Catholic Pillow Fight
ZZzzzzzzz....
"When someone asks you 'think about what Jesus would do', remember that a valid option is to freak out and turn over tables" -- Unknown
Menu
Home
E-Mail Me
Chat
Forum
Daily Readings
Search

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me





Doctrine

Definition of Catholic Doctrine
Children:Sacraments
Women's "Ordination"

Blog

Bonnie Erbe, Useful Idiot

Posted by: tony on 03/19/2009 05:27 PM (Read: )
I was pointed to an article in U.S. News and World Report by Fr. Z. It's yet another Pope bashing screed by yet another liberal airhead. She writes:
Back to Africa: Pope Benedict told a tumultuous welcoming crowd in Yaounde, Cameroon's capital, that not only do condoms fail to prevent the spread of AIDS, "On the contrary, they increase the problem." It was his most provocative, delineated anti-condom pronouncement since his election in 2005. Moreover, he made the statement as he began his visit to the most AIDS-ravaged continent. In Africa, more than 25 million people have died of AIDS, and another 22 million plus are living with the disease.

And the Pope is 100% correct. Another Pope, Paul VI, predicted this in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae. This encyclical, about the role of marital love and the dangers of artificial contraceptive use got the same reception as this most recent Pope's pronouncement.

If you are afraid of pregnancy or STDs, you will generally not have sex a lot. Oh, you may slip up once in a while, but you will generally not risk pregnancy or a venereal disease. If you have the false sense of security of a thin piece of latex, you will not worry about it, because after all, you have been told that this is "safe sex".

Let me use a simplistic example. Let's say that we use the most flattering statistics that condoms are 95% effective when used properly and you use them properly all the time. If you do not have access to condoms, you might slip up and have sex once, maybe twice over the course of a year. If you have a condom and you are safe, you might have sex 50 times over the course of a year.

If you silp up that once, you have a greater chance of getting pregnant or a disease because you're not using the condom. If you do it 50 times, you have a one out of 20 chance of getting pregnant or a disease each of those 50 times. It is the difference between tossing the dice once and tossing it 50 time. Sooner or later you might be seeing those snake eyes.

So having the condom prompts you to take a smaller chance an order of magnitude greater times guaranteeing that you will increase your chance of getting pregnant or some disease (many of them incurable). My example might double or triple your chance (depending on how much sex you have and how faithful you are using the condom).

Now she goes off the tracks:
The Pope advised them, according to the Reuters news agency, to exhibit, "correct behavior regarding one's body." Very helpful! That advice is completely useless to the typical "woman" in Africa who contracts the disease. Her profile is that of a teenage virgin sold into marriage against her will and "betrothed" to a much older man with many lovers who carries AIDS and refuses to use protection.

So advocating condom use will be helpful when a man treats his wife like chattel and refuses to use protection.

She finishes up with:
Pope Benedict has shown no sympathy for wives whose husbands have AIDS. A less compassionate or understanding view of their situation than his is hard to fathom.

Teaching that your body is a temple of God and that you should use your God-given sexuality in the way God designed is not "compassionate"?

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - G. K. Chesterton

It might be time for our society and world to try it. They might be pleasantly surprised.
Filed in :: Doctrine :: Respect | Discuss (1) | Permalink

Let's hear from an Episcopalian, shall we.

Posted by: tony on 12/18/2008 07:22 PM (Read: )
In The Tidings (The L.A. archdiosesan newspaper) an Episcopal priest has been heard from. He is bemoaning, as lots of liberal theologians are, about the focus on sexuality issues when there are more important things like "social justice" to take care of. He writes:
If a church wanted to walk the walk of Jesus as Savior, it wouldn't be debating sexuality. It would be helping people to deal with economic deprivation and to correct the values that led to this morass. It would promote community and sacrifice.

Wow, one would think this priest believes that economic depravation is not tied to the sexual teaching of a church.

The homosexual issue is just the latest iteration of a society heading to hell in a hand basket. The more important issue is the acceptance of divorce from all of the Christian denominations, save one. I'll let you guess which one that is. I'll give you a hint, the leader is German and it has over a billion members.

The purpose for sexuality is for the bonding of spouses and the generation of children in a marriage covenant between one man and one woman. Any other use is damaging to the person both spiritually and in many cases economically.

When a man leaves his father and mother and joins to his wife and the two become one flesh, they move into one house, they buy one of each appliance. They share their food and heat and generally live much more cheaply than were they single.

If they are single or divorced, they each have to pay for their own house, their own heat, buy a set of appliances for each of them at double the cost were they married. Those "living together" (shacking up), while sharing living quarters and such, still usually end up having to buy their own health insurance, and other benefits usually provided by employers to spouses either for free or at a reduced additional charge. If they are divorced, they will have to have duplicate clothes for the children at each house if their share custody or have visitation.

If they are a single parent with children, another big chunk of their income needs to go toward child care for their children in the early years.

A couple bonded in an unbreakable marriage covenant, who go into it with the proper mindset, put their selfish interests aside in favor of the interests of their spouse and children. They live for the family as a whole, rather than simply for themselves. This drastically affects the choices of what they buy, and what they are satisfied with.

If everyone had this attitude, the incidence of poverty in this country and around the world would be greatly reduced. Those who have a giving mindset are more likely to give a greater portion of what they have to others in need. Those who have the "me" mindset, and who expect their spouse to "make them happy" (and who leave if that doesn't happen) are less likely to share what they have with others.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality, if followed in the spirit which God intended, would have a greater impact on poverty than all the soup kitchens in the world.

(H/T Some Have Hats via L.A. Catholic)
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (0) | Permalink

Stop Your Moaning, Karen

Posted by: tony on 11/18/2008 05:43 PM (Read: )
I enjoy reading Karen Hall's writing. As someone who writes for a living her prose is easy to read, clear and concise. However, I am becoming a little put off by her complaining about supposed Catholic support for Barack Obama. She writes:
I could keep my house warm for a year on the "bold statements" the bishops have put out recently. In light of the 54% of Catholics who voted for Obama, please show me how they have worked.

And I say "supposed", because I would imagine that a goodly chunk of those "54% of Catholics" are not actually Catholic.

Jill Stanek quoted an interesting article that segues nicely into this one:
Barna has analyzed the vote breakdown for president and determined a whopping 88% of evangelicals voted for McCain and only 11% for Obama.

Barna determined evangelicals not by whether they said they were evangelical but by how they responded to 9 questions.

Have you ever wondered exactly what an evangelical is? Here were the criteria to qualify as an evangelical, according to Barna:
Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."
"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus 7 other conditions....

Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical." [ed.- Emphesis, mine]

This is how you take a poll. Don't let people self-identify as evangelical, decide from their answers whether they are evangelical or not. They should do the same for Catholics. Have a list of questions, such as "do you believe that Jesus Christ is substantially real and present in the Eucharist?" and identify the "real" Catholics based on their answers.

I agree that there has been a breakdown (oh, heck, an almost elimination) of catechesis since Vatican II. There has been a lowered respect for the priesthood (inclusing the Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope).

Karen seems to concur:
Which is why it would have been nice, over the last 30+ years, if our bishops and priests had been talking to us about the sanctity of marriage, the enormous importance of keeping our families strong, and our duty to God's law and the Church's teachings and, oh by the way, here's what they are.

Yes, it would have been nice. But the fact is, they didn't. Bad catechesis almost destroyed my 8 year old faith, but it didn't. It was instrumental in allowing me to become the Catholic I am today.
But no. Instead we have heard about the feelings of gays and their families, and the importance of inclusiveness ("Jesus hung out with sinners") and we've sang "Gather Us In" eleventy billion times and learned all about our carbon footprints.

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints. I am one of the worst sinners. I don't share in the sin of those who commit homosexual acts, but that doesn't mean that theirs are greater than mine.

We need to be inclusive. We need to accept everyone who needs us. We need to be kind to gays and their families while teaching them (and everyone else) unambiguously the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to sexual chastity.

I didn't learn the authentic Church teaching in the pews of my local church. My pastor has about 7 minutes on Sunday to teach (that comes out to about 10 hours total a year), and it's not possible to portray all of the important nuances of every Catholic teaching in that amount of time. Karen needs to be proactive in her learning. And if Karen thinks it's important, Karen needs to volunteer to teach a seminar on Humanae Vitae, or possibly volunteer to present at Pre-Cana to engaged couples, the infamous "sexual intimacy talk". The old timers will love you for it.

The laity needs to step up to the plate and teach their community the truths of the Church founded by Jesus. Oh sure, it would be nice if the pastor would, but there is no limitation on the laity preaching outside of the homily.

So stop crying, Karen, and get to work.
Filed in :: Doctrine :: Politics | Discuss (0) | Permalink

Treat Him Like a Gentile or a Tax Collector

Posted by: tony on 09/09/2008 02:20 PM (Read: )
As I was listening to this weeks Gospel reading, Mt 18:15-20, I began to think about all the people coming to the defense of U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Biden.

These two have been in the news attempting to justify their public support of abortion by prooftexting Augustine. They have also been corrected by numerous Bishops ordained by God to instruct the faithful.

There has been talk about denying communion to these and other wayward politicians, but some come to their defense with the "I don't believe Jesus would do that" argument.

Jesus begs to differ.

Jesus said to his disciples:
"If your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.
If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen,
take one or two others along with you,
so that 'every fact may be established
on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.
If he refuses to listen even to the church,
then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."


Step one: The politician's ordinary calls the politician in privately for a chat about the scandal they are causing to the faithful.

Step two: The ordinary again calls in the politician, possibly with the politician's parish priest present.

Step three: The ordinary involves the whole church, by publicly chastizing the politician and entreating them to repent, confess and return to the fold.

Step four: Treat them like a gentile or tex collector, or in other words, like an outsider. Excommunication.
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (0) | Permalink

A Catholic Funeral

Posted by: tony on 08/19/2008 03:05 PM (Read: )
I hope when I die, I am afforded a Catholic funeral. I would prefer an extraordinary form (Latin) funeral, but I'm realist enough to know it'll be really hard to get an priest or Deacon able to celebrate the extraordinary funeral rite.

Patrick Archbold points me to an article in the Courier-Journal about a funeral home director who is suing the archdiocese of Louisville for business interference because of some very reasonable guidelines handed down.
The Rev. Jeffrey Leger, pastor of St. Catherine Church in New Haven, put a new policy into effect last month, stipulating that funeral directors can no longer solely plan funerals. Instead, they must now plan them with Leger, who has final say.

The new policy, which Leger outlined in a 10-page letter to funeral directors, strictly enforces church law and liturgical practices that limit such things as the types of readings, music and eulogies at funeral Masses.

Yay, Father Leger!!!

I have been to funerals where non-liturgical music has been played. We even had one funeral where I was required to sing with an a-capella group who was supposed to sing faith-filled numbers like "Let it Be", by the Beatles. I have sat through one eulogy after another as each family member tried to top each other at the "open mike" like the church was some sort of comedy club. I have heard readings from people who appear to have never read the word of God in a church of any kind, and probably didn't even look their reading over the night before, and practice it.

The funeral director responds:
Ron Rust, owner of the William R. Rust Funeral Home in New Haven, said the policy will interfere with his longstanding business of coordinating funerals that are held at St. Catherine.

The policy marks "an intentional and wrongful interference" in the dealings between the funeral home and its customers and will cost Rust funerals and income, according to his suit filed Aug. 7 in Nelson Circuit Court.

He's seeking a temporary injunction halting implementation of the policy, pending a trial seeking monetary damages from Leger and the archdiocese.

Rust claims a "right to direct funerals in accordance with the wishes of the family of deceased individuals without the constraints" of Leger's policy, it says.

Oh my. Mr. Rust really doesn't understand what a Catholic funeral is all about. If I were a parishioner of Father Leger's parish, I'd be considering another funeral director when I was called home. What Mr. Rust is doing is interfering between a pastor and his flock. A pastor's duty is to teach authentic Catholic theology, and to maintain the required dignity during the Holy Mass.
In his letter to funeral homes, he said the purpose of a funeral Mass is to "illumine the mystery of Christian death in light of the risen Christ," and that everything must focus on the Christian hope of resurrection.

Anything that could distract from that should be avoided, he wrote, adding that eulogies, recorded music and nonbiblical readings such as poetry and letters are forbidden except under limited circumstances.

Such personalized features should take place at the vigil service, typically held the evening before the Mass at either the church or the funeral home, he said.

Right on, Father.

My wife and I discussed it and we're leaning toward cremation and having our urns interred in the small vaults in the local Catholic cemetary which were built for that purpose. But my wife tells me we'll still have to buy a casket. Buy a casket?!?!?! We're not going to be using one, why in the heck should we have to buy one? If one is needed for the funeral, couldn't we rent one to hold the urn temporarily for the funeral mass?

My wife said she'd look into it more closely, but more and more, funeral parlors are looking like rip-off emporiums.

Patrick writes:
As for me, when I kick it, I want the cheapest funeral money can buy. I also want everyone to stand up at my wake and tell everyone what a lout I am and that if I am lucky that I barely made it into the worst neighborhood in purgatory. Then I want everyone to go to confession and then follow behind the hearse on their knees doing penance for me. I'll probably need it.

I agree. I don't want the homilist to tell my family that I'm in heaven. Odds are going to be very good that I'm not. I want him to highlight the need of my family to pray for the repose of my soul (since I will not be able to do so myself). The more prayers and other good works are offered on my behalf, the faster I can get into heaven and pray for them back.
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (1) | Permalink

National Catholic Reporter on Humanae Vitae

Posted by: tony on 07/30/2008 04:05 PM (Read: )
As we pass the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae (of human life), the National Catholic Reporter weighs in:
Catholics might recall another 1968 defining moment, the July 29 encyclical called Humanae Vitae, literally "Of Human Life." The encyclical was a sensitively written expression about the sanctity of marital love and the need to nurture life in marriage. But whatever else it stated, it has been remembered for only one thing: the upholding of the Catholic church’s ban on birth control.

Well, that was exactly how it was presented by publications like the National Catholic Reporter and other secular media outlets. NCReporter has long since ceased being an authentic Catholic publication.
Less than a decade after the encyclical’s promulgation, polls showed it was overwhelmingly rejected by Catholics. Eight out of 10 adult U.S. Catholics simply disregarded it. While bishops were largely upholding the document, many priests in pastoral settings, including confessionals, were saying it was a matter for individual conscience.

This was the party line that was read to me when I was getting married in 1985. One of the priests at my Pre-Cana conference explained that in the matter of artificial birth control, we were to use our "consciences". But unfortunately, the good father did not feel it was necessary to inform our consciences in a meaningful (and authentically Catholic) way. So the admonition to "follow our consciences" was a "churchy" way of saying "do whatever you want".

Such cowardice was common when I was growing up. Priests did not want to offend parishioners (especially wealthy parishioners) lest they leave that parish for more "enlightened" venues. That cowardice on the part of that parish priest contributed to my living in unrepentent sin for many years, the scars of which (even after confession), I still bear. I have long since forgiven that priest. God set me on the path I have been following for a reason, which may or may not become apparent before I meet my maker.
By any measure, a gulf between official church teachings and Catholic practice had begun to grow and was to continue to grow and to permeate a host of other Catholic teachings on sexuality and morality from homosexuality to the use of condoms in the fight against the HIV virus. The right of women to have special say in reproduction, then an almost exclusively male terrain, was soon added to the list.

I'm sure that the Reporter editorial team didn't mean to reference the prophetic writings of Paul VI, but he predicted these evils. By being allowed to reject the Church's teaching on artificial birth control, the pandora's box was opened for the following (which are described in an Orwellian, "Ministry of Truth" manner):

  • The disordered inclination of homosexuality gained wider acceptance, even to the point that people are talking about homosexual "marriage".
  • The use of condoms to "fight the AIDS virus", when it was the prolific use of condoms and the libertine sexual morality that followed it that caused the almost pandemic spread of the AIDS virus.
  • "The right of women to have a special say in reproduction". This wins the prize for the most innocuous sounding euphamism for killing one's child in the womb.

C'mon, NCReporter, if you're working for Satan, own it. Tell it like it is. But then I guess you guys have Uncle Screwtape on your editorial board, don't you.
Research conducted by sociologist Fr. Andrew M. Greeley found that the encyclical so shook Catholics that by itself, it would have reduced religious practice by almost one-half. That decline never fully occurred, and the reason it did not, Greeley found, was the favorable impact the Second Vatican Council was having on the lives of most Catholics.

The Church's job is not to "get with the times", it is "preach unpopular truth". If it reduced religious practice by half, so be it. If you are not going to live the Catholic truth, why should you bother to go to church and worship a God you are disobeying, on a daily basis.

But a huge problem with Humanae Vitae was that the truths of the encyclical were not transmitted at the parish level gently and insistently with the help of the Holy Spirit.

One of the impacts of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council, was to blur the distinction between church discipline and God's unchanging Truth. People in the pews (myself included) figured that after Vatican II anything goes. It would be just a matter of time before the Church changed the rules on artificial birth control. We wondered what happened to all the souls in hell because they ate meat on Friday. Did they all get a "get out of hell free card"?

Humanae Vitae is God's Truth. It is transformative for couples if it is given a chance. But to do so, you have to focus less on your material posessions, and look to God to provide what you need. After all, we pray to God "give us this day our daily bread", not "give us enough bread to put some away for the future".

(Tip of the hat to Father Z., whose learned commentary is worth a look.)
Filed in :: Doctrine :: Family Issues | Discuss (0) | Permalink

Presbyterians Vote On Elimination of 6th Commandment

Posted by: tony on 07/11/2008 08:12 PM (Read: )
Well, the 7th Commandment for them:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" -- God
San Jose, CA., Jul 8, 2008 / 11:57 pm (CNA).- Reaction continues to the decisions of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), which took place between June 21 and June 28. The assembly nullified proscriptions against sexual behavior outside of marriage and called for a vote to delete the church’s constitutional standard requiring fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. It also initiated a process that could remove mention of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality form the Heidelberg Catechism.

When it comes to accepting homosexuality, and assorted misuses of the sexuality God gave us, why worry about what He said about it. Fidelity in marriage is not important. Chastity outside of marriage is not important either. It's all about what we want to do.

This sort of thing makes me thank God each and every day that I'm sailing on the Barque of Peter with Benedict XVI's hand firmly on the rudder.
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (0) | Permalink

Talking to Mary

Posted by: tony on 04/03/2008 02:54 AM (Read: )
Virgin MaryMany of our separated bretheren have a problem with the Mother of God. They believe that you can go right to Jesus with your prayers, requests, etc., and they are right. You can do that. Nothing in Catholic doctrine requires you to speak with the Saints, even Jesus' mother. The only thing required is that you believe that there is a communion of saints. We say that during the Nicene Creed at every Mass.

Sister Mary Martha has a great take on this:

The Mary thing is particularly vexing. Here's what I have to say about the idea that ignoring Mary is a smart move:

So. You only talk to Jesus. Good for you. Let me get this straight. Tomorrow you are invited to a party and Jesus is going to be there. You get to this party and you talk to Jesus and it's just wonderful. You sit down on the couch with your plate of cheese and crackers and, lo and behold, next to you on the couch is Mary, with her plate of olives with pimento. You say nothing to her? You just sit there staring ahead eating your cheese? Wouldn't you be fascinated to get to talk with Jesus' mother? Seriously, wouldn't you? If Jesus wanted to sit on the couch too, would you just shove Mary aside? And what if she said to you, "is there anything else you'd like me to say to Jesus for you?", your reply would be, "no, I'll just talk to Jesus myself"?

And what do you think Jesus would think if you were so rude to his mother at the party?


That is a patricular vexing question. From reading Protestant web sites and blogs, I get this sense of not only not revering Jesus' mom with entirely appropriate hyperdulia, but there seems to be this sort of disdain. I here statements like: "Mary was a sin-filled human just like the rest of us!", or: "Mary was simply the vessel."

I was always taught that we are supposed to follow Jesus' example. Jesus obviously loved and revered his mother and stepfather just like we revere our parents. Wouldn't you think that Jesus would want us to feel the same way about his mom?

Mary shows us something that is impossible for Jesus to show us. What she shows us is how to be a faithful follower of Jesus. The rest of the Saints with the example of their lives, do the same.
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (0) | Permalink

Jesuits

Posted by: tony on 01/10/2008 08:02 PM (Read: )
Jesuit jokes seem to be pretty popular among members of St. Blog's. These jokes, as all good jokes, capitalize on a stereotypical truism. Unfortunately, the truism of these jokes is that the Jesuits are faithless.

One such "joke" goes like this:
A man walks up to a Franciscan priest and a Jesuit priest. The man asks: "Fathers, how many novenas do I have to say to receive a Mercedez Benz?"

The Franciscan priest asks: "What's a Mercedez Benz?".
The Jesuit priest asks: "What's a novena?"

I put "joke" in quotes, because to me, it isn't funny. It's sad.

Karen Hall feels the same way. She has a real love of the Society of Jesus that up until recentely, I did not share. I say up until recently because last year we visited the National Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville, NY. I walked in the footsteps of the original "Men in Black" who risked life and limb, suffered deprivation, hardship and even torture to bring Christ to the local Indian tribes.

Karen writes:
am praying mightily for you today, as are many other lay people around the world. In a way, I feel I am praying not only for you, but to you. And many, many others feel the same way.

There is nothing very complex about our plea to you. We love the Church. We know that St. Ignatius loved the Church. Regardless of the actual numbers (I know there are faithful Jesuits; I know there are "moderate" Jesuits) your image is not that of men who love the Church. Yesterday at Mass, I told a fellow parishioner that I was writing a pilot set in a Jesuit house of formation and he rolled his eyes and gave me a lecture. This is not some pet peeve of mine.

Things did not get this way because you like to wear plaid shirts instead of clerics and we're a bunch of wacko fanatic legalists. They got this way because you (and your retiring leader and the one before him) have remained silent while very public Jesuits have made very public displays of speaking out against the Church's teachings. Jesuit professors have systematically stripped our children of their faith while our complaints have fallen on deaf ears. You are causing us great pain and you don't seem to care. You care mightily about the poor and about issues of "justice." Why don't you care about us?

From Karen's lips to God's ears. My exposure to Jesuits may have been somewhat one sided. I only see those who are in the news, and those are usually not in the news for doing something good. When the ordinary ministers of the media cover Catholicism, they are usually quoting some Jesuit "theologian" who has things completely wrong.

This is the reason that I would never send my child to a Jesuit school. It's one thing hearing heresy from some secular humanist professor, it is quite another hearing it from a priest who is from a society which has the reputation for being the most educated of all of the orders.

I hate feeling that way. I have the utmost respect for men of God from any order, but I still have to protect my family from those I consider "wolves in sheep's clothing".

However, all things are possible with God. I add my prayers to Karen's that the Society of Jesus find a renewal and a re-dedication to the Magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church.
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (3) | Permalink

Sex Abuse In School

Posted by: tony on 10/29/2007 11:14 PM (Read: )
There is an in-depth report on sex abuse in public school. Others have already made the comments of "if only public school teachers could get married... if only they allowed women to teach...", so I won't belabor that particular point.

Also, not to provide excuses for the sexual predators in school, or in the clergy, but I have a question that I'd like answered by anybody.

If a 13 year old girl is old enough to consent to an abortion, why isn't she old enough to consent to sex? If she is old enough to make the decision to kill the life in her young womb without her parents' knowledge or permission, why isn't she old enough to make the decision to engage in the act that creates that life?


This is a very serious question. It reflects on who we are as a society in the United States. The teachers, who should know better, are probably confused by this also. We, who follow the teachings of Jesus as handed down by the Catholic Church (despite a small percentage pf Bishops and predatory priests who didn't and maybe still don't get it), understand that sex is licit only when it has the potential to be fruitful within the bonds of a sacramental covenant of marriage.

Unfortunatly, God and his rules are not welcome in our public schools. Many (possibly most) of these girls don't understand that God loves them individually, unconditionally and has loved them from the beginning of time. Many of these girls are products of a broken home where her parents didn't understand that God has had one special spouse picked out for them since the beginning of time. He expects them to die to self, and live for each other like He did for both of them on the cross. With dad gone, irresponsible or abusive, they don't understand that there was one man who loved them since they were born and who would die for them if needed. These girls are broken. So they look for that love in other men they meet; their teachers, their coaches, their priests. Some of these men are weak, others are predatory.

Those who have bought into one of Satan's big lies that sex is for pleasure, probably can't understand the problem. After all, she looks like an adult woman. She dresses like an adult woman. She behaves like an adult woman. She can get contraception in school like an adult woman and if anything "happens" she can get an abortion like an adult woman.

What's the problem?

The problem is, that the line needs to be drawn again, boldly, that these girls are children. They are our sacred trust and our shining jewels. We need to protect their innocence as long as we can. This means get NARAL and Planned Parenthood out of our schools with their pornographic "education". This means get rid of the agenda-driven homosexual groups teaching their captive audiences in school that all manner of perversion is "natural". This means getting rid of the in-school "clinics" which hand out condoms and dispense powerful hormones which may be damaging our girls' young bodies.

This means that men who are caught doing this are put away for a long time, both to get them off the street, and serve as a reminder to other would be predators that we cherish our girls, and these men touch them at their peril.
Filed in :: Doctrine | Discuss (0) | Permalink
<<  [ 1 ]   2   3   4   5  >>
1 - 10 of 46