Wednesday, August 14, 2013

St. Maximilian Kolbe

The Militia of the Immaculata began on October 16, 1917, around a table at the Conventual Franciscan seminary in Rome. Maximilian Kolbe gathered six like-minded young friars before a statue of the Blessed Virgin and drafted a charter that would establish one of the most influential Marian apostolates ever. - MI

When I was little I was introduced to the Militia of Mary Immaculate through school.  I wanted to be a 'knight' of Our Lady, and signed up.   The life of Maximilian Kolbe made a deep impression upon me, so after I returned to the Church as a young adult, I renewed my membership in the Militia and went through the Total Consecration to the Immaculata, according to St. Louis DeMontfort.

What is the Militia?

Saint Maximilian Kolbe founded the Militia Immaculate in response to the growing threat of Free Masonry (Freemasons). While still a student in Rome; he was walking home to the college and witnessed in St. Peter’s Square an unauthorized demonstration of Free Masonry. They were denouncing the Church, the Pope, and had a picture of Satan crushing the head of St. Michael the Archangel. The Freemasons were and still are a great danger to the Catholic Church. Where Communism and Socialism would stand face-to-face with the Church, the Freemasons would sneak around the back of the Church and pick pocket her from behind. The Militia Immaculate has a two-fold purpose – 1. Re-conquer the universe and return it to Jesus Christ through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and 2. Spiritually battle the evils of Free Masonry. [I will soon do a blog post on the dangers of the Freemasons.] - More at Tom Perna


As everyone knows, Pope Francis recently mentioned lobbies - the gay lobby, Masonic lobby - and yes, the Holy Father used the term gay.  It's the popular-political term that many people argue about.  I don't want to reprise that discussion here. 

However, the fact that there is a "gay" lobby, homosexualist movement, gay rights/gay pride movement/agenda is undeniable.  Undeniable.  Do they demonstrate and protest in front of St. Peter's, the Vatican?  Do they demonstrate outside cathedrals and churches, and even disrupt Masses?  Yes they do.  The Masons may no longer do such things, but gay activists do.

I'm beginning to think that by getting people comfortable with the term - "the Church has to do better with gay people" - we're pretty much capitulating to the demand for approval of a separate gay identity, behavior, lifestyle and spirituality.  It's confusing the faithful, blurring the lines - and I suspect it is intentional.  Maybe not so much when Church leaders do so, but it plays well with the game plan.

Opposition to Church teaching.

When one sticks to Church teaching, one is accused of homophobia and self hate.  On some level, this demonstrates to me that 'gay' has been radically defined as an identity amongst those who have chosen to lobby for universal recognition and approval of homosexuality in all of its forms.  It is a very real opposition to Catholic doctrine and tradition. 

As I read comments on my blog, as well as on other blogs, (I could link to examples, but why give traffic to posts I think are hurting the discussion?) I sometimes detect an underlying and sometimes overt  animosity towards Catholic teaching, if not downright rejection of it - especially by some non-celibate gay Catholics.  It has never been so apparent as now, since Pope Francis spoke in a more conciliatory tone when referencing gay people.  The current Pope is increasingly contrasted with Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict and the language of the documents issued under his watch regarding homosexuality.  As if Pope Francis would deviate from consistent papal teaching on the subject.  He can't.  It appears to be a real obstacle to gay activists, one they would like 'redefined' if not trashed.

 The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry... - CDF Letter to Bishops

These passages are very relevant to the original idea of this post and the concept of a lobby.  The Letter to Bishops is not only frequently ignored by those who should be teaching the truth, it is also decried by those who seek to promote gay culture.
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual. 
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. 
9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination. 
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws.
This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. - ibid

In our day, as the issue becomes ever more confused, it may be very good advice to turn to the Blessed Virgin, as did St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for alone
thou hast put an end to all heresies . . .
O Mary conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to you
 and for those who do not,
especially the enemies of the Church
and those recommended to you.


  1. Well done, Terry. One of the things I have thought about quite a bit is that if same sex activity were to be thought of as licit in anyway, the entire house of cards regarding human sexuality in Church teaching would collapse. How so? Well, the Church holds the line that sexual activity is to be both unitive and procreative. This means that it must unit bodies into one flesh, which is only possible with male and female, and it must be ordered toward procreation, which again is only possible with male and female. Old age and infertility do not break such a union of the two concepts, as the act is still unitive and still ordered toward procreation (and God has a long and storied history of making fertile the infertile...Sara and Abraham anyone? Heck, my parents? Ha!).

    To say that the act need not be unitive nor procreative is to give way not only to homosexual acts, but also contraception (unitive not procreative), IVF (procreative not unitive), and masturbation (neither). The entire facade falls. Perhaps this is the intention?

    Seems likely. Wide is the road to Hell. An anything goes theology paves that road nicely.

  2. For most people, including Catholics, the hierarchy's 'house of cards' teaching on sexuality has already fallen. And, no, this doesn't mean anything now goes. Love, respect, commitment, and, yes, procreation (including but not restricted to biological procreation) remain the hallmarks of moral and healthy human sexual expression.

    1. I find your reasoning unconvincing compared to the Church.

    2. In other words, what you have written has nothing to do with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

      Protestant? Yes. Catholic? No.

    3. Are you saying that the sensus fidelium isn't part of the Catholic tradition?

    4. Happy feast day to all.

      Michael, I see Jericho answered for me - but I will add the following - from my favorite guy, Cardinal Ratzinger. He addressed the issue of sensus fidelium as Pope. He said it would be unthinkable to use it to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, and I quite agree.

      "The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium thus teaches us on the subject: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. “(n. 12).

      This gift, the sensus fidei, constitutes in the believer a kind of supernatural instinct that has a connatural life with the same object of faith. It is a criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition. It also has a propositional value because the Holy Spirit does not cease to speak to the Churches and lead them to the whole truth. Today, however, it is particularly important to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this because the sensus fidei can not grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium."

      I hope that was helpful for you, although Jericho explained it quite well too.

      To help readers understand the sensus fidelium, it may be helpful to give a couple of examples.

      The dogma of the Assumption may be one of the best examples of the sensus fidei actually. The Holy Father inquired of the Bishops before promulgating the dogma. It has always been doctrine, a part of the deposit of faith, but the proclamation of the mystery as dogma was in a way a response to the authentic sensus fidei. It is believed Benedict's Summorum Pontficum giving greater freedom for the Extraordinary Form of Mass was in response to the sensus fidelium as well.

      Again, just checking in here - back to adoration for now - wishing all of you a happy feast day and be assured of my prayers!

    5. Michael, I am saying that what you are pushing is not part if the sensus fidelium. That should be obvious to all. I know this is the lynchpin to your whole argument, and that it has been destroyed, but please know that your tactics are indeed quite dated. The same argument was made against humanae vitae back the 1970s. It was destroyed then as well. What you have is misinformation at best, and heresy at worst.

  3. "For most people" - the truth is not determined by a majority acceptance. I do not understand why people get hung up on that. It's as if they, when seeing many people oppose "the hierarchy", conclude that "the hierarchy" must be in error. Do they never consider that the majority is lost, especially when the Lord spoke of the wide vs. the narrow road?

  4. Don't forget that we have in the Catholic tradition the teaching of the sensus fidelium, the 'sense of the faithful.' That can no doubt look like 'majority acceptance' to some.

    1. You are misunderstanding the concept.

      The “sense of the faith” or sensus fidei is a concept that is often misunderstood and misused by certain agenda-driven individuals within and without the Church. In 1999, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity defined the sensus fidei as “an active capacity for spiritual discernment, an intuition that is formed by worshipping and living in communion as a faithful member of the Church.” When the “whole body of the faithful” exercises this capacity, it is known as the sensus fidelium or “sense of the faithful,” which is a means of ensuring the Church “as a whole remains faithful to Christ.” The clergy, and specifically the bishops, are not excluded from the sensus fidelium, but rather are a part of it. Because of their position of authority, however, it is important for the bishops to “be alert to the sensus fidelium, in which they share, if they are to be made aware when something is needed for the well-being and mission of the community, or when some element of the Tradition needs to be received in a fresh way.”

      The sensus fidei is not the exclusive property of faithful lay Catholics, nor does it belong solely to the clergy, but rather each and every faithful Catholic is invested with it. The sensus fidelium works with the Scriptures, Tradition, and the magisterium and is “mediated by their contributions.” It is not a body which overrules or vetoes the other elements of the Church, but rather represents another area where the Holy Spirit is active.

    2. Further:

      Newman considered the sensus fidelium to be a “branch of evidence” which the Church should consider and confer with prior to defining doctrine, particularly on matters of devotion, of which the faithful and devout laity are particularly intuitive. He listed the body of the faithful as one of the important manifestations of “the tradition of the Apostles,” that cannot be simply ignored by the hierarchy, but also does not work apart or above them either.

      Newman provided the definition of the Immaculate Conception and the proceedings at the Council of Ephesus as examples of the sensus fidelium at work. The sensus fidelium is not infallible itself, but rather is further evidence of the infallibility of defined doctrine. It is important to note that Newman spoke carefully of the “faithful,” “devout,” and “pious,” as opposed to simply the “laity,” indicating that the Holy Spirit works through those well-formed and well-disposed to His message, and not those who may claim the title of “Catholic” but live in ignorance or obstinacy of Church teaching. Lumen Gentium describes the “Catholic faithful” as those who are “fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the

      Those who represented sensus fidelium best were to be found among the martyrs – those unlettered and ordinary lay men and women – who gave such incredibly strong and public assent to the beliefs and doctrines of the Church as to willingly die in order to avoid disavowing them. The martyrs are certainly a far cry from the motley collection of “dissenting theologians” and “disaffected and disgruntled former-Catholics” often claiming the title of sensus fidelium in today’s world, using the term as some sort of justification for dissent through its alleged “veto” power over the hierarchy.

      Arguing against such notions, Newman pointed out that the “gift of discerning, discriminating, defining, promulgating, and enforcing any portion of tradition resides solely in the Ecclesia docens [i.e. the magisterium].” The voice of faithful Catholics certainly matters and needs to be taken into account by the magisterium, but the same cannot be said of the voices of dissent among what can only be described as, at best, “dissenting” Catholics and non-Catholics, who never fail (it seems) to garner much of the media’s attention. Newman recognized the pernicious power of the modern media and its ability to mislead the faithful when he stated that it could be “more powerful” than any pope when unconsciously enslaving man to the mercy of its opinions, no matter how flawed. In 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) supported Newman and others in this line of thought when it stated, rather clearly, that the mere opinions or thoughts of some, or even most, of the laity does not suffice for the sensus fidelium. The CDF also declared that “not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith…all the more so given that people can be swayed by a public opinion influenced by modern communications media,” and further underscored the importance of the Second Vatican Council’s emphasis on the “indissoluble bond between the "sensus fidei" and the guidance of God's People by the magisterium of the Pastors…[which] cannot be separated.”

    3. So, in short, do not be fooled by those claiming the sensus fidelium who are not considered faithful by the Church's own standards.

      Laity? Yes. Faithful? No. I think we have clear examples of that here among the comments.

    4. Yes, of course you would think that. But the idea of "the faithful" being defined as those who unquestioningly accept everything uttered by members of the hierarchy is absurd, and is readily challenged by examples from our Catholic history and tradition.

      I'm familiar with Janet Smith's so-called "historical account" of Humanae Vitae. The problem with her analysis is that she ends up with what can only be described as a "discriminatory ideology." In other words, the non-reception by the faithful of Humanae Vitae is readily seen by the vast majority of Catholics as the result of the institutional church’s dismal failure to integrate into its thinking and teaching the corporate body of Christians’ experience and wisdom regarding sexuality. And once one recognizes this failure, then Janet Smith’s (and Pope John Paul II's) “objective reality” concerning sexuality can be seen for what it really is: a discriminatory ideology; a closed system of ideas and beliefs that starts with a premise already inside the system. For the architects and guardians of such a system, no experiences, insights, and questions that arise beyond the system can be tolerated. Indeed, they are routinely condemned and actively discriminated against.

      This is because experiences beyond their view of “objective reality” are viewed as acts outside the laws of nature, as acts that are shameful, embarrassing, wrong, and the result of humanity’s fallen state. Yet theologian Joan Timmerman has proposed that perhaps it is “the hubris of those who would pretend to be gods that would lead them to be ashamed and embarrassed at being sexual.”

      For Timmerman, “rejection of the sexual and attempts to exclude it (‘outlaw’ it) are symptoms of the fallen condition.”

      And as for the argument we often hear that the bishops’ are simply doing their job and educating Catholics on what “the church” teaches about homosexuality and same-sex relationships, I can only say that I’m tired of the clerical leadership’s impoverished understanding of human sexuality being passed off as “Catholic belief” when clearly many of the teachings that comprise this closed-circuit belief system (be they concerned with contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, or the meaning and purpose of sex) have simply not been received and thus accepted by the faithful. We don’t believe what these teachings say. They need to be revisited, revised and updated in the light of science and human experience. Catholic thinking and teaching have changed around moral issues such as usury, slavery, nuclear arms, and labor standards. Our tradition is open, in other words, to its teachings being shaped by historical and scientific knowledge. Why should our understanding of sexuality be immune from such an openness, from such ongoing development? Why is the church's clerical leadership so adamantly opposed to teachings on sexuality and sexual morality being shaped by new insights? Why is a historically conscious approach to some moral issues permitted but an absolutist approach to others strictly enforced? Such inconsistencies comprise a great scandal, especially given their implications for the intellectual standing of the church and for ordinary Catholics trying to live lives of integrity.

      Good teachers are good listeners, and it’s time for the bishops to start listening. And what exactly do they need to start listening to? Well, they could start with gay people’s experiences of the loving and transforming presence of God in their lives and relationships.

    5. Unfortunately for you, Michael, absolutely none of what you have written has refuted a word of what I have written, nor that of anyone else. That is because what I have written is simply Church teaching, which you are opposed to. It is really that simple, and it is good to see it out in the open here. I quote Church teaching, you complain. That is all this is and all you really have. You see, the Catholic view of the sensus fidelium, human sexuality, and indeed the very purpose of the human being is true, and it is the opposite of yours. All you have done is what you usually do, both here and at your blog: Rail against the Church and the hierarchy in particular. It is entirely too predictable. Next time, save the Church bashing and actually try to rebut that which has destroyed your entire worldview. I know that you won't be able to, but hey, why ruin it for everyone else?

      You sure seem to know an awful lot about what the Church should do, but so very little about what she actually does.

    6. Unfortunately, Jericho, you have a very limited and impoverished understanding of "Church." For you it's simply the hierarchy and whatever it says. Yet in reality the Church is so much bigger than it's clerical leadership.

      It seems clear that you fear development and change. You even say the latter is impossible. That's a cop-out; a way to avoid engaging complex issues, hard questions, and, ultimately, growing up. There is no room in your understanding of church for honest questions and doubts or for faithful dissent . . . and thus the movement and speaking of the Spirit.

      It's a static, non-living entity you're promoting, not a vibrant, ever-evolving community of seekers. Remember John XXIII's words: "We are not on earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flowering garden of life." You seem to be afraid of getting your hands dirty, and you complain that those of us who are willing to engage in this 'cultivation' are 'ruining it for everyone else.' This is not how I and many other Catholics see it.

    7. Once again, Michael, the same tired tactics. The hierarchy this, the hierarchy that. Never mind what Newman has said. Never mind the Church Fathers. Never mind what the Church says about anything. Michael is told that he cannot ram his erect penis into the rectum of another man, and that makes him mad. So he crusades against the Church, claiming there are really two of them - the hierarchy and his small band of rapidly-aging holdovers from the sexual revolution. Sorry, Michael, but the Church is exactly what she says she is, and we real Catholics believe everything she says. You, as a protestant who bizarrely claims to be Catholic, cite old dissidents who have been rebutted for decades now.

      It is sad, really, because the old protestant church Michael represents died long ago. His arguments are old and dusty - static, to use his words. The Catholic Church is ever new and increasingly packed with young families yearning for Truth, not Michael's latest fads or dancing Tedegers.

      You are simply ignorant of Newman, which is obvious. You attempt to use statements by popes out of context to cover up the fact that, at the end of the day, your disordered desire for poop on your penis has warped your entire worldview.

      We Catholics see beyond disordered desires, and rest assured Michael mine are worse than yours. You put yourself into a tiny box and identify your entire existence by what you do with your genitals. That animalistic reduction of a beautiful gift of God is not only regrettable and sad, but pathetic.

      No, Michael, it is you and your band of gray birds that are static and non-living. Dead, if you will. We will continue to follow Christ and His Church. If you choose to remain as foolish and ignorant as you are now, you will continue to invent your own church, made in your image and likeness, and full of fake smiles, sin, and lies.

      In other words, a lot like your blog.

      I'll pray that one day you become Catholic again, Michael. Right now, you are delusional at best and downright heretical at worst. Seek help. Repent. Convert.

      Its that simple.

    8. As Newman said, who you often misquote, a thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. A real Catholic believes it all and doubts none of it. There is no such thing as faithful, Hans Kung-like dissent in the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as change either.

      There is doctrinal development, there are difficulties, but there is no change and there is no dissent. If you disagree, neat for you, but that simply means you're not Catholic.

      Once again, I encourage readers here to actually read Newman (and Benedict as well) when it comes to the things Michael tries to use when attempting to gain more followers. He twists and he takes things out of context. It is easy to see once you have done your homework. He is a carnival barker and nothing more.

    9. Please identify where I 'misquote' Newman.

    10. Also, please explain how the Church can be 'ever new' when there can be 'no change.'

  5. That it can look that way "to some" says nothing about what it actually means.

  6. Even a cursory knowledge of Church history (and I know many of you have more then that) reveals that there is as much politics involved in the Church’s decisions as the Holy Spirit!

    Some of the old hat stuff but still biggies:

    The Church considered slavery morally acceptable, as long as the masters treated their slaves humanely, from day one until after the Civil War

    Galileo (nuff said) Took them until 90’s to change that (cause the church does not like to admit they were..the egg on the faces stuff)

    The Church taught sex in marriage to be a necessary evil for the procreation of children until very recently.(Shant go into a great deal of Church teaching comes from St. Augustine..who if he was not a sex addict before, sure was did leave a lot of the ladies happy..and like most ex-addicts, couldn't conceive that anyone could have a healthy relationship with and control over what was his individual vice.)

    And of course the little things that weren't strictly doctrines but it ment a great deal in the parishes, like anyone who ate meat on Fridays were going to hell, that unbaptized babies go to "limbo" (my Mom still refuses to believe that this has changed as it was "what I was brought up with.")

    And finally consider birth control. The Papal Commission of 1966 and the 72 experts from five continents, including bishops, clergy, physicians, and married couples, after three years of study advised Pope Paul VI that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves what methods to use. But the head of the commission, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, counseled the pope that a change in this teaching would jeopardize the church's credibility. (That my friend is politics at work.)Now we know that what..around 8 our of then Catholics don't believe that birth control is a sin, just like a lot of people who know gay people in healthy happy relationships, see that maybe, just maybe the Church teaching is wrong.

    So let's be realistic on the how and why the Church comes about its teachings. Of course the Holy Spirit intervenes, but its is dealing with weak humans, like a bakers son from a small village and grew up and became a powerful cardinal through craft,smarts,luck, balls, and stubborness. (read his story it is actually quite fascinating..the guy could have taken over politics, or ran the mafia if he wasnt a Carndinal..) but retained the beliefs and this his beliefs were correct and would brook no compromise.

    1. Fortunately, none of this is actually true. It is an agenda-based assessment of a historical event skewed into pure fiction.

      I recommend reading Janet Smith's historical account of Humanae Vitae. It is actually accurate and lacking the supreme revisionist and biased history above.

      Dan Brown would be proud of your efforts.

    2. But Pope Paul VI was right; separating sex from procreation lead to the downfall of the family, which is leading to the downfall of humanity. Women are taught that putting out is good, but women are designed to unite with one, not to sleaze around with many. Birth control also skews their pheromones so women end up with the wrong men, which leads to divorce for many who bother getting married; once they decide to have kids, the woman is no longer attracted to the man due to the absence of birth control.

    3. Oh, and who ever heard of the Holy Spirit acting by committee? My guess is that one guy who told the pope otherwise was inspired by the Holy Spirit not politics.

  7. I think two of you here made Terry's point better than Terry himself. Now there is a third who usually shows up along with these two. Where is he? It would complete the trinity of former Catholics who rail against the faithful.

    1. Oh, we're good now. He showed up below.

      Tea, gentlemen?

  8. Hmmm, Jericho...I would love to hear how and where the info is wrong or "revisionist." You SAY that it is but I see no proof of that or information to contradict. As to call me "former," Catholic you would be so wrong and a judgement call on your part. I attend Mass and am very active in my parish. The same kind of judgement call I would make that I think your "faith," is one built on blindness and a willful desire to ignore history and the facts. me its a very "fragile," faith in that you feel one block is pulled out the whole thing would cave in. Likes like dumping a loved one because they arent perfect.

    As for railing against the faithful? Where did I do that? Because I pointed out the historical changes the Church as made over the years? How did I "rail," against anyone. That is a distraction and also a cheap device to paint anyone that has a different opinion as being "unfaithful.." which as I said in my post, estimates are 1 in 8 Catholics who disagree with the ban on contraception.

    I could care less about changing anyone's opinion on this topic, even the Church's. I will continue to live my life with my partner and our kids and continue to celebrate the mass just like my straight brothers and sisters continue to practice birth control. I am however annoyed when the obvious history of the Church is totally ignored or twisted around with a lot of "theo-babble," to explain how the Church changes it stance.

    1. It is rather obvious you care a great deal. The problem is, you will continue to be frustrated. Church teaching is true and it cannot change.

      But perhaps I am tossing my pearls...

    2. More like clutching them....

    3. And our trinity of non-Catholics yelling at the faithful is complete!

      Welcome back! Enjoy your stay and learn a few things about Christ.

    4. I don't understand; how can you claim to be a faithful Catholic yet your comment indicates you don't follow Church teaching. And you seem proud of it. Both scandalous.

  9. Excuse me, that number on birth control is said to be 8 out of 10. Those pews would be awfully empty and the Sacristy would be reverberating with the shouts of the unfaithful railing against the faithful.

    1. The fact that people claim to be faithful Catholics but don't follow Church teaching doesn't make it right. A lot of it is the abysmal catechesis people endured.

  10. Once again, thank you for proving Terry's point. Another non-Catholic railing against the faithful.

    You have indeed shown that the path to Hell is wide and easy. And to those who have been given much, much is expected.

    Repent and convert, Mack. It is that simple. You're not Catholic right now. You could be, but right now you're not interested in Christ.

  11. Oh, and just because one is in a church does not make one a Christian. Sometimes there are mice in pianos, but they're not composers.

    Which one are you?

  12. Terry, this is a great post. My faith is always better informed and encouraged for having stopped by.

    Jericho: rock on.

    1. Thanks!

      I also thank you Jericho - your responses are priceless.

      Happy feast day.

  13. Jericho,

    I actually like that saying...its a little schoolmarmish (go figure) so needs work but I like that it gets the point across. You do know that your also saying that about a lot of Catholics.

    I also like that a mere discussion on the history of the church, the mistakes that have been made, (depending on your perspective) pulls out an hysterical (in many ways) response of hell and damnation. I think you may be responding to past posts..not sure. My post was once again, not to change anyone's perspective on their sexual ethics and faith, but to say the Church does indeed change over time....a VERY LONG period of time, but change it does. And most Catholics will continue to consult the our consciences (in a relationship with our faith) and make their OWN choices and still consider themselves Catholics and that is between them and God..who does make the final judgement.

    But, I have to confess something, I do love to pull your chain a bit..or yes, make you clutch your pearls..which isn't very nice but it is fun..(its a lifelong affliction, I spent many an hour beating erasers together to clean them for punishments for upsetting one of the nuns.that wasn't so bad but the toilet cleaning was a bit much!)

    1. As I have said before, I have quoted Newman and Church teaching regarding your erroneous notion of "change." She hasn't changed and she won't. It is called Doctrinal Development, but not change (as in rupture from the past).

      You rejected that, of course, calling Church teaching and Newman derogatory names in the process. You rejected it because it did not say what you wanted it to.

      You reject Christ because He is not Who you want Him to be. That is foolish. Repent. Get over yourself. You're not any worse off than the rest of us. In fact, you have it much easier.

  14. Lets recap: Mack has admitted, publicly, that he openly engages in sinful activity (homosexual acts, lying to children, taking Communion in a state of mortal sin, etc).

    But he says he has the truth about Catholicism and knows better than the Church Fathers and Newman.

    Yeah....okay sir. I would tell you to sell crazy someplace else, but that would be uncharitable.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Jericho..I am EXTREMELY offended!!! I have NEVER openly engaged in homosexual acts, I do that behind closed doors..I do have some class you know!

    And the only lie I told a kid was that there was a Santa!

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

  18. I think it is quite interesting how Michael and others of like mind want us to "get over biology." This is because, biologically-speaking, what persons with same-sex attraction desire is biologically-purposeless at best, and destructive to bodily tissues at worst. Homosexual acts are biologically disordered, hence the "ignore biology" thing. I think it is telling that when I actually describe the acts, persons like Michael and Thom become offended and wish to divert the conversation immediately.

    I see that with pro-abortion types who seek to cover up images of abortion or squelch talk about the actual procedure.

    Michael wants us to ignore intrinsic teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, to ignore roughly 50% of what she has spoken for the last 2000 years. He is nearly a Manichaen of sorts. The body is to be ignored...get beyond biology...and all of that.

    Well, that goes in precisely the opposite direction of what the Church says. The body and the complementarity of the sexes, is made for gift. Sexual gift can only occur between male and female, for the bodies join and become one flesh. Biologically, of course, this is significant for the propagation of the species.

    But no, Michael says ignore all that stuff. He wants to use his penis the way he wants to. If someone wants to place his scrotum on a belt sander, so be it, Michael may say. There is no use focusing on "biology" and the "human body as gift." Such things really bring him down.

    Michael has a parallel, protestant church that ignores Catholic teaching, or outright rejects it. He is as Catholic as former president Bush is black.

  19. Finally, it is humorous how Michael says he represents the laity against the oppressive hierarchy, when folks like myself look at him as though he has antlers. Michael, you do not represent me. Stop claiming the title of something you do not own.

    I've seen your gatherings on your blog. Small, old, sterile, groovy, and sad. I go to Mass in the Catholic Church and what do I see? Growing, young, babies all over the place, vibrant, and joyful.

    The fact that you can't see it is either pathetic or funny. I shouldn't laugh at your blindness, but wow.

    1. Jericho - you are doing well - thank you very much.

  20. Poor Terry...sweet, gentle guy celebrating his faith and trying to drop a teaching moment or two but his classroom is full of rowdy boys rolling around and hitting each other (with someone like Nan coming in and trying to make a polite point among the din....) If only we all had the calm and grace of our host. I wish that I was a bit more like him.

    I will impose on our host one more time to make one last point to Jericho and on the topic of what gay Catholics would like out of their Church.


    "your disordered desire for poop on your penis has warped your entire worldview."

    "identify your entire existence by what you do with your genitals. "

    "ram his erect penis into the rectum of another man,"

    " If someone wants to place his scrotum on a belt sander, " (OUCH!!)

    Compare this to Michael's statements..

    "Well, they could start with gay people’s experiences of the loving and transforming presence of God in their lives and relationships."

    I think this says it all about two different viewpoints on not just gay sexuality, but but anyone's healthy development of their sexuality. On one point you have Jericho's views of gay sexuality...It IS disordered, and immature, non developed. Jericho's viewpoint on gay sexuality and spirituality is limited by his OWN experience, which is stuck in an adolescent fog of body parts and sex acts (some of them seemingly not that pleasant.) His development was stopped and he desperately NEEDS a faith that tells him his sexuality is bad, close the door on it, lock it up and keep it there, be asexual and everything is fine. Which I for one am happy he found something to hold him back and contain himself. What he doesnt see is that perhaps,if he was raised in a society and a faith that said, "Your sexuality is fine, this is how you conduct yourself.." he may have developed a mature, healthy way to express himself sexually. I have noticed this on many different blogs and websites, gay people who were somehow damaged by their experiences, so much so there sexuality has been disordered and unhealthy, be it by promiscuity, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, disease, etc...finding solace in the Church..which is great (and extends to straight people too, a great deal of sex addicts of all types need to have an something control their behavior.

    However, many of us don't have the same experiences (there but for the grace of God go I so I am not trying to be sanctimonious) and don't need a faith to keep us locked away from our sexuality, or controlled, because we are in control. I totally agree that a person should not be reduced to their sexuality, as that is just one part of a whole,but it does make a whole. But it is our responsibility to control our sexuality, not let it control us. However, some of us who have developed past that and have families and lives long for a faith that is developed to include us and our families, and our partners. Can you imagine gay kids being told, "Yes, you are gay, and this is how you can grow in God's love and to be a whole healthy person, and find someone to love and to raise a family in Gods' grace." I think there would be a lot less wounded people running to Courage or any of the other places and trying to figure out how to totally deny their own sexuality.

    1. The best thing that ever happened to me was indeed meeting someone to love and help me to mature and care more for others and create a family and extended family. That has little to do with genitals (though those are involved thank God!!!) and more to do with loving,trusting, and respecting that person and creating a safe stable enviornment for a family. I would love to have a Church that respects that and promotes that within the sexuality that God gave me. I find that on the parish level, and that is fine with me. Like married couples who use birth control and don't post to Catholic websites to ask what appropriate foreplay would be (I read one like that if you can believe it) I don't choose to change the Church teachings created by old men (many of them closet cases, or not so closet cases) who will never change, I choose to ignore them and hope for the best someday.

      And that is one viewpoint and one person's opinion. But the Church should be open to discussions of these things, doesnt mean it has to change, but as Michael said, it needs to listen.

  21. Courage does not teach a person to deny their sexuality.

  22. Mack, you are a willfully blind soul.

    Jericho...YOU ROCK!!!!

  23. your comments say it all..and nothing at the same time!Care to elaborate on both points?


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.