr. Wallis may not be an anti-Catholic Protestant but, the nature of his arguement and affiliations certainly distance himself from accepting the truth of the Catholic Church. Let's look at a couple of the points he brings up in this article (read it in full here).

Mr. Wallis states:

"...They have reprimanded the women for not sufficiently upholding the bishops' teachings and doctrines and paying much more attention to issues like poverty and health care than to abortion, homosexuality and male-only priesthood." 

Sorry Mr. Wallis, it wasn't that the nuns weren't "uholding the bishop's teachings" it was that they weren't upholding the Catholic Church's teachings, under the natural supervision of the bishops and they had begun to take very liberal stances on contraception, homosexuality and women's priestly ordination.

"...they [the nuns] have been taken to task for 'occasional public statements' that disagree with the bishops..."

Occasional public statements? Like the 24 nuns who publically supported abortion and took out an ad in the New York Times? Or how about Margaret Traxler, a nun who openly accepted an overt pro-homosexuality view and even went so far as to carry a banner, into the Vatican, to protest the Church's stance on abortion? Or how about Jeanine Gramick, a nun who was head of New Ways Ministry, an organization that supports gay and lesbian Catholics, who in 1999 was removed from the ministry by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) due to her gross undermining the Church's teacing on homosexuality? How about Sister Mary Ann Cunningham who in 2006 distributed a "voter guide" encouraging the laiety to stand against Church teaching in matters of abortion and homosexual unions? How about Sister Louise Lears, who was banned from recieving the Sacraments in 2008 after her constant refusal to adhere to Church doctrine banning women's ordination as well as inciting the lay faithful against the Holy See? How about Donna Quinn, a Chicago area pro-abortion nun who actually escorted women to abortion mills? Or, how about Sister Margaret Mary McBride, who was excommunicated in 2009 after sactioning an abortion at a Catholic Hospital? Sorry, Mr. Wallis, but these incidences are way beyond simple "public statements" that "occasionally" happen! They are deliberate acts against the Catholic Church.

"The Vatican's approach to its concerns, to say the least, is quite regrettable. Condemnation and control were chosen over conversation and dialogue. Quite honestly, do most of us believe, or even most Catholics believe, that the bishops are the only 'authentic teachers of faith and morals?'"

To begin with, the Sisters are wrong and as such, need to be corrected. This isn't a disciplinary condemnation but instead a reproval of falsehoods, it's the mother (the Church) and the father (the Pope) correcting the child (the nuns). As for the bishops being the only authentic teachers of faith and morals, well Mr. Wallis, they kind of are. The Catechism of the Catholic Church #883 states the following:

"The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head..."

So, you see, as long as the bishops are in communion with Rome, they are THE teachers of our faith.

"...from a biblical point of view, the sisters may be right and the Vatican wrong."

The irony. A Protestant is telling the Church from which the Bible came from, that the very book they canonized in the year 400, dictates that they are wrong. Wow. Thankfully as Catholics, we don't and we never will, use "the bible alone" to dictate what the truth is! A little history for our Protestant friends: We have the early apostles being commissioned by Christ to spread His teachings unerringly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this group of 11 men had the AUTHORITY to proclaim what was right or wrong as well as the power to bind and loose. The early collection of these 11 men who had this TEACHING AUTHORITY, was the very first Magisterium. This group of men who taught unerringly, transmitted the message of Christ through words for the first few decades after Christ's Acension, this SPOKEN WORD of God had AUTHORITY because those first 11 men could indeed speak about the faith and the moral teachings of what Christ wanted for us; this SPOKEN WORD became what is called the Apostolic Tradition because all the information of this new religion was communicated through them and to their followers who followed the apostle's teaching for the first 3 decades of Christianity at which time, the first written words, usually in the form of written letters, began circulating through this early church. It wouldn't be for another 380 years before the Early Catholic Church, who drew upon the Magisterial AUTHORITY as well as the AUTHORITY from the Apostles' teaching, to canonize certain letters into what became the Bible.

So, from a biblical point of view, Mr. Wallis, the sisters are wrong and the Vatican - the Magisterium - is right.

U.S. Seminarian Numbers Are Up: Pope had a big smile on his face when he heard the news.

Bishop Conley was one of 10 bishops from Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming who had an audience with Pope Benedict as part of their five-day ad limina pilgrimage to Rome, which concludes today.
He explained to the Pope that there is now a year-on-year increase in the numbers of young men opting for the priesthood across many U.S. dioceses.

“I told him that in the Archdiocese of Denver both of our seminaries, St. John Vianney Theological Seminary and Redeptoris Mater Neocatechumenal Seminary, are full,” the bishop added.
“In fact, we have more applicants than we have space, so, for the first time in many years, we have to create a waiting list, which is a good problem to have.”

The most recent statistics show a similar story across the United States. Last year the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University estimated that the 2011 seminary intake was up 4% on the previous year and had reached its highest figure in 20 years. Meanwhile, Rome’s North American College is full to its 250 capacity for the first time in decades.

Just a little something to remember the next time you hear about the "shortage of priests." Read the full story here.

Lastest dissident nun needs to get her theology straight.

In case you haven't heard, the Vatican recently came out against the LCWR, that is, the Leadership Conference of Women Religous. The LCWR represents more than 80% of the 57,000 women religious in the United States and they were "stunned" late last month when a 2 year Vatican investigation revealed that the LCWR wasn't holding to Church teaching regarding the ordination of women priestess, abortion and homosexuality. Basic theology had been transformed into new age spiritualism, indeed, a simple search on the LCWR's annual conference show that their keynote speakers range from pro-abortion journalists to New Age spiritual advocates.

The following are excerpts from a recent interview with one of these dissident nuns, Sister Brigid McDonald with my comments added. You can read the entire interview here.

MinnPost: What are you hearing in your community about the decision?
Sister Brigid McDonald: Well, some are shocked that he would go that far, you know, to start using his power. Sorry Sister McDonald, he isn't using his power, he is using THE AUTHORITY of his office. The AUTHORITY invested to his office by Christ Himself. To me, it is a misuse of power, a misuse of authority where he can step into religious communities and dictate how they should speak about these issues. Sorry Sister McDonald but there is no way that the Pope can misuse his AUTHORITY, Christ sent the Holy Spirit among the disciples to remind them of all the thing that He had taught them (Jn. 14:26), thereby preserving the disciples - including Peter - from ever transmitting a falsehood when it came to teaching. Apostolic Succession dictates that the current Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, by virtue of his office, is also preserved from wrongfully proclaimating an infallible truth. And, the truth is, you are wrong.

MP: When you say “he,” you are talking about Benedict?
SBM: Yes. I still call him Ratzinger. Simply Ratzinger?!? How about The Supreme Pontiff? The Vicar of Christ? Or what about The Bishop of Rome? Successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles? Patriarch of the West? Servant of The Servants of God? Or how about, simply, His Holiness the Pope? You see Sister, these are the official titles that are reserved for the Pope; the same way that you have a title as well Ms. McDonald. That fits him better. But that is just a personal bias...I can't even begin to imagine what he could say or do that would change religious women's beliefs. If in fact your "beliefs" go contrary to established dogma/doctrine and they oppose the Church by undermining it then, quiet frankly, it might be time for some of you nuns to go back and study theology a little bit more in detail; it isn't the Church that should change, it's you and the heretical nuns that need to change these so-called beliefs. I don't know how he plans to change that. That is of concern. That could be scary — what will he do to change our beliefs. You know, that scares me. Not having eternal salvation because you chose to ignore the truth of the Catholic Church, should be more scarier.

MP: Can you speak a little bit more about that, the difference between changing your belief and silencing you, and where that line gets murky?
SBM: You are right, those are two different issues. If he wants us just to shut up about how we believe and don't put it out in public,  that is one issue. Or if he is really trying to get us to make statements that are opposite of our beliefs, [There is no "our beliefs," only the beliefs of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church and either you choose to abide by it's AUTHORITY or you choose to live willfully and deliberately against it.] I don't know what his motivation is for this. Gee, I wonder if we could find out what the Popes motivations are? Hmmmm, let's see, Holy Scripture says that Jesus told Peter to feed and tend to his flock (Jn 21:15-17) and the CCC #882 states that the Pope is "the perpetual and visual source and foundation of unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." You Sister are not in unity with the Church of Christ, so it is up to the Vicar of Christ to reign in the canonical abuses that the LCWR has wrought. Other than control, I don't know what his motivation is.

I think it is pretty impossible for us to all change our beliefs on these issues to coincide with his beliefs. That sounds impossible.

MP: Can you tell me what you are hearing? Are people afraid?
SBM: It is interesting. The nuns that I talk to aren't really afraid, because they can't see or they can't imagine what he would do to change us. I mean, like, excommunication? That is a thing of the past. You can't excommunicate hundreds of nuns...He can, he has the AUTHORITY to do so. Imagine the message that Holy Mother Church would send if Pope Benedict XVI excommunicated, not hundreds of nuns, but a select few (the leaders mainly) of these dissident nuns. I refuse to believe that all the women religious that belong to the LCWR are all heretics.

MP: One thing that I have been told is a bishop will now screen all of the speakers at your meetings. Will that have any practical effect?

SBM: ...he has tried to silence people in our schools. That could be a very severe possibility, to silence some of the voices, really the social justice voices, you know. Maybe they get around it some way. I don't know. 

Why is he picking old nuns? Because it's obvious that the "old nuns" are brooding resentment of the Church's instilled AUTHORITY. The simple fact that the Vatican is attempting to correct your wrongs should be seen for what it is: as a sign from a loving and caring father and mother guiding you towards the right direction. More than half of us are over 75. We are almost an endangered species now. If he is trying to really change the church, he should start at the level with youth and talk to youth groups or something like that. By the looks of the smashing success that occured in Spain during World Youth Day, I'd say he's already started.

He should start with getting his priests together and try to help them through some of their problems. He should get after them for molestation. And, let's also not forget the molestions that occured under the nuns as well.

MP: Somebody suggested to me that nuns in the past had enjoyed some latitude because you were thought to be powerless, and that in a strange way, this might be recognition that your ministry is powerful.
SBM: That is good insight. Because [before] we were just school teachers and we just had nice little kids in front of us, you know, and we just emptied bed pans in the nursing homes and in the hospitals. But now they are right, we are out there in the different movements. We help with the Occupy movement and the right-to-choice movements. Whoa! Wait a sec. So, you mean to tell me that you support the Occupy movement and all of it's quasi-pseudo Socialist/Marxist/Communistic political views? You must've forgotten CCC# 2425 which states that the Church is wholly against socialism and communism since the modernist mentality springs from both and yet, you fight for it as a cause! As well as "right-to-choice" movements??? I mean, do you really not know why the Vatican has called out the LCWR?

It is giving us more credibility in the public. Lots of times people will call and seek out our opinions about certain issues, where it never was that way when I entered the convent...And instead of purpetuating the truth, you've chosen to promulgate lies. You and other women religious of your ilk have instead taken you positions and abused it; you took the calling that the one true God gave you and have perverted and twisted His truth to justify your view. The truth is hard, very hard to swallow and telling anything but the truth to those that have been entrusted to you and have seeked your counsel (gift of the Holy Spirit, remember?) is to blatantly lie and dishonestly proclaim the Church in a totally different light then what She really is.

"c"atholic Vice President, Joe Biden, belives in same sex marriage. He must've forgotten the Church's teaching on Natural Law.

The highest ranking Catholic politician in the United States has recently affirmed that he is for same sex marriage. Blatantly chosing to not only ignore Church teaching but, to endorse it by using the power of his office. This goes in direct contrast to what the Catechism says at paragraph #2235:

...The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.

And what, specifically constitutes "natural law?" Well, it's basically the immutable truth that God has given man to know what is good and bad, to quote CCC# 1954-1958:

"...The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie...It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good...The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men...The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history..."

And, according to #CCC 2357:

"Homosexuality...It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures...tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law..."

Point blank, this "c"atholic has taken it upon himself to commit to, what amounts to be, a heretical belief. It is against Church teaching and it is against Scriptural teaching. It absolutely stupifies me to think that this is supposed to be a smart and intelligent man - after all, he is second in line to lead the most powerful country in the world - and yet he is absolutely ignorant of a very basic and core principle of Catholicism! One could make the arguement that he is pandering for votes from the pro-LGBT community but, to use this as a reason to disavow the truth as it is proclaimed by the Catholic Church, is to admit that Vice President Biden would much rather retain power then lose it at the risk of proclaiming the truth. Either way, the Vice President is chosing to travel through the more political expedient "broad road" versus the "narrow gate (Matt 7:13)."

When ever I see this, I can't help but smirk at the irony that the fallopian tubes are named after Gabriele Falloppio, a 16th century Italian priest and one of the most important anatomists and physicians of the sixteenth century.

Let's continue to pray for women who've had abortions, for the women and men effected by abortion, for all of those little lives lost and, for the end of abortion itself.

Awesome opening prayer at the Rebublican Convention in Colorado

What's there not to love about this opening prayer? In less than 5 minutes, Father Andrew Kemberling runs through Church teaching, doctrine and history! Well done, this is the type of priests that makes me proud to be a Catholic.

"The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with 'communism' or 'socialism'." - Catechism of the Catholic Church #2425

Dan Savage rips Christians and the Holy Bible

Militant homosexual activist goes on a tirade against Bible and Christianity. Time to bring The Truth to the so-called "anti-bullying czar."

To begin with, let’s look at the Bible verses that Mr. Savage is referring to. He starts off by mentioning Leviticus. In the Book of Leviticus – named after the Levite priesthood – spends a good amount on what the sacrificial and ritualistic laws for priests should be.  In keeping with this central theme it also, as a matter-of-factly, prescribes what it takes to be Holy; indeed, Mr. Savage just so happened to mention Leviticus (a priestly book) and, in particular, the verses which speak out against homosexuality. Ironically, little does Mr. Savage know that the Chapters that talk about homosexuality ( Chapters 18 & 20) are in a section that the Jews refer to as the Code of Legal Holiness.

So, since Mr. Savage doesn’t state what biblical verse offends him so, let’s look at them both. In Leviticus 18:22 it states:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

And, the second place that the Book of Leviticus speaks out against homosexuality is found in Chapter 20, verse 13 which pretty much states the same thing:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Now taken by itself, people like Mr. Savage naturally assume that the bible is being judgmental if not discriminatory. But, if one reads THE ENTIRE Chapters of Leviticus 18 and 20 as a whole, then a bigger picture of Mr. Savage’s view of sexual morality is seen and how it is at odds with God’s plan. If in fact Mr. Savage is against this passage, because it denounces homosexual acts then surely, so as not seem like a hypocrite, he must be okay with the following:

-          Incest

-          Sex with a half sibling

-          Sex with an aunt or uncle

-          Sex with the spouse of an aunt or uncle

-          Sex with a Sister or Brother in-Law

-          Sex with a Mother or Father in-Law

-          Being married to two sisters

-          Sex with an animal

You see, what Mr. Savage didn’t mention is that Leviticus Chapter 18 & 20 states that those things are bad as well. Easily seen then is that these Chapters aren’t solely condemning homosexuality but a WIDE RANGE of sexual misconducts not in accord with God Himself. The real question now that can be asked is this: what is Mr. Savage doing to promote incest, sex with a half sibling/aunt/uncle/in-Laws, or with animals? Is he ferociously attempting to legitimize these forms of “sexual expression” as much as he is attempting to legitimize homosexuality to young adults? Well, truth be told, Mr. Savage has denounced bestiality (sex with an animal), as well as incest! Well, well…look who all of a sudden has sexual morals and agrees with God’s word!

Mr. Savage also mentions the Book of Timothy. Found in 1 Timothy 1:9-10, it reads:

… with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching…

What is this saying? Is it solely condemning homosexuals? No, it’s condemning, once again, a WIDE RANGE of people. But, it’s what the verse is about that is truly telling. Saint Paul is explicitly mentioning that the law isn’t meant for the righteous but, for the sinner. This passage isn’t condemning homosexuals, on the contrary, it is stating that the law is for them! That as homosexuals – as sinners – Christ has redeemed them as well, as Saint Paul continues in his letter to Timothy 13-14:

I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief. Indeed, the grace of our Lord has been abundant, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Of these I am the foremost.

Isn’t this exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (see CCC #2358)? That homosexuals deserve respect, compassion and sensitivity and that “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…” How exactly is the Catholic Church discriminating towards Mr. Savage? All She is stating is that he, the sinner (just like me and you) are called to live our lives in total fidelity to Christ and, if not married, whether your homosexual or heterosexual, you are called to live a life of chastity. 

As for Romans, Mr. Savage must be alluding to must be Chapter 1 verses 26-27, which states:

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

The magic word in this passage is perversity, since homosexuals will point out that the Bible here calls their lifestyle perverse. But, what isn’t explicitly shown here is the underlying truth of these two verses. In the Greek, the word perversity nor perverse is ever used, and the last sentence of verse 27 literally reads as: “…and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”  What this is attempting to show is that God, in verse 26 delivered them up to their passions by withdrawing His Grace and let them fall into their sins and, in verse 27, we see that God – being just and merciful – let them, as sinners, receive just recompense for their sins. After all, the wage of sin is death whether you’re a homosexual or straight, it doesn’t matter.

As for the whole slavery thing, I would suggest you look here for a very clear and in depth explanation about the Catholic Church and slavery.

Lastly, Mr. Savage’s paper thin argument with regards to Deuteronomy 22: 20-21. With regard to a woman retaining her virginity, it states:

…and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father's house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house…

The OT testament should be viewed as a source of moral truth and not a vehicle to transport legal statutes to our time. You'll need to understand God was interoperating with falliable tribal people, using human customs which were not infallible in nature. What is to be gleaned is that adultery is immoral and not what the punishment is for adultery. Whenever you review scripture, you may need to look at each verse of the bible in one (or more) of four contexts, which are literal, typological, allegorical and anagogical.

An excellent discourse about God’s covenant with the Israelites can be found here on Marianne Dorman’s website.

I’ll briefly paraphrase what she wrote, she basically states that Christianity is a religion in which God acts in history to make covenants with his people. Covenants are oaths which a person swears to make another person a full part of his family. Think of the oaths spouses swear at marriage. So God, though covenants, is trying to draw us into his divine life, as adopted heirs. We use to be natural Sons of God in Adam. He broke that original covenant, and now we are now longer natural Sons of God. Again and again, he offered covenants to man. And again and again, man breached those covenants grievously. This history of failure culminates in God's great victory in the New Covenant, in which we become adopted Sons of God in the New Adam, Jesus Christ.

Now, this is important information because Deuteronomy is the finalized form of the Mosaic Covenant. It had to be reformed after a dozen or so enormous breaches on the part of the Israelites sojourning to the Promised Land from Egypt. And, after each breach, new laws are made by Moses to pretty much enact marshal law so that the rebellious Israelites can get under control. These are harsh conditions, and these are a harsh people. You do not turn barbarians into angels over night. And so a lot of laws reflect that harshness. Deuteronomy, being the final form of the Sinai covenant, is the most of harsh of all because it reflects all that had happened since the original Mosaic covenant. The original Mosaic covenant only had the ten commandments! The other 613 Mosaic laws were added after all of these breaches!

However, this does not mean that God advocated those laws. In fact, there are a few verses in Scripture in which God critiques those laws as bad! And Jesus, most famously, said that Moses allowed laws for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites. He corrects that law in the New Covenant when he saves an adulterous woman from being stoned and says, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Remember, Jesus FULLFILS the law and this is a perfect example of Him doing so and an even better example why we don’t stone women today.