Friday, October 14, 2011

Tighten up.



The Bishop doesn't want divorced and remarried Catholics teaching in Catholic schools:
Archbishop André-Joseph Leonard of Brussels has indicated that Catholics who are divorced and remarried should not teach religion or serve as principals in Catholic schools.
The archbishop made the point that those who are responsible for the religious education of children should be in good standing with the Church. But his suggestion drew outrage in Belgium, where his predecessor, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, had encouraged a more liberal interpretation of Church law. - Source
 Playing fair.
.
I wish more bishops would adopt this same approach, after all, it is only fair.  I'm not sure how many divorced and remarried people teach in Catholic schools around the world, nor how many just choose to cohabitate with a partner, but if Church leaders will ban children of gay couples from attending Catholic schools, then they better make sure their own house/teaching staff is in order as well.  It appears this is what Archbishop Leonard is attempting to do.
.
The strict observance of the law should apply to those who contracept, as well as those who choose to have children out of wedlock.
.
And another thing...
.
Just why are we so enabling to women who choose to have children out of wedlock?  I worked with a woman who had 3 different kids by three different men - fellow Catholic workers fawned over her choice to keep the babies and had showers and fund raisers for her.  That is what charity is all about of course, but why are women no longer held accountable for stuff like that?  And what about women who choose to kill their kids through abortion - sometimes multiple abortions?  The next time someone claims, "What am I doing that is so bad?  At least I haven't killed anyone." - Stop and think about how true that might be.
.
Oh!  Oh!  What about married couples who choose to watch porn and use sex toys...  Close the schools!
.
Seriously, I'm kind of in agreement with Archbishop Leonard.  I think it is time for a more equitable distribution of justice within the Church, and not just focusing upon one or two groups of people violating the commandments.  God bless him!
.

27 comments:

  1. Wow, Belgium, you say? I can't believe that!

    Of course, there'd be no way to find out who's contracepting and who's not, would there? Unless they hire that guy you used to work with who "just knew" when people were doing that, haha!

    There's actually a couple I know who have been married for six years, have a pretty nice house and a cute dog, and God forgive me, I assumed they must be contracepting. It turns out the wife has endometriosis, among other problems, and suffers from severe depression issues because of her inability to have a child, which the couple want very, very much. So, never assume. It makes and ass out of u and me :)

    By the way, moralists would say that, ahem, "marital aids" would not per se be against natural law unless they actually subvert the procreative function - from a natural law perspective, they're not much different than using hands, etc. Some old couples may actually require the use of certain devices to get things rolling, and moralists have long accepted certain objects used in order to facilitate conception.

    However, the use of "sex toys" by a healthy couple is usually recognized as a pretty good indicator that one has lost focus and is sailing in hedonistic waters, with an inordinate focus on pleasure rather than what the whole deal was intended for.

    I'm sorry about the briefing, but I have read extensively on this issue because I was so afraid of mortally sinning by touching my wife the wrong way. I had heard a talk by an FSSP priest who basically said that most forms of foreplay are mortally sinful, and the logical conclusion of what he said was that it was best to just "get it done", cause you could mortally sin a myriad of ways.

    I learned that that priest, though he apparently based everything on St. Alphonsus, was not in line with the vast majority of orthodox moralists of the past TWO centuries, and was just being as rigorous as he possibly could because it was more "traditional".

    End of rant. Please pray for my overactive mind and morbid fear of sin in matters of marital intimacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lat time I checked getting divorced, obtaining proper annulment, and then getting remarried was not a sin...yeah the old biddies having coffee after Daily Mass may gossip..so what???

    Children out of wedlock?? Well--I hate to be snarky, especially in family-friendly Utah--but because of the tax laws--especially marriage penalty-- divorce laws concerning child support and entitlements many young women are actually financially better off having children out of wedlock..

    That's why Herman Cain's 9-9-9 program looks better and better to this single professional gal with a very heavy tax burden..

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  3. Btw, 1940s-era moralists would have approached the question like this: "Let's say a husband lost both his hands in the war and had them replaced by prosthetics ..." This wouldn't mean that it's totally cool for couples to go down to the sex shop and fill up the shopping cart, but it does mean that such things would not be intrinsically against nature (rather an extension of nature - like the husband's mechanical hands) as would say, contraception. The matter would be hedonism, not natural law per se.

    "fubbarc" is my conformation word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Children out of wedlock ... it is sad that we are in a situation that we actually have to feel good that people did not kill their offspring, but instead chose to "let them live", regardless of marital status.

    "Stan is a great guy - he works hard, is very kind, and he doesn't rape children." Kind of like that.

    In my sister's Catholic high school, girls would be asked not to return to the school if they became pregnant. However, several girls had abortions, often explicitly urged or even commanded to do so by their parents, partially so that they would not be kicked out of school. Talk about rough ground to deal with.

    At the all-male school I went to, the biggest issue was a guy who was secretly pooping in other people's backpacks. The school newspaper called him "The Mad Crapper."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mercury---haha...we have one of those folks at work (incidently he's a guy too) that sure is in the know of everyone's business...he has the uncanny ability to read people very well...he was actually quite nice to me Wed as I came in to work with a killer toothache and he went and made me a hot cup of tea and as he gave it to me said "This is for your toothache." It really helped :)

    Sara

    I can't believe this?? My verification word "imacrab"

    ReplyDelete
  6. My mother was a divorced and remarried Catholic - look at what a horrible little bastard I turned out to be. LOL! Oh wait - that's true.

    Anyway! I say clear the churches of all the sinners and perverts and be done with it!

    See how absurd these things can get. Not a question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think I'll just watch this one play out. :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mercury, you're like a Catholic Sue Johansen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who is Sue Johansen? I don't know if that was a compliment, an insult, or a joke :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. It was a joke, but Google her. :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. With the inception of bloglomerates few people read me or comment on my blog any longer.

    C'est domage!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know how to woo back a lover scorned: liturgy and homosex. Chop chop!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nope - not here fella!

    ReplyDelete
  14. You're defiant because Russia wasn't properly enchanted... err, consecrated.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is good to have Catholics in good standing in positions of authority within Holy Mother Church.

    If you abide within God's will you will be pleasing to Him.

    He knows we are sinners; He should have a reasonable expectation Church authorities will have people of merit working for Him.

    Having same sex teachers and so on, is like having a drunk drive you to Disneyland; sure, he knows how to drive, but doing so while drunk is not recommended.

    "... [12] And she laughed secretly, saying: After I am grown old and my lord is an old man, shall I give myself to pleasure?..."

    Sex, even when you are old, should be pleasurable.

    We are only required that, if it be God's will, we should bear any children He gives to us.

    Sex, like taking a shower is best done naked.

    Unlike showering, where we are allowed to use shampoo and some soap, sex should not include additives.

    Use that which God has given you.

    Sex outside of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony is still a sin.

    If your wife tells you "Don't touch me there" in the marriage bed, she might have a problem you need to have a Priest counsel you on.

    ^

    ReplyDelete
  16. Saint Michael: I applaud your comment about being faithful to the Church. However, when I checked out your blogs I notice that you're not only very pro-SSPX but also link to Bishop Williamson. Isn't is something of a contradiction to promote those who are not obedient to the Holy Father? Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pablo, no additives? What about mood lighting and rose petals?

    And I can imagine there'd be places one may not want to be touched ... One should respect one's spouse's wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "... What about mood lighting and rose petals?..."

    Bring what the good Lord gave you.

    We should always insure our wives are at rest in their homes, safe and secure, and especially so in the marriage bed.

    We don't need to introduce anything unnecessary, or try to improve that which God has brought together.

    It is nice to have pleasant surroundings, but procreation is what you are doing. It is, or should be, fun. Not entertainment, however.

    If you want entertainment, get a dog and teach it a few tricks.

    People with good relationships with their spouse got what I was saying in my "Don't touch me there" remark.

    A little humor in a relationship is good.

    The highest form of treason in marriage is when a spouse refuses to perform their duty.

    The world applauds these fools, but they deserve chastisement.

    Most important, a woman needs to stay feminine all her life.

    No pants, no high and tight haircuts, no taking a man's place in things.

    I imagine it would be creepy to be with a woman that dresses, acts, and talks like a man.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  19. So you think mood lighting and rose petals, perhaps massages with massage oil ... those are sinful, Pablo?

    ReplyDelete
  20. " ... those are sinful, Pablo?..."


    What is sinful is lust.

    The beautiful things of this world should not be made perverse by our wickedness.

    Women are a thing of beauty; beauty responds to us if we are gentle, loving both the beauty of a woman, and loving of God that created her.

    You want peace in your family?

    Make first peace with God.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  21. So mood lighting, massages, perfumes, romantic candles, rose petals, ... All of that is lust, Pablo? Who made you the judge of that?

    I'm not talking about covering each other head to toe in whipped cream or making creative use of garden vegetables, or using exotic contraptions.

    So is it also lust for a woman to dress to please her husband in the bedroom, for a man to put together a romantic setting for his wife? I guess in some peoples estimation, foreplay is lust.

    ReplyDelete
  22. How are mood lighting, flower petals and massages perverse and lustful?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I encountered a little demon once that could turn anything into an argument against anything.

    I just ignored him.

    Drove him crazy, so he just left.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm not trying to argue with you, so please don't take it that way.

    If what you mean by that statement is that were not even arguing, okay then. If you're calling me a little argumentative demon, I guess that can be apt at times.

    "fetalsin" is the confirmation word, btw. Who makes this crap up?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "fetalsin" just cracked me up big time.

    Sue!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Austringer12:29 PM

    On the subject of children out of wedlock: the daughter of a friend of mine became an atheist in high school. Or, more accurately, her boyfriend was an atheist, so she had to become one too. My friend, a fallen-away Evangelical who adopted the "God likes nice persons" kind of philosophy, said nothing to her daughter. Her daughter was a good, nice person, and she didn't think that her daughter really knew what she was doing anyway. When her daughter moved to a different state with this boyfriend and lived together, she said nothing to her daughter to indicate that this was morally wrong. Her daughter was a nice person, after all. When her daughter was dumped by the first boyfriend because she was having sex with their mutual friends, she again said nothing. Her daughter was a nice person, and who could blame her? Boyfriend #1 didn't marry her, as she had been promised, so what what else could she do? Later, this daughter married a perfectly crummy illegal immigrant from Peru -- and wasn't that terrific?!! My friend was delighted! When the husband moved out in less than 6 months due to drugs and drinking problems (evident from the beginning), who could blame her daughter for wanting to have a baby, and to start planning for one? After all, her daughter's biological clock was ticking, after all. And since she was still officially married to the immigrant, she wasn't technically going to be having a child out of wedlock. So she chose, as the biological father, another Peruvian illegal immigrant, married and with children and with no interest in being a father to this child (which is what she wanted -- no interference from a father).

    At some point, when receiving one of these later developments, I groaned audibly and said, with some exasperation, "Why is she choosing to condemn a child to life without a father, just because she can't pick a good husband? Why does the kid have to pay the price for her inability?" My friend was mightily offended: what else could her daughter have done? I answered that she could have obtained a divorce from her first marriage, and then, when she might be more attractive to potential suitors because she wasn't already married, then find a good man who wanted to raise a family. And if she couldn't do that, then accept that burden. My friend was appalled at my insensitivity -- her daughter was a nice person!!

    When I asked how her daughter was going to survive (she lives in New York City), she replied, "New York takes care of all its people", which is a nice-sounding way of saying that she planned to be a welfare mom.

    Of course, everyone is delighted! Her daughter is such a nice person -- and the baby is so cute.

    This is just one little illustration of the many problems we face. There are so many things going wrong, in this story of mine, that are symptomatic of our culture's decline.

    Needless to say my friend remains somewhat distant and cool -- how dare I let it be known that I thought this was a travesty. When I have mentioned this situation to a few others, some have said, "Well, at least she chose life" -- but that was never even in question!! This wasn't an unplanned pregnancy, this was as deliberate as can be.

    There, got that off my chest....

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments will no longer be accepted.
Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. Be sure and double check if your comment posted after you do the verification deal - sometimes it doesn't print if you made an error.