Find What You're Looking For:
Navigation
The Categories
- Art (3)
- Cartoons (3)
- John Wauck (4)
- Life of Jesus Christ (4)
- Mortification (7)
- On Opus Dei (13)
- Recommended Posts (17)
- The Church (5)
- The Da Vinci Code (121)
- What others said (4)
The Archives
- March 2011
- November 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- April 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- September 2007
- June 2007
Posts By Date
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Mar | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Registered Users
Subscribe
That was the title that came to mind after reading the report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in America. It was, of course, not the title of the article.
The big and sad news for Catholics was this:
“The percentage of Catholics in the American population has held steady for decades at about 25 percent. But that masks a precipitous decline in native-born Catholics. The proportion has been bolstered by the large influx of Catholic immigrants, mostly from Latin America, the survey found.
“The Catholic Church has lost more adherents than any other group: about one-third of respondents raised Catholic said they no longer identified as such. Based on the data, the survey showed, ‚Äúthis means that roughly 10 percent of all Americans are former Catholics.‚Äù”
This raises a lot of questions.
Above all, it’s a sad comment on Catholic education over the last 40 years. In some ways, the surprise is that the decline has not been worse. That’s why the the headline could have been “Despite Not Being Taught, Catholicism Hangs in There.”
Obviously the Catholic Church is by far – by many times over – the biggest religious group in the US, so, in a period of general decline, its losses would, in absolute terms, be bigger in any case. Moreover, the general decline reported among Protestants from two thirds to 51 percent is pretty darn steep. Indeed, it looks to me like a 15 percent drop. Hard to see how that isn’t reflected in some even steeper drops among certain select Protestant denominations (especially since the growing number of evangelicals can’t be accounting for the 15 percent drop).
It is also not clear how much Latino immigration is bolstering Catholic numbers. Obviously, to some extent it is, but it’s also true that a large number of the Catholics who become evangelical Protestants are Latino immigrants. I would be interesting in know how many people become Catholics through the Roman Catholic Initiation for Adults program every year. Last time I checked (some time in the ’90s) it was well over 100,000 people.
Finally, the Catholic Church is easier to leave in the sense that it has much sharper “boarders” in terms of doctrine and practice. It’s hard to leava country that doesn’t have boundaries. What does it mean to leave a “church” in which doctrine is vague and there is no clearly required practice?
This point is really the tip of a larger iceberg of a question: when we say “church,” are we really talking about the same thing? Strictly speaking, the Catholic Church doesn’t call protestant denominations “churches.” The Catholic Church and Protestant denominations are, in Catholic doctrine, apples and oranges. This sounds like an outrageous view in a Anglophone environment, but Рin the big picture Рit is the conventional and most popular view of most Christians (ie., over one billion Catholics). Putting it another way, to accept, as the Pew Forum does, as your basic premise that protestant denominations are “churches” is to take a minority view and impose it on the majority. An interesting procedure for an academic study. In the big picture, though, Protestant denominations are a minority in a world of Catholic and Orthodox churches.
||
Print This Post
||
Email This Post
||
Other Recent Posts
Fr. John Wauck Blogs again!
- Filed under John Wauck. Created on March 20th.
Don’t Skip This Ad: A Brand New Book!
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on November 28th.
The Catholic Choice
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on November 2nd.
Just When You Thought It Was Safe
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on September 24th.
Juno/Juneau
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on September 2nd.
Read It and Weep… with Laughter
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on August 23rd.
The New Yorker: “Catholicism has everything else beat”
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on August 14th.
Don’t Give Up on Europe
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on July 11th.
B. in the U.S. A.: The Sheep Confirm the Shepherd’s Hope
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on April 27th.
Catholicism’s Cultural Glass: Half Empty or Half Full?
- Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on April 13th.
“Finally, the Catholic Church is easier to leave in the sense that it has much sharper ‚Äúboarders‚Äù in terms of doctrine and practice.”
It would make it harder I’d think. If disenchanted it’s easier to just become a semi or fully lapsed Catholic, and not upset the generation of pious maiden aunts in your family by being openly defiant and repudiating the faith. Who needs that? And you can honestly still tell the Pew Foundation survey people that you’re on the books as a Catholic when you’re really a “cultural Catholic”. I doubt there’s any equivalent in the protestant world whose adherents switche denominations easily and very few people take exception to that.
Of the ones that do leave, I wonder how many are unaffiliated vs how many become Protestant.
“This point is really the tip of a larger iceberg of a question: when we say ‚Äúchurch,‚Äù are we really talking about the same thing? Strictly speaking, the Catholic Church doesn‚Äôt call protestant denominations ‚Äúchurches.‚Äù”
Yes we don’t and if I were a Prot. I’d take umbrage at that and think (not say outright because that would be ever so impolite) Catholic leaderrs lacked good faith and were obsessing over insignificant details. Maybe we can split the difference for the sake of making nice and call all our churches and denominations “confessions” instead.
I wonder how many of those who leave Catholicism and become Protestant do so due to second marriages after divorce. These would be spiritual types who would find their formal excommunication too much to take and go elsewhere. I imagine the more indifferent would just become “lapsed catholics”.
Umbrage or no, the Pew Forum clearly adopts a protestant-minority paradigm for its research. As I say, an interesting research strategy.
The apples and oranges issue need not be taken as an insult. It simply reflects the fact that Catholics and Protestants do not mean the same thing when they say “church.” This is clearly reflected in what Arn says about Protestants switching denominations easily (sometimes from week to week). Catholics and Orthodox do not – and for very good reasons. The nature of the Church – the one, after all, which Jesus Christ loves as His spouse and as His own Body and which He came to earth to build – is anything but an insignificant detail.
I fail to see how the relatively sharply-defined edges of Catholicism make it “harder” to leave. In fact, Arn’s second comment seems to suggest precisely the opposite: the stricter understanding of marriage may well encourage “leaving.”
==I fail to see how the relatively sharply-defined edges of Catholicism make it “harder” to leave. In fact, Arn’s second comment seems to suggest precisely the opposite: the stricter understanding of marriage may well encourage “leaving.”==
Well, there’s leaving and then there’s leaving before you’re kicked out i.e. “encouraged” to leave. My guess is the former is done less often because one can flout he rules and regs privately and few people will know, and since that person doing the flouting may be uncomfortable calling himself an EX-Catholic (I know I was), they will not leave. Consider all the catholics who ignore HV and consider themselves solidly Catholic. Nobody’s encouraging them to leave. Witness as well the fact that Catholics get abortions at nearly the same rate as the general population.
Irregular marriages are different because it;s public. The fondness for Catholicism of those involved is overcome by their outrage or sadness at their second class status. Of course the church offers a remedy unpalatable to most, so they get the hint and leave. Homos*xuals are in the same boat too and many leave. (But there, many stay oddly enough)
I think it’s tougher to leave because it is so very different in its feel from Protestantism, which in comparison is either bland, or weird. some forms surpassingly so (snake-handling anyone?). *That* accounts for the resistance to leaving, the “practice”, not the moral rules.
I wonder if there are respondants who are calling themselves Catholic that are in fact, sedevacantist or SSPX…
Not to be too negative here, but simply wondering if that is possible as I don’t know much about this survey, and I don’t know about you Arn, but no one asked me to fill one out. So- where do they get their numbers from? Baptisms or RCIA or…. random samplings?
Seriously arn, the snake handling fringe is likely confined to a group smaller than a typical family. Think Westboro Baptist..
Arn have you heard of “Courage”? It’s something you should check out if you have not (regarding SSA)
And, I do hope you are kidding about splitting the difference in order to be “nice”
Hasn’t enough of that been done already? It did not work then, and it won’t work now.
Finally, you are implying the moral rules are not appealing to anyone. That’s an interesting take. They were to me.
Interesting topic, Father. Thanks for putting it out there for discussion, and we can take this to our prayer as well.
One minor point on the math, in case you decide to write or speak on this topic. I think it actually works out to a 23.4% drop in decline in the number of Protestants. 15.6 percentage points out of a total of 66.6 percentage points = 23.4% drop.
Homos*xuals are in the same boat too and many leave. (But there, many stay oddly enough)
Arn, but its not odd at all really. Think of how the Church does not say if an alcoholic is genetically disposed or not, and if they choose that or not.
One can stuggle with something without expecting an approval of the demon one is struggling with. Or expecting a failure with the struggle.
Between the end of the last topic and now this one, I think we need to review the difference between what is tolerance and what is indifferentism.
Helen, can you explain further what you’re saying? I think I agree with you but I for one would like to hear more of your thoughts on this, if you don’t mind. It’s just that you seem to be coming at it in a different way of saying it.
Thanks much.
Tony
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/25cnd-religion.html?_r=2&ex=1361682000&en=f0f81b10d22e6a7c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
“While the unaffiliated have been growing, *Protestantism has been declining*, the survey found. In the 1970s, Protestants accounted for about two-thirds of the population. The Pew survey found they now make up about 51 percent. Evangelical Christians account for a slim majority of Protestants, and those who leave one evangelical denomination usually move to another, rather than to mainline churches.”
God Bless America!
http://www.ewtn.de/
God Bless Germany!
Im Rahmen seines 24-Stunden-Programms sendet EWTN bereits mehr als 4 Stunden t?§glich in deutscher Sprache.
Josip– Interesting that there’s a whole parellel EWTN universe in Germany. I surfed around the program guide and from the names much seems to be original German programming and not subtitled stuff from the USA. I could be wrong not knowing German.
Helen–’…the snake handling fringe is likely confined to a group smaller than a typical family.”
Oh, I was just having a little fun. Gotta love those guys. Did you know they get bitten by the snakes a lot when dancing around with them? It’s not as if they charm them. I guess they keep a lot of snake bite antidote around lol.
“…you are implying the moral rules are not appealing to anyone.”
I was referring to the phenomenon of “Cafeteria Catholicism” deplored by so many. Still, those who pick and choose consider themselves Catholic and tell the surveyors so.
Josip–Thanks for the NYT cite. I missed it and will now read the whole thing instead of relying on the highlights.
Helen, can you explain further what you’re saying?
Tony, I have to say I read your post while drinking my last cup of coffee this morning and it nearly ended up all over my keyboard my laughter was hard to repress.. I am not sure on which point you need me to clarify, as I saw this thread last night and was really beat when I posted and left the blog with my usual disconnected ramblings, so I don’t know on which topic I mentioned you may agree with me on. Would it be about Westboro Baptist? If it was in regard to tolerance and indifferentism- that remark is confined to my confusion about arn wanting to split the difference to be “nice” (which I firmly disagree with as you may note in the tone of my post)
Arn, thanks for explaining I do see what you are saying. *sarcasm on* I just wonder if the ones that get bit are labled “reprobates” as the “real christians” WONT get bit of course.*sarcasm off*
What I do see happening here in the USA is the momentum of a group called “emergent” churches (they try so very hard to be Catholic) at first I did not know what they were “emerging” from,or what they were about- but now I see it as very hopeful they will give up on trying the Do it yourself kit. Maybe some of you have heard about it, its even made Newsweek articles.
Its sad they would rather attempt to make up their own catholic church when they could just come to the Catholic Church. If they read Early Christian Doctrines by Kelly they may finally swim the tiber.
(he is a protestant by the way) Reading the Fathers tends to be the final push for some.
Well Father, after giving this more time its really no wonder they are using a minority as a “basis” for theological terminology. They are very likely protestants who did this survey. They are not objective maybe even without realizing it. In other words, let the anti catholic mindset prevail!
Does anyone know if sloppy religious ed was limited to the US in the last 40 years? It appears to me this was a global problem, but that is not based on fact just my gut.
Dear Josip, I do hope you are not satisfyed with the fact that rather than investigating the Catholic Church many former evans end up in mega churches or other options just as deficient. They do so I think, not because the mega size but because of all the little “personalized” sub groups offered on the inside so one can tailor fit their “needs” to make up their own requirements for themselves and leave the rest (whatever the rest is)
I would think you agree with me that we can hold off on the God bless America for such sad news, and ask God to have mercy on us here. And, to pray more Catholics here do their “job” so that the goal of getting everyone home is a real possibility and not viewed as a “who cares, not my job”.
I realize we all have different approaches on evangelism, and all have different gifts and abilities but I really don’t see why a more aggresive approach can’t be tried.
Helen you are correct. In Canada, in the province of Ontario where I live, we do not have a proper religious Ed course in the publicly funded Catholic School system. It is very “washed” down and wishy washy. Of course we are fortunate to have a school for girls in Toronto that is run by a lot of people who are involved with Opus Dei, either as members of cooperators and other friends. They have a very good religious program. I think we have to take particular care with laying a good formation for our children and we as parents are responsible for that. Some of my friends and I run a girls club on Saturday mornings where we do some fun things and slip in some catechism talks and virtue talks. The girls need to have a very good foundation for they are the ones that will be passing on the faith to their own children. When my children were little I used the Faith and Life series to teach them myself but as they get older we have had to become more creative to continue with the catechism since they have so many other influences bombarding them.
My husband and 14 yr old son are going with someother dads and sons to take a golf course in a gym this winter. A priest from Opus Dei is one of the golf instructors. During the course he does a talk on a virtue for the boys relating it to golf. My son thinks it is the greatest course ever, it is cool and fun but we still can slip in some good things.
It is our job as parents to be teaching our children and we have to be creative thses days to compete with their friends, the Internet, the TV and whatever else gets in the way.
We also have to be a bit more daring and brave and have larger families! It is indeed sad that there is a decline in native-born Catholics. My Muslim friends are doing a better job at this then some of my other friends. In Canada the muslim faith is one of the fastest growing faiths, with lots of Canadian born children. Who needs a holy war, they will soon out number us.
[Yes Tony, he did hand in his essay. We are off to see Indiana play the Raptors tonight. We will be 4 rows behind Chris Bosh, but the boys are all Indiana fans. My son says they are the best run team in North America.]
Sorry, Helen, didn’t mean to make you spill your coffee. (Turns out I’m always my funniest when I’m being serious. I must try that approach more often.)
The parts I was hoping you would go further on, were these, I put in *** **:
Arn, but its not odd at all really. Think of how the Church does not say if an alcoholic is genetically disposed or not, and if they choose that or not.
*** One can stuggle with something without expecting an approval of the demon one is struggling with. Or expecting a failure with the struggle. ***
*** Between the end of the last topic and now this one, I think we need to review the difference between what is tolerance and what is indifferentism. ***
I just thought you were on to something excellent and wanted to here more, that’s all.
I agree it’s our job, in fact our responsibility to teach the children. I think there are many Catholics who would love to do this. Unfortunately, they themselves have had poor religious ed. And, as you know here in the US the Catholic schools are not publically funded. I cringe when I think of the sacrifices my husband’s parents made for their boys, sending them to the better (if not best here) Catholic Schools they paid very dearly for and at that time staffed fully with nuns (something of a dying breed here now) and loaded with Priests (there were far more then than now-esp at the schools they went to) and they both got ripped off big time. It’s actually criminal if you think about it. Some of the nuns were outright monsters they encountered. Even a few of the priests were creul and demeaning. One actually tried talking my husband out of going to college saying he would be a failure in anything he did, so why waste the time and money. I am sure that left permanent mental scarring. Neither of them were given proper religious education, and both of them know this now. Of course, they had no way of knowing at the time that they were being robbed blind. And, even if they did- I think they would have been hesitant to tell their parents, as that would have killed them of heart attacks instantly. They were proud Catholics- and loved their faith like their very breath. It would have been too hard to bear to hear any bad news. Luckily, neither of them lived to hear any.
So, you have parents out there like his oldest daughter- who is even more clueless about the faith than he is. And she now has 2 children. And so on, and so on it goes..
And, its pretty hard to pass the blame to his parents. They both had to work night and day to pay for the “good schools” and only his father, an immigrant spoke and read english well. His mother even though she was born here had worse skills in both. They witnessed by example, going to Mass as a family and keeping the fast, ect. But, beyond that- there was no time or energy, and they were told they were paying for the best ed around. They trusted those slick sales pitches.
Tony, I will elaborate on those points. Right now, I must run to the wonderful world of Target to get a birthday present for a girl’s party my child is invited to. This is the first party that is not being held at some razz mataz costly place. Its actually being held in the family’s home. They refuse to give me any ideas for a present, so I need to go agonize over this. I will try to get my thoughts back onto track (as they must have been last night- I “work” better tierd I guess. Lol.
Train whistle!
ARN,
translation pf my post (#12) and answer to your question: Within his 24-hours-program, EWTN broadcasts already more than 4 hours daily in German language.
“I would think you agree with me that we can hold off on the God bless America for such sad news, and ask God to have mercy on us here. And, to pray more Catholics here do their ‚Äújob‚Äù so that the goal of getting everyone home is a real possibility and not viewed as a ‚Äúwho cares, not my job‚Äù.”
Helen, our “job” as Catholics is not to lead a false ecumenism, but to help protestants to come back Home. They are always very welcome. Every sincere and faithful Catholic will embrace them with an open arms. You know how much I appreciate you and was and will, if needed, fight for you to stay faithful to Christ and his Catholic Church.
P.S. I am reading the book I promised!
Good evening to you all, I have just discovered that there is a new topic, and see that you all are very enthusiastic in your commenting… I have not had time however to read them thoroughly,which I will do later..
I would however like to mention one thing,It has not dawned on me untill now, that even I call the *Reformed Church* protestant, actually The members of the *Protestant* Churches call themselves “evangelisch” ie’;
Evangelisch Reformiert.. Evangelisch Lutherisch…. Evangelische Freikirchliche Gemeinde… Evangeliums- Christen Br?ºdergemeinde.. and so on.. I noticed this while looking to see how many Catholic Churches there were listed in our vicinity.. There are Two… in the Telephone book.. actually there is only ca’1/3rd page (even less) noting ALL the Catholic *institutions*, whereas 3 full pages of Evangelische *Churches* and their co-operative institutes… Kindergarten,Womens help Org. Oldpeople’s homes, ect. 1 page for the other religious dominations
Our Region is as you can tell NOT a Catholic domimated region.. Therefore we do not get the EWTN for the amount of time stated.. but are *over endowed* with Evangelische,Baptist, and other *Faith Programmes*.. Even those from the USA..ie’ “The God Chanel” they ARE on, 24/7.. To recieve EWTN.. you have to have either Cable or SAT… (but with a “multi or twin LNB”) The Religious Programes are alloted *broadcasting time* regionally according to “requirement”… obviously there is none (or very little) here where I live… Even IF I had the equipment the programes, as far as I know are broadcast 4hrs a day 10am-14pm.(I am at work) with a repeat in the late evening and again in “the wee small hours”… I have looked through my ca’ 1140 free and *pay* programme list and do not have it…. This just to clear things up.. for ARN, as she asked about them..
Lots of good points above. Dianne’s point about large families is pretty crucial. The Pew Forum’s study would look very very different if Catholics were not – as Arn mentions – ignoring Humanae Vitae and having as many abortions as their neighbors. Now, with the concerns about the rise of Islam, HV and its reception/nonreception take on fascinating geopolitical significance, which nobody foresaw in 1968.
Arn, the arguments you make are reasonable, but the empirical premise of my comment (if the Pew study is more or less accurate) is that, in fact, an awful lot of Catholics are managing to leave the Church – more, it claims, than any Protestant group. That seems to be the bottom line. Perhaps they are not making the pious maiden aunts the way they used to! My own hunch is that those aunts probably had more to do with the difficulty of leaving than the “hard edges” of Catholicism (they really are two different issues); the hard edges can cut – so to speak – both ways.
Obviously, this is quite an interesting study to appear on the eve – broadly speaking – of Pope Benedict’s first trip to the US.
Whatever the stigmatized sin that we are speaking of (but I particularly will focus on SSA and alcoholism here-there will always be a grace available- the Sacrament of reconciliation is one point, but the other point is the Church is hesitant to dish out a medical diagnosis on the origins of the diseases (I hope using that word is not offensive to anyone, but for lack of a better one, that is the one I used) and it has made every attempt to keep both of these persons struggling with these demons human- in other words they are not written off as hopeless. What other faith offers them the right dignity they deserve? Not a stamp of approval on drinking to excess or to giving in to SSA. Where in other “confessions” of Christian bodies this can be your ticket to reprobate status, or it could be simply ignored or condoned. This is not showing compassion as its lacking truth, and there is no dignity given to a human by a lie. Their avenues to turn to for grace are somewhat limited by their own legalism. Of course, in addition to this we are encouraged to always seek medical help as well. The group Courage is set up to give encouragement and support to the very human individual who needs help.
The scripture I think comes to mind that summarizes the best is Philippians 4:13
So, anything is possible by the grace of God, if we are open to it.
“The tears of the penitents are wine for the angels.” — St. Bernard
Some of you may recall me asking “what is truth” on a thread topic not too long ago.
I was scolded for using it, (I do realize the intentions were in my best interest) but I was hoping that it would prompt us to recall a proper way to view the question- and here is the quote I did not post that I should have with it:
In other words, As the Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain wrote, “The man who says ‘What is truth?’ as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race.”
I saw it here while trying to find a great explanation of tolerance-
This is a good article on a better understanding of tolerance:
http://ncregister.com/site/article/8047/
Sometimes toleration can be confused and the result can be indifferentism.
This, is even worse than most sins. Because it acts like Luther’s blanket that covers a pile of ..
Josip, I agree a false ecumenism is to be despised! This was what I was alluding to with my objection to having to “split the difference in order to be nice” – some would say we have had too many misinterpret what was meant by ecumenism (the true kind) and the aftermath is the wreckage we see now and are struggling to correct.
Thank you for reading that book for me. I do appreciate it.
What I meant by our job, was not to promote the faith without the faith. And, that I feel we all are able to do this in different ways. Opus Dei has one way, but its not the only way.
Catholics,Father Wauck wish in the first instance to be “good” Christians,please orrect me if I am wrong.
It seems that both ARN and your self seem to agree that, as you say “they are not making the pious maiden aunts the way they used to!” The *attraction* of the *Protestant Faith* seems to be that they can as Helen so well puts it;
— “…. tailor fit their ‚Äúneeds‚Äù to make up their own requirements”—
As you say —” which nobody foresaw in 1968″ or earlier…. Some I expect find ” it’s d*mned hard to be (keep) Catholic.. Too little is done to enourage the youth (or younger parents) to embrace Catholicism..
The very rigid *rules* on birth control, is a stumbling point for many “would be” Catholics,or those who wish to stay Catholic (not only in name)..Ofcourse I do believe that many more young couples would have more children if they were given more support..
The Divorce issue is another…
Father Wauck you will correct me if I am wrong, but many couples (even in Italy this is on the rise) are opting NOT to marry in Church,because of the *divorce clause* and therefore even less are bringing their children up in the Catholic Church.. And once they have “said ‘A’ it is easier, to go on to say ‘B’” ie’ leaving the Catholic Church completely..
The less “rigorous* requirements made of them by other *Christian* groups seems then more apealing..
“Studies” are seldom accurate,nor objective… the result usually depends on who is the “contractor”.
The fact that more Catholcs are leaving their Faith should not surprise as the general decline in *Church attendance” is obvious in ALL Christain denominations.. As is the *decline* in family *bondage*,due possibly to the fact that families are geting smaller.. Something that could have been ‘foreseen’ in 1968…
– “post p*ll ara*???
Now, with the concerns about the rise of Islam, HV and its reception/nonreception take on fascinating geopolitical significance, which nobody foresaw in 1968
Father- you just woke me up from my mental slumber. Actually, I do think there were some thinkers who did see this in 1968, a year of so much turmoil and unrest. I guess I will have to really think about this again.
“What is EWTN???..” (Sandra)
ARN asked, then, the answer for question, from the Catholic who knows German.
Thanks, Sandra, for your “encyclopedia” knowledge about the protestants TV programs, but that was not ARN` s question.
“…would however like to mention one thing,***It has not dawned on me untill now***, that even I call the *Reformed Church* protestant, actually The members of the *Protestant* Churches call themselves ‚Äúevangelisch‚Äù ie‚Äô;
Is there any kind of torture in the world more brutal than this?
Evangelisch Reformiert.. Evangelisch Lutherisch‚Ķ. Evangelische Freikirchliche Gemeinde‚Ķ Evangeliums- Christen Br?ºdergemeinde.. and so on..”
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
Helen,
we have full agreement about the “false ecumenism” and “true ecumenism”.
“What I meant by our job, was not to promote the faith without the faith. And, that I feel we all are able to do this in different ways. Opus Dei has one way, but its not the only way.”
First, person (and/or “movement”) must have the truth in fullness (orthodoxy), and, then, to live according to that. Opus Dei is not, of course, only one way in the Church, but is correct way.
If person live faith, especially high educated people, it will be the cause for question – Why? And then God takes (almost) everything in his hands, if hearts of “recipients” are *sincerely* open for graces.
Good morning!
ARN correct me if I am wrong,was this your *question*?;-
“Interesting that **there‚Äôs a whole parellel EWTN universe in Germany**. I surfed around the program guide and from the names much seems to be original German programming and not subtitled stuff from the USA. **I could be wrong not knowing German”**. = **—– ** I preceived as a **queerie**
My answer;-
1.) “To recieve EWTN.. you have to have either Cable or SAT‚Ķ (but with a ‚Äúmulti or twin LNB‚Äù)
2.)”The Religious Programes are alloted *broadcasting time* regionally according to ‚Äúrequirement‚Äù‚Ķ obviously there is none (or very little) here where I live‚Ķ Even IF I had the equipment, the programes, as far as I know are broadcast 4hrs a day 10am-14pm.(I am at work) with a repeat in the late evening and again in ‚Äúthe wee small hours‚Äù‚Ķ”"
3.) “I have looked through my ca‚Äô 1140 free and *pay* programme list and do not have it‚Ķ. This just to clear things up.. for ARN, as she **asked about them..** ”
ARN I hope you understood my reference to the Ev.faiths.. to let you know the amount of *competition* Catholic Programers are up against for the, “allotment” of broadcasting space in our Region.. I expect it is not much different in the USA.. As you may remember I did write (many Post’s ago),that the Germans are quite a reserved people they do not “wear their “Faith” (be it political or Religious) on their sleaves” really a very private issue with them (speaking generally that is).. One of the reasons why the JW’s are looked on with suspicion.. The sayig being = “Die mussen es n??tig haben” = —roughly meaning—- ” they must be desperate”.. not my sentiments..
I had always thought that,taking statements “out of context” was a habit that politicians excell in,…. obviously not..
Have a nice day…
But, Sandra, you forget that you are now *”devout practicing Catholic”*, and Catholics do not talk (nor know, nor care!) about protestants TV programs, nor repeat PROTESTANT`s doctrines countless times (on blog and private conversations!).
BTW, Catholics would find the sources how to know their faith better,and will not ask a question like: “‚ÄúWhat is EWTN???..‚Äù, because on this blog were articles from the EWTN. Who do not care for the Catholic faith at all, of course, will, then, ask such questions.
“Even IF I had the equipment, the programes, as far as I know are broadcast 4hrs a day *10am-14pm.(I am at work)* with a repeat in the late evening and again in ‚Äúthe wee small hours‚Äù‚Ķ‚Äù”
http://www.ewtn.de/Programm/EWTN-Deutsch/dienstag.php
The program is completely at normal time and available to all who have an INTEREST to learn something about the Catholic faith. What an idiot would broadcasts the program when people cannot see it?
Sandra, ARN do not know German, but she is not an IDIOT (look at the time when the broadcasts go!).
*Sandra, stop lying!!!!!!*
“Catholics do not talk (nor know, nor care!) about protestants TV programs, nor repeat PROTESTANT`s doctrines countless times (on blog and private conversations!).”
I would like to refer to the recent Post.. ” Wellcome to Elizabethan England”
From Father Wauck’s Intrduction;-
“In particular, the recent work of Oxford‚Äôs Christopher Haigh (The English Reformation Revised, a collection of scholarly essays he edited in 1987, and English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors in 1993) and of Cambridge‚Äôs Eamon Duffy (The Stripping of the Altars, 1992)”
So, my aswer would be; Indeed they do….
Pope Benedikt is a shining example of “dialogue” with “other Faiths” including Protestant-Church leaders.. Has HE,in your opinion, “got it wrong too”?
One other thing, you also seem here,to contradict Tony’s well ment advice to me; –that I should actually be / get aquainted with the Reformed Faith to which my grandson belongs, so as to be able to *debate* / reason with him–
I quote;-
My statemet;- “I am not really so terribly up-dated‚Äù on the subject..see no real need to be..‚Äù
Tony’s reply;- “Sandra, he is your grandson‚Äîof course there‚Äôs a real reason to be updated on the subject of what he believes.”
Further.- Tony;- “How do you discuss the differences and similarities when you = ‚Äúnever concerned myself very much with their ‚Äúfaith‚Äù ”
- which is the right course one might ask… YOURS???
I think I would follow (The Pope’s) Tony’s advice.. Dialogue is always a first step to *reconciliation* and understanding.
To ignore,is just another form of being, *ignor-ant* in this matter…
In english as in German, it was when I attened school, conscidered *impolite* to use “abrieviations” when writing a letter / comment / *usw*. but it seems no longer to be so.. I admit to using them myself.. (bad habit,laziness).. But as I am not so aquainted with all those used here (in english), I ask…
BTW. = By the way, ( “uA”, of which you “repeatedly* accuse me of),as you will prob. know what “uA” is the abrieviation of, no need for me to write it out, I have never described myself as a *‚Äùdevout practicing Catholic‚Äù*..
MfG. Sandra..
From the ETWN link;-
“Wenn Sie ?ºber die M??glichkeit verf?ºgen wollen,( = if you want to be able to recieve) den f?ºr die deutsche Sprachregion wichtigsten Satelliten ASTRA (19¬? Ost) sowie den Satelliten EUTELSAT HOT BIRD 6 (13¬? Ost), gleichzeitig mit einer Satellitensch?ºssel +++(ca. 80 cm Durchmesser)*** anzusteuern, sollten Sie eine sogenannte = ( for the German sreaking region important Satelite ASTRA as well as EUTELSAT HOT BIRD 6)
Multifeed-Anlage w?§hlen. Dazu ++ben??tigen++ ( =you require = need ) Sie ?ºber die o. g. Grundausstattung hinaus folgende Zusatzausr?ºstung:( = apart from the basic equipment the following additional items)
Requirements;-
- ****eine Multifeed-Halterung****
- ****eine SAT-Umschaltbox DiSecq****
- ****ein weiteres Universal LNB f?ºr digitalen Satelliten-Empfang (***multifeed-geeignet***)*****
****This I do not have… A fact I have already stated.. Perhaps you would like to *donate* those Josip..
One more point, in our neighbourhood, it is NOT allowed to have a 80cm. Sat Dish, it would *disturb* the scenery… This is against the LAW any more questions??
I for one am not interested in geting into a discussion about this.. especially with a person who obviously does not acknowlege that there is certain technical equipement NEEDED to recieve certain Programmes, in diferent Regions.. Is this toooo hard to understand???
Sorry I forgot to mention,if you click on the link,left hand side *Empfang* you will find the above…
Empfang = recieve = reception…
Sorry to bore you all with this,you may rest assured I am finished with this subject
Sandra, the problem is in your logic.
Father used protestants sources to defeat your *repeatings* about how history proves that “Protestants are good, and Catholics are bad”, and Father has done that in a *superior* way. (BRAVO!!!)
Btw, I didn` t find anything contrary to the Catholic faith what Father wrote (just full orthodoxy!). What about you, Sandra? Is there anything what you wrote that is in conformity with the Catholic faith or with Christianity, to start, for example, with “In the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”?
“Pope Benedikt is a shining example of ‚Äúdialogue‚Äù with ‚Äúother Faiths‚Äù including Protestant-Church leaders..”
I love Pope Benedict so much, and everyone know why (I do not have to be blunt, because everyone here, even, then, never heard about the Catholic faith, but WAS and IS on this blog, would know the reason – Dominus Iesus, und so weiter, und so weiter, und so weiter, und so weiter… (sounds better?).
I have never described myself as a *”devout practicing Catholic”*..
Sandra, drive slowly tomorrow early morning. Come back safely home.
Thanks, for the German quotes *without sense*. Problem is again in your logic.
“This I do not have‚Ķ A fact I have already stated.. Perhaps you would like to *donate* those Josip..”"
Read my post #37 (March 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am) and make a conclusion. And, BY THE WAY, ARN, can be very, very *angry*, if you make an IDIOT of her!
Read your posts AGAIN!!!! now that WOULD be a great sacrifice
German quotes are without sense, because I didn` s speak about your possibilities to install the equipment (post #37), but about your LIES that the program cannot be seen, because you work at that time, or that the program is in a not appropriate (“normal”) time for watching.
I am going to jump in here in response to Dianne’s remark above: “In Canada, in the province of Ontario where I live, we do not have a proper religious Ed course in the publicly funded Catholic School system. It is very ‚Äúwashed‚Äù down and wishy washy.”
I would say that is not necessarily the case– based on my own children’s experience and the experience of my husband who teaches in that system. There are many factors at play here. Teachers on the whole are a rule-following bunch– most will teach the material they are given to teach, even catechism lessons, even if they disagree with some of them personally. Whether or not they are equipped to give knowledgeable answers to student questions is of course another matter. I have found this to be very uneven among elementary school teachers with some being excellent and some just mediocre, but I haven’t seen any error being taught, just a lack of thoroughness– along with the occasional tendency to skip religion class in favour of catching up on math and language arts, time being at premium these days what with all the school-wide assemblies on bullying and drugs…
The pastor from the parish beside their school makes it a point to visit regularly, often accidentally on purpose when they are writing a catechism test, and during his little talk he “somehow” manages to give away a lot of the answers!
My high school students have benefited from an excellent Religion department head in their school, and my husband and I see the Religion dept. head for the neighbouring high school regularly at daily Mass.( Dianne spoke above about being creative as parents when getting in religious instruction. One thing we do for our high school kids is to make sure we’ve got excellent resources on hand for when they have to complete Religion essays and assignments– with teenagers you sometimes need a “back door”, and frankly when they’re under the wire and trying to complete an assignment on time they’ll gladly take a look at a useful book or two.)
You see, among Catholic teachers, I would say you’re getting the same cross section of knowledge, belief and practice that you are getting in a parish on any given Sunday.
‚ÄúInteresting that there‚Äôs a whole parellel EWTN universe in Germany” (quote ARN.)
Universal = completely, all over.. This is not so…
I,and about 90% of others in our Region who do not have the “equipment” can not recieve the programmes, except (in some parts of NRW) who happen to have a 80cm dish,they, can watch at the times I gave..
As always Josip,you bite off more than you can chew… and are too arrogant / self-righteous to addmit it..
So,just go away and sulk,untill,you have thought up some more, *very professional* abusive rhetoric, to throw around..
After all, THAT is what YOU *excell* at… A disgrace to your *pro-claimed* profession, a *fact* I very much doubt… after all, there has been no *proof* given,and, as the saying goes, “paper is patient” = Papier ist geduldig..
Well I have more interesting things to do with my time, than to read your ramblings, you are “flogging a dead horse”
Have a nice day…
LIAR Sandra,
Father has my full name and surname, and if want he can call me by phone at my home or in my doctor`s office.
Sandra, generally, you have a great problems with logic. Who abused it?
Michelle, I read your comment with interest (as usual), I find what you say to just about summ it all up..
“The apprentice is mostly only as good as his master”. This is I expect not much different as when we went to school,there are some who can make a subject “apealing” and others who just “rattle down” their given pensum..
Every subject can be made more apealing,the teacher just has to be adequately informed and motivated..
This is alas lacking at times, due to a shortage of teachers,and the ever increasing work-pensum given to them.
Some “un-important” subjects fall by the wayside.. or get too little attention..
As in all things, in the education systeme you do get,as you say, “a cross section” All the more reason for good parenting… What they learn at home, be it manners,behavour,or knowing how to be generally good Christians,live up to the rquirements of their Faith,is paramount for their future development..You are fortunate in having such support in your husband,and he in you..
Thanks, Tony, for the correction of my math (and enhancement of my argument)…. never one of my strong points.
I think that I am going to hold Arn responsible for recklessly endangering the conversation on this post by her clearly malicious remark about EWTN. Very sneaky, deliberately sowing discord….
Just kidding.
But seriously, how did we get so wound up about this? It’s NOT something to be fighting about. Please, folks, no personal attacks and accusations. It’s just not worth it. Let’s stick, more or less, to the topic.
I’ve always found EWTN to be a divisive topic in my groups, Father. (kidding.) This is rich stuff. I have a fantasy writer friend in Chicago that couldn’t make this stuff up.
I just need to clear one thing up, as it related to something attributed to me.
“One other thing, you also seem here,to contradict Tony‚Äôs well ment advice to me; ‚Äìthat I should actually be / get aquainted with the Reformed Faith to which my grandson belongs, so as to be able to *debate* / reason with him‚Äì”
Just to be clear, Sandra, my advice was to know what your grandson believes so you can help him come to the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church.
It was not just so you could debate or reason with him. I don’t see value in debating things with grandkids, for debating sake.
Tony,I understood the meaning and thought behind your advice,exactly as you describe above, and have not stated otherwise.. I quoted your exact words.. as you can read for yourself.. What other reason could, or should I have to “be updated on the subject of what he believes.‚Äù ?
You ask, ‚ÄúHow do you discuss the differences and similarities when you = ‚Äúnever concerned myself very much with their ‚Äúfaith‚Äù ‚Äù Ok, I used the word “debate” instead of “discuss”, “aquainted” instead of “up-dated” / “concern”, we could pick at that, but I think you, and everyone else knows what I ment..
By the way, I don’t see the value of debating things with ANYONE, not only grandkids,simply “for debating sake”.. I have a 21yr.old grand daughte, she, in her opinion,is by no means a “kid”, but never the less remains my grandchild, no matter how old she my be..
But as we are through with that issue,at least as far as I am concerned,I need say no more on the subject..
which,as Father Wauck points out, is not the topic of this post.. I do not have any interest in a continuation of this, if you don’t mind.. On the other hand if you feel you must, or would like to further explain your earlier comment (advice), that is up to you.
“And, BY THE WAY, ARN, can be very, very *angry*, if you make an IDIOT of her!”
HUH, huh…Wha’…? Nope, no, I’m quite capable of making an idiot of myself with absolutely no help at all. And BTW, *I* never get angry. That must be Momma Bear you’re thinking of. But (crooking forefinger while speaking a la “The Shining”) “Momma Bear isn’t here now.” (A frisson of shuddering apprehension in all readers ensues.)
She must be off somewhere studiously ignoring this little tempest in a teapot distracting herself with thoughts of all things ursine.
I was going to say I thought it was an early father who had seen this coming long ago with the muslim population explosion but I see things have changed a bit since I left.
I am just wondering what you meant Tony, about your Chicago reference.
If person live faith, especially high educated people, it will be the cause for question РWhy? And then God takes (almost) everything in his hands, if hearts of “recipients” are *sincerely* open for graces
Josip, maybe that is why St Paul was chosen.
It seems based on this, I am going to have to wonder why Jesus chose Peter.
Dont get upset with me for saying this Josip, but I get upset with my husband when he thinks his education is of value in all matters. Much to the dissapointment of his Jesuit priest who blasted him, he did get one.
* I see the need to clarify, I did not mean the Father I had in mind PREDICTED 1968 or that the year was connected to a Father*
I do happen to be reading a book about that time frame, and its written by a person who has communist leanings I think. The pope is mentioned a few times, and in other places general references to the CC is made, but I am rereading it to find the one quote that popped up at me that one could read into a bit to see the writing on the wall.
ARN, you gave me an idea. You mentioned catholics at the same rate of non catholics getting abortions…
(how this study is done is also beyond me, but lets roll with it)
I was thinking about the very first Catholic Church I ever set foot in, and how they for many years (may still do- but I am unsure now) put out white crosses all over their property (it is a corner lot, very visible and high traffic) and each cross represented a life lost due to abortion ( They had a poster that gave the accurate figure of the previous year’s number also) I have no idea if there was exactly the same amount of crosses as the figure, but I will say it got people looking. Slowing down to read it, and figure out what all the crosses were all about.
I don’t know if we need to evangelize outside or inside more now. But, I think I will pray about it, and possibly ask my pastor if we can do that also. It was a powerful witness.
PS- for those who find it helpful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
Very helpfull Helen… with lots of conecting links.. thanks
Sorry missed one n = should read, “connecting links”……….
As most regular blogers here may know, St.Paulus is a favourite of mine… I read his “letters” regulary..
Interesting verses concerning, Knowledge,Wisdom..
“Spirtiual gifts”
1.Corinthians 12:4-11
Further;-
“Wherein lies true wisdom”
1.Corinthians.1:18——–
And,1.Corinthians.2:1.——– 18 is especially worth reading…
Of course aLL of the Bible is a source of “Wisdom” and very much worth reading….
Paulus’ letters have a treasure of advice for all.. In my most humble opinion…
Another from my “favourite”
“A digression on charity”
1.Corinthians.13:1………
I must remember that one, when being “provoked”, to be more charitable….
Now I am off for “Bible meeting” (first one in a while sorry to say),after we are at an other “birthday party”……. So, have a good day all…..
The Sun Times has a cover showing a person clutching a rosary while in prayer.
The glaring title of the front page is
For Chicago Catholics…
EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED
Fewer priests, empty pews, shuttered schools- Catholicism has shaped Chicago, but is a new exhibit also a sign its dominance is history? PAGES 10-11A
Apparently they had run an article on Feb 26 headlined: “Losing Our Religion” Highlighting the pew forum poll.
the feb 26th article was the subject of our bulletin this Sunday.
It seems the priest who wrote our bulletin is not concerned.
A clip ……”That Catholic Christianity might not be the last stop in a person’s faith journey is nothing to be surprised at or shocked at.”
I don’t think you want to know the whole thing, but suffice it to say he is a very odd man.
Regarding St Paul, I always wondered why he never wrote down the names of the ones who witnessed his conversion…. Maybe he did not want to say? Hmm.
This just in from my atheist family member:
Christians have huge egos and they are too preoccupied with what will happen to them when they die. They are therefore, in bondage from their obsession with themselves and their self importance. They have to have an explaination for what will happen when they die, because dying is simply not reconcillable for them, therefore they created religion. And, when they stopped liking parts of their religion, they invented new ones.
Good morning Helen (and all )
I have just returned home and see your comment about Paulus’s conversion..
As far as I can detect from Acts.9:10——- the persons actually named, are Ananias (the disciple not the Jerusalem high priest),Judas and Barnabas..
After arriving in Damascus, Paulus (still known as Saulus) was in the home of Judas (in Damascus), where the Lord sent Ananias to lay hands on Paulus so as he would gain his sight once more.. Paulus was then imediately Baptised,so Ananias is one witness,I expect that Judas could have been present.Paulus,it is writen stayed with the disciples for a few days in Damascus,and then went to Jerusalem. Barnabas, later took Paulus to the other Apostles who were at that time there,Paulus bore witness before them that he had seen the Lord.. (they were sceptical of his conversion) Barnabas may have witnessed his conversion. But big;-??? We would have to look more closely to find more names of any disciples/ Apostles who were in Damascus at the time of his conversion..
As for the two “companions” mentioned who traveled with him on the way to Damascus, I doubt if they were followers of Christ… As Paulus was on his way to Damascus “still breathing threat and slaughter to the deciples of the Lord”, his fellow travelers ( who did not hear the voice of the Lord) presumably were not Christians… but,here also ????
You probably knew this, but … just incase not…….. It is worth mentioning here as in the widest sense it does comply with the subject of this post… “despite not being taught…” or in Paulus’ case despite all he was previously taught..
Have a good night…
“Regarding St Paul, I always wondered why he never wrote down the names of the ones who witnessed his conversion…. Maybe he did not want to say? Hmm.” (Helen, above.)
I’ve thought about that, too, Helen. But it isn’t just Paul’s companions. There are many people who are nameless throughout the Bible, folks who played some role worth noting and contemplating what we would have done. I sometimes think they represent the majority of us folks, who remain pretty nameless to most of the world. Who were the servers who filled the water jugs “to the brim” at the wedding at Cana? What was the name of the cured leper who returned, thanking and praising God for being healed? What were the names of the other nine who were also cured but did not return? When time came to prepare for the Last Supper, two disciples are told to find a specific but unnamed man in town, and he’ll lead them to the room they’ll use for the meal. Who was this man that played such a role in the preparations for Our Lord’s final supper with his friends before His Passion—the institution of the Holy Eucharist and the priesthood? No mention.
We have a role to play even if no one ends up knowing our names— just like the 4 guys carrying the paralytic to be cured by Jesus in Capernaum.
Tony, good mention of that scripture- did you note that Jesus said that the man would be cured by the faith of his friends? In most other instances (I think all) Jesus says YOUR faith has heald/saved you
Not in that one, in that one its the faith of that man’s friends that saved him.
to me, this is the sole case against sola anything.
But, not to digress too much- there is another mention of a nameless young person who helps out in feeding the people, but I dont want to go there just yet
Jesus did not say Force feed my sheep, only feed my sheep lol
sorry, I am by all appearances mocking our faith now, and that is really not what is going on inside me now.
Paul is not the only problem (with all due respect Sandra, you did not understand me) maybe some other time I can elaborate so you can clear up my confusion about “Paulus” or St Paul.
Anyway, sorry to ask this, but I really am bursting to ask those who I come to for these questions I have had much help here, and Josip- please dont be upset with my past posts here or this one, I really am just trying to hang on here by my fingernails, and you have helped me very much
The problem I see after thinking about all this is one thing. If you look at how we believe (and I do) muslims have salvation,
how can we say that an atheist who got married civilly, not knowing Jesus, can be held accountable for that marriage yet the muslim is not accountable for being muslim?
Well, Helen, if you actually tear a roof off a house to help someone get healed— you have to admit, that’s a very very cool display of not just faith but downright friendship, too. I’d love to take those guys out for a beer if I could. Can you seriously imagine having friends like that? When it just isn’t that obvious that the guy’s going to get better (to the average onlooker, anyway), these guys “go for it” with tons of gusto! Rip that roof off!!!
Was your question about St. Paul’s companions on the road related to your last question about the atheist marrying civilly, and the muslim?
Was your question about St. Paul’s companions on the road related to your last question about the atheist marrying civilly, and the muslim?
Tony, in both cases there is not a lot of reference to relate to is there?
IOW, how do we arrive at a conclusion without taking into account the ramifications of it
such as- muslims with multiple spouses = salvation is possible for them
catholics or those who are not catholics who have multiple spouses = damnation
addendum- catholics or those who are atheist who have multiple spouses = damnation
sorry for the mistake!
Muslims can have no respect for “the two become one” but they get a pass because they believe in the God of Abraham.
But a person who does not know OUT of ignorance, is judged yet not the muslim?
Helen, your atheist family member desperately needs to read the pope’s new encyclical “Spe Salvi” in which the Holy Father responds quite directly to precisely the complaint your family member is making. The same family member also needs to read a bit more history. Christians were not the inventors of the afterlife. The nature of the afterlife is distinctive in Christianity, but not the fact of an afterlife (ie., the escape from death’s finality). And if there ever was a group in history that spent more more time and effort on the this-worldly needs of others – including non-members of that group – than Christians have, I would like to know the group. Charitable institutions are in fact a Christian invention.
As fate would have it, I met a Roman Catholic priest over the weekend who was formerly a Presbyterian minister, and we spoke about the Pew Forum’s study. He expressed deep scepticism about the numbers given in the study for Presbyterians in the US. Apparently the study speaks of 3 million, but he says that, last time he checked (I think, ten years ago or so) the number was 2.7 million and declining. His impression was that the real number would be closer to 2 million today.
“…such as- muslims with multiple spouses = salvation is possible for them”
“…catholics or those who are atheist who have multiple spouses = damnation”
AFAIK, there’s no prediction whether people in these cases, or for that matter in *any* situation are by those behaviors automatically damned. The Church never says who’s definitely in Hell.
If it’s the custom, taking multiple wives isn’t going to get a Muslim in trouble or the atheist either. They’re vincible or invincibly ignorant. (forget which -we’ve been thru this). Even polygamous Catholic converts in Africa are not expected to put aside their extra wives, since it’s thought to be (wisely I think) socially destructive.
Helen, I, simply, cannot be upset with you. You are a honest person and that is enough to me.
Speaking about OD, I clearly have said that it is not only one way in the Church, but is correct way. High education is not “stigma”, but can also be a way for sanctification.
Everyone has a free will (no need for explanation, because I will not repeat myself), and there are “four last things”.
You say clear teachings of the Catholic Church, and everyone is free to read it with respectful attention or to laugh on it.
And never forget:
Mt: 7,6
Mt: 10,16
Helen, you have done your (your quote) “job”. Be in peace!
Interesting Opinion piece in the NYTimes today about making the criteria for beatification stricter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03martin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1b23CpEIRA
I am spending Easter with this atheist family member, and I was hit between the eyes with her remarks, as I usually am. Thinking thru it more, she really was speaking of theists in general who had the obsession with afterlife concerns. She singles out Christianity for the largest amount of divisions and squaballing and splits of all religions (although I think protestants no matter how they disagree always consider themselves to be “agreed on the essentials” (the essential thing in common being to reject the CC) So, anyway..
I tried to tell her that there is virtually no impediment to an atheist who was married multiple times, however she just laughed. Sure, its a lot of hoops to jump through, and money, but its not impossible. Her beef is why is that person held accountable for what they did while not knowing/believing in Christ.
And, my only answer is well they are.
I will read the document on hope again, and hope to have a better way to talk to her about this before Easter. She is wondering these things now because her two daughters are close to that age where marriage is a closer possibility. She raised them Catholic even though she is an atheist. They seem to be more atheists than anything, but go to Church Christmas and Easter. Its harder to talk to family about these things. And, she usually never says many bad things about Christianity, so she is not millitant atheist. But, she may be in her heart. Lots of pain there.
Arn, you are right- and I think we spoke of even not knowing if Judas is in hell, (but what I failed to mention was someone who sees the time and cost involved in annulment and says, well- I dont think so- how dare they ask,for me to do that when I did not even know Christ then?) They dont see any other denom that is for them, they are convicted its CC or nothing, and go with nothing as a result. So, in their case yeah, its damnation. Knowing and refusing are much different than not knowing and not signing on. Or maybe they end up with a bible and thats it. Its hard to tell her why the past is not the past at the moment you mentally accept Christ and his Church.
I sure hope I don’t end up making her more upset. That’s why I am taking this one slowly.
ARN, my personal take on that topic, is all the fuss about Padre Pio. I could be wrong, but I think that is what jump started the announcement on beatification.
“She raised them Catholic even though she is an atheist. They seem to be more atheists than anything, but go to Church Christmas and Easter.”
Your comment above calls to my mind all the more the title of Pope Benedict’s Encyclical. Spe Salvi. In Hope we are saved. There’s always hope, Helen. And there’s especially hope to be found in a situation where an atheist decides to raise her children to be atheist. And granted, they aren’t living as the Faith properly—but then, again, they weren’t quite raised Catholics in the most traditional manner either, given their mother is an atheist. The fact they’re still going to Church two times a year is something to build on. There is hope!
And she’s talking to you about these matters. And she must know your position. She isn’t just going to those who share her views; she’s going to someone who has the mind of the Church. I’m no psychologist or psychiatrist or anything, but it seems to me that she wants to, at the VERY LEAST, unburden/vent. More likely, she wants to sort things out, kind of think things through with someone she can trust will give her a straight, sober answer—charitably.
My two cents worth is there’s Hope, Helen. Even if I’m wrong on that and she really doesn’t care, it may be the only chance she has to have the truth spoken to her these days.
I’ll be praying for you.
I was just looking over this Pew report and what I find even more shocking is that they say that 1 in every 100 adults in the USA is in jail! I mentioned this in a conversation yesterday with one of my best friends and she said I was mistaken, it was not true.
They made jokes of sorts about it in an article of a famous Canadian who just went to prison in Florida this Monday, Conrad Black. Mr. Black is a devout Catholic who has been wrongfully convicted as far as I am concerned in the USA, and the story said he will have company since 1 in 100 adults are in prison in USA. I am shocked! Is this true?
Dianne, too bad I read your post after the husband left. He may have a clue on that, if not the cop in the family may know.
Its better criminals be locked up I guess.. real ones.
Shame there are so many if that is accurate. But, maybe elsewhere they are just not getting caught as often?
Thanks for the encouraging words Tony. She did cart them to CCD and took them to mass weekly until the age of 13-and 15 where she decided they were then old enough to decide for themselves if they wanted to continue the practice. They both did until they went to college, and that was when they stopped going weekly.
Of course, had I been in the family then, I would have offered to pick them up and take them on breaks and vacations. But as so much time had passed, by the time I did offer- they looked at me funny for asking.
“I am shocked! Is this true?”
Yes. Horrifying, isn’t it. I’m as appalled as you are. I bet the figure for Canada is a small fraction of the USA’s. What are you guys doing right?
I just finished the book, I was reading. This is a “confession of faith and unshakable eternal fidelity to the holy Catholic Church” of the man who have found the truth after being JW. I put it in original form. Properly understood, his conclusion is identical to my attitudes. Everyone who understand Croatian can read, but this is just for my soul.
“Pred svetim Evanƒëeljem, koje dotiƒçem svojom rukom, te uvjeren da se nitko ne mo?æe spasiti bez one vjere koju dr?æi, vjeruje i uƒçi sveta, katoliƒçka, apostolska i rimska Crkva, a protiv koje sam ja mnogo sagrije?°io, pristajuƒái i vjerujuƒái, ?°to sada veoma ?æalim, nauk koji se protivi njezinoj nauci, bolno se kajuƒái za svoje pro?°le zablude, sada vjerujem da je sveta, katoliƒçka, apostolska, rimska Crkva, jedina i prava Crkva, koju je Krist utemeljio na zemlji, te se njoj svim srcem podla?æem. Vjerujem sve ƒçlanke ?°to ih ona predla?æe da se vjeruju, a odbacujem i osuƒëujem sve ?°to ona odbacuje i osuƒëuje te sam spreman opslu?æivati sve ono ?°to mi ona nareƒëuje.
Vjerujem u jednoga samoga Boga, u tri Osobe Bo?æanske, koje, premda meƒëu sobom razliƒçite, ipak su jednake, to jest: u Oca, i Sina, i Duha Svetoga.
Nadalje ispovijedam katoliƒçki nauk o muci, smrti i uskrsnuƒáu Gospodina na?°ega Isusa Krista, vjerujem da su dvije naravi, bo?æanska i ƒçovjeƒçanska, sjedinjene u jednoj osobi, bo?æansko materinstvo Prebla?æene Djevice Marije bez grijeha zaƒçete, kao i njezino neokaljano djeviƒçanstvo.
Ispovijedam istinitu, stvarnu i bitnu prisutnost Tijela i Krvi Gospodina na?°ega Isusa Krista zajedno s njegovom du?°om i bo?æanstvom u Presvetom Oltarskom Sakramentu.
Ispovijedam da je sedam sakramenata, ustanovljenih od Krista Gospodina za posveƒáenje roda ljudskoga, a to su: kr?°tenje, potvrda, euharistija, pokora, zadnje pomazanje, sveti red i ?æenidba.
Vjeriujem u ƒçistili?°te, uskrsnuƒáe mrtvih i ?æivot vjeƒçni.
Priznajem prvenstvo ne samo ƒçasti nego i vlasti rimskoga biskupa, nasljednika bla?æenog Petra, poglavice apostola i namjesnika Isusa Krista.
?†tovanje svetaca i njihovih slika.
Ugled (autoritet) apostolske i crkvene predaje, a tako i Svetoga pisma, kojeg ne smijemo tumaƒçiti ni shvaƒáati ni u jednom drugom smislu osim u onom koji je dr?æala te i sada dr?æi sveta majka katoliƒçka Crkva.
Napokon, ispovijedam sve ?°to je je bilo ustanovljeno i odreƒëeno od svetih kanona, opƒáih sabora, a navlastito Tridentinskoga i Vatikanskoga.
Zato iskrenim srcem i istinitom vjerom odbacujem i proklinjem svaku zabludu, svako krivovjerje i sljedbu ?°to se protivi reƒçenoj svetoj, katoliƒçkoj, rimskoj Crkvi.
Tako mi Bog pomogao i ovo sveto Evanđelje, koje rukom dotičem.
Amen!”
ARN I doubt we are doing anything right for our system does not seem that great. We give light sentences, some quite ridiculous. We are easy on young offenders. A man recently got out after 7 1/2 years who killed his daughter because she was handicapped. It was a sad case but seems like a light sentence in comparison to our Conrad Black’s sentence in USA of 6 1/2 years.
Josip, the book sounds very interesting. I wish I could read Croatian. It would be a good one to give to my JW friends.
Josip, I will see if I can get your post translated. I no longer visit the EO parish where there is someone who would do so for me. I would like to attend Divine Liturgy again soon. Don’t worry- I never visited there as a substitution for Mass, only in addition to (after I was Catholic that is) it is harder to make the trips now. But, it was my desire to go there for Holy Week, so it’s really not too far away.
I recently took a online spirituality quiz, and it turns out I am more EO than I am Catholic.
But, then again- how accurate the quiz really is, I can’t say. I got a hundred percent on both EO and Catholic, with EO somehow on top.
I think anyone ansering a survey like the one from the pew forum, out to take a test first on the faith.
Then we could determine if the ones who leave do so because they had no clue.
corrections as follows: answering not ansering and out should be ought – whatever I am sure there are tons more to be made. That’s what you get after being on Webkin sites for too long during the day.
And, now I have to figure out what a conservative Quaker is. It ranked high on my spirituality quiz.
All I know is they are pacificts. I think. Nixon was one, geeze. How can that be?
Helen,
everything what I wrote on the blog in Croatian is open for you. You will see then everything much more clearly. Find the trustful person who will translate it to you. Croatians are not EO, and that translation for, so to say, political reasons can be not truthful. I believe that in your area exist “Croatian” Catholic churches, and there you can got a correct translation.
In that day (in Eternity) you will see that everything what I did was for your well.
Yes, Dianne, book is very interesting (287 pages). Everyone who will read that book, and whose reason is still functioning, will understand everything clearly and will find the way out.
If you know any Croatian who is JW, I will be happy to send you the book.
Could this be a partial answer to better teaching in schools??
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/nyregion/07charter.html?th&emc=th
Could the idea also be applied to *Religious Instruction* ??
Not that motivation can be bought,but if motivation is rewarded,it can of course be inspiring to students considering their future……..
As we see in the article,teachers are quite low down on the “average earning list” not a great argument for recuting more (able) teachers is it?
Another thing that caught my eye “Social workers” (this in regard to anti-social behaviour,crime in general)
are paid even less. (on average 10,000 Dollars yearly)
Here just two readers comments on the article;-
“Increasing teacher salaries alone may not improve the overall quality of schools, but it will certainly make teaching a more appealing choice to people with strong backgrounds in the subject areas”.
“I am a college junior majoring in mathematics, and despite the schools looking for math teachers who regularly advertise here, most of my friends and I see teaching as a backup job, something that will always be there but only as a last resort if for some reason we can’t find higher paying jobs. Even if we think we would enjoy teaching, the low pay makes us reconsider”.
In another NYTimes article there is a *poll* which indicates,that many Muslime students are dis-illusioned by the teaching of their Faith by their Immam,because of all the “terror” preached, also the fact that they are imposing “laws” / punishments originating from the 16th.17th century, and are very discriminating towards females..
This *poll* mirrors the average Muslime, (not in rural areas) between 16-24yrs.. If this is acurate???
It would not surprise me if it is..
In the rural areas,and among the less educated, those who can not read nor write,the fundamentalists still have a very strong following. “Despite (not) being taught” that Islam is a *peacefull* religion..
More money for the teachers would do wonders for NYC, such as stop the brain drain of the more competent ones to suburban school districts which offer higher salaries and better working conditions. The common career pattern for the better ones is prove themselves in NYC schools and after a few years transfer to suburban ones with its more docile and upscale white student bodies.
The teachers at SK’s mercifully small high school seem a mixed bag, even though the principal there was allowed to hand select them with some union imposed limits. The teacher’s union is evil and enable timeservers to hang on. The teaching profession in NYC is sadly often the final destination of dumb Jews who couldn’t make it elsewhere. Strangely, even the elite HS’s in NYC (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, Hunter–you may have heard of them, they’re the pride of the city) requiring an entry test for prospective students does not require anything similar of the teachers who staff it-it’s just a seniority issue. Such is the stranglehold of the union.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention Sandra, I missed it. As long as the union is kept out, this is a step in the right direction. Otherwise it’s a waste of money.
That said, my kids have shad some wonderful teachers especially since we live in a good school district where better teachers want to go to if the suburbs don’t interest them, the PTA’s are vocal, and the district isn’t corrupt so they don’t award teaching posts as patronage. (This is done in minority districts. The union fights it, one of the few things it’s good for) All but one of my kids were in the gifted class in elementary and were taken out on great field trips (NYC has a lot to offer that way) including Broadway plays and were given terrific educations by smart and energetic teachers who were *committed*.
Big differences here between school districts and schools. The optimal situation is to live in an area with a critical mass of Jews and Asians who are very involved in their kids education and are wiling to wrassle with the union and the powers that be. Squeaky wheels get oiled.
Well ARN,talking about “Unions”, there was a strike on wednessday here all *civil servants* (mostly Office workers = 80%), were on the streets,the police had to shut-off the roads into and out of town.. I must say it was very inconvenient for all *other* working people.. who by the way have not got such “easy-gong jobs”ie’.- 34.1/2hr. week,*un-sackable* after 5yrs. (unless they steal the golden teaspoons). VERY good pensions (after 25yrs).flexable working hours,jobs are kept for 3yrs. ( Mutterschafts / Vaterschafts) holliday for mothers(or fathers) after childbirth.. full pay for 6mths. then 18mths 68% of last pay.. after that the rest of the time 56%. The parent who decides to stay home for that time is also garanteed a half-day job.. if they do not want to work *full time*..nothing like that in the private sector..
As the pay for teachers here is roughly the same as in the US.. most are not married or are “past the childbearing age”.. teachers, who are, younger and married,can not afford more than one child,the cost of living (bare necessaries) takes up allmost 75% of their (two) paypackets.. so they do not usually have the benefit of the “Mutterschafts Vaterschafts” holliday..
Here,Teachers and Nurses are the most badly paid *Civil Servants*.. The situation is realy desperate.. my neighbough (a Nurse) is a widow and has a teenage daughter who goes to college she can only get a part time job in the hospital as it is cheaper for them to employ two *part-timers* than to have one *full timer*.. She is worried about her future as her pension will be a lot smaller if that continues.. Although there is a shortage of nursing staff / teaching staff there is a *bann* on overtime.. they take “housewives” who only work 13.1/2hrs a week for ‚Ǩ.400,- a month,the employer is exempt from paying any *contributions* ie’..Healthcare,Tax, un–employment benefit, sick pay.. so,it is a lot cheaper to do things that way.
My neighbourgh goes to a business office to clean 3times a week to make ends meet.. No wonder the best students are leaving to go abroad where they get an honest pay for an honest days work..
Sorry about going of the “deep end” with this, but it is an issue, we at school, are confronted with every day..
Good morning all.
I have just heard (on BBC News) that former UK Primeminister Tony Blair is to teach classes on Faith and Globalisation at Yale University for the coming year…
He says he wishes is to deepen his knowledge of his Faith.. I did not know that he was a *teacher*..
Although I think he would be a plus (*prestige* wise) for Yale,I wonder if he recieves the same salery as others there (which will of course be above national *average*)??
In 2007;-
“Blair was officially confirmed as Middle East envoy for the United Nations, European Union, United States and Russia.[2] Blair originally indicated that he would retain his parliamentary seat after his resignation as Prime Minister came into effect; however, he resigned from the Commons on being confirmed for the Middle East role, by taking up an office for profit”
“In January 2008 it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank JPMorgan “in a senior advisory capacity”[35] and that he would advise the insurance firm Zurich on climate change. His combined earnings then reached over ¬£7m a year.[36]”
“Yale University announced on March 7, 2008 that Blair will teach a course on issues of faith and globalization at the Yale Schools of Management and Divinity as a Howland distinguished fellow during the 2008‚Äì2009 academic year.[37]” …..(by the way Mr. Blair’s son is studying at Yale)
Quite a load of *apointments* I do hope that he will not be ‘over-stretching’ his work pensum..
Although an admirer of Tony Blair, I personally, find it a wee bit, like *a slap in the face*, to hard working lecturers,students who (with more *subject knowledge*), spend years studying certain subjects only to end up accepting an *under or poorly paid* position,striving to educate our youth.. but then, “that’s the way the World (of high-finance) goes round” is it not?
Here is the text from the link that didn` t work when I had put it. It`s worth reading especially during the Lenten time.
Taken from the book “Padre Pio Teaches Us”. A compilation of answers given by Padre Pio to questions from his spiritual children. From the chapter “Padre Pio’s Mass”
Padre what is your Mass?
- A sacred merging with Christ’s passion. My responsibility is unique in the world – (he said, crying).
What must I see in your Holy Mass?
- The whole of Calvary.
Tell me everything you suffer in Holy Mass.
- Everything Jesus suffered in his Passion, I suffer too, but inadequately, as much as a human being can. And all this not because I deserve it, but because God in His goodness wills it.
Father, do you take our sins upon yourself in the Divine Sacrifice?
- I can’t do anything else since it is part of the Divine Sacrifice.
Then the Lord considers you a sinner?
- I don’t know, but I fear he does.
I’ve seen you trembling while going up the steps to the altar. Why? For what you were about to suffer?
- Not for what I was about to suffer, but for what I was about to offer.
What moment of the Divine Sacrifice to you suffer most?
- From Consecration to Communion.
Father, this morning at Mass, while reading the story of Esau, who sold his right of being the first-born, your eyes filled with tears.
- And does it seem nothing to you to throw away God’s gifts?
Why did you cry on reading the Gospel when you got to the words: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood…”?
- Cry tenderly with me.
Why do you almost always cry when you read the Gospel in Holy Mass?
- And does it seem of little importance to you that God should talk to His creatures, and be continually contradicted and wounded by their ingratitude and unbelief?
Is your Mass, Father, a bloody sacrifice?
- Heretic!
No, I mean that Jesus’ sacrifice is bloodless, but your participation throughout the Passion is bloody. Am I mistaken?
- Well this time you’re not wrong. I personally think you’re right.
Who wipes away your blood at Mass?
- No one.
Why do you cry at the Offertory?
- Do you want to force the secret out of me? Let it be then. That’s the moment when the soul is separated from the profane. [the moment that Padre Pio goes into an type of ecstasy at Mass]
The crowds make a bit of noise at your Mass, Father.
- If you’d been at Calvary you’d have heard screaming, swearing, crying and threatening! There was a terrible row there.
Does the noise in church distract you?
- Not at all.
Father, why do you suffer so much during the Consecration?
- You are too cruel……
Tell me Father, why you suffer so much in the Consecration?
- Because that’s the moment when a wonderful new destruction and creation takes place.
My father, tell me why you cry at the altar and what those words you say during the Elevation mean? I’m not asking you out of curiosity, but because I desire to repeat them after you.
- The secrets of the King of Kings can’t be repeated without profaning them. You ask me why I cry, I should prefer not to shed a few tears, but floods of them. Don’t you ever reflect on this tremendous mystery?
Do you taste the bitterness of gall during Mass?
- Yes, very often.
How do you manage to keep upright on the altar?
- Like Jesus did on the Cross.
Are you nailed to the Cross at the altar, like Jesus was at Calvary?
- Need you ask me?
How do you manage to stay there?
- Just like Jesus did on the Cross.
Did the executioners turn the cross of Jesus upside-down to knock the nails in?
- Of course they did.
Do they knock the nails into you, too?
- They do!
Do they turn you upside-down on the Cross as well?
- Yes, but don’t be afraid.
Father, do you too recite the Seven Words Jesus uttered on the Cross during the Holy Mass?
- Yes, unworthy though I be, I recite them too.
And to whom do you say: “Woman, behold thy son”?
- I say to her: “Here are your Son’s children”.
Do you suffer from the same thirst and feeling of being forsaken as Jesus did?
- Yes.
At what moment do you suffer from thirst and loneliness?
- After Consecration.
Up to what moment do you suffer from thirst and being forsaken?
- Normally up to the moment of Communion.
You told me you were ashamed of saying: “I sought in vain for someone to console me”. Why?
- Because in comparison with what Jesus suffered, our suffering is nothing since we really are guilty.
Who makes you feel ashamed?
- God and my conscience.
Don’t the angels of the Lord comfort you at the altar where you sacrifice yourself?
- Maybe…but I don’t feel them.
Our presence is useless if consolation doesn’t pervade your spirit during the Divine Sacrifice and like Jesus you feel totally abandoned.
- Your presence is useful, otherwise we’d have to say that the presence of Our Lady of Sorrows, John and the Holy Women at the feet of Jesus dying was useless.
What is Holy Communion?
- The whole of it is the revelation of internal and external mercy. One complete embrace. Pray as well to Jesus that He make Himself felt.
Does Jesus only visit the soul when He comes?
- He enters the whole being.
What does Jesus do in Communion?
- He delights in his creature.
When you join Jesus in Holy Communion, what should we ask the Lord for you?
- That I may be another Jesus, all Jesus, always Jesus.
Do you suffer at Communion as well?
- It’s the climax.
Does your suffering continue after Communion?
- Yes, but lovingly.
Does Jesus console you in this union?
- Yes, but I don’t cease to be on the Cross!
Where did Jesus look as He breathed His last?
- At His mother.
And where do you look?
- At my brothers in exile.
Do you die too during Holy Mass?
- Mystically, in Holy Communion.
Do you undergo death because of the intensity of love or pain?
- Both, but more out of love.
Do you undergo death in Communion: then you’re no longer at the altar, are you?
- Why not? Jesus, when dead, was on Calvary, too.
You said, Father, that the victim dies in Communion. Do they lay you in the arms of Our Lady?
- Of St. Francis.
Does Jesus take his arms off the Cross to rest in you?
- It’s me that rests in Him.
How much do you love Jesus?
- My desire is infinite, but in effect, alas, it’s nothing and I am ashamed of this.
Father, why do you cry when you read the last verse of St. John’s Gospel: “And we saw His glory, the glory of the only Son of God, full of grace and truth”?
- And this doesn’t mean much to you? If the Apostles who had human eyes saw so much glory, what glory shall we see in the Son of God, in Jesus, when He shows Himself to us in Heaven?
What will our union with Jesus be like in Heaven?
- Well!… You can get an idea of what it’ll be like from the Eucharist.
Is the Most Holy Virgin present at your Mass?
- Why? Do you think a mother isn’t interested in her son?
And the angels, too?
- Hosts of them.
What do they do?
- Adore and love.
Father, who is nearest you at your altar?
- The whole of Paradise.
Would you like to celebrate more than one Mass a day?
- If it were up to me, I would never leave the altar.
You told me you bore the altar within you.
- Yes, in the sense of that saying of the Apostle: “carrying within me Christ’s mortification”; “I am nailed to the Cross”; “I chastise my body and make it servile”.
Then I am right in saying Jesus Crucified is walking amongst us!
- no answer
Do you remember me, Father, during Holy Mass?
- Holy Mass is one long remembrance of you from beginning to end.
==“that’s the way the World (of high-finance) goes round” is it not?==
I guess, but I wouldn’t begrudge him this little perk. His thoughts on the matter should be interesting. He *is* after all a former head of state.
So his son attends Yale. Hmmm… and the CW was that Engish universities were better– Americans going to Oxford and all that. So a college education in the colonies has come a long way.
Good heavens, Josip. Either Padre Pio is a saint’s saint, a mystic so lofty in spiritual insight such that he’s well beyond the ability of the rest of us to comprehend. OR he’s completely unhinged. And i don’t think it;s the quality of the translation is at fault for the impression it makes on me.
ARN,
I would like to hear your opinion about this blessed one:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Dacosta.pdf
My impression is that Padre Pio is – in very striking personal terms (Arn’s surely right; it’s not a question of translation) – drawing out the ultimate consequences of the Church’s teaching about Christian identity and the Holy Mass. It is startling, but then, Christianity is startling… or should be. From the very beginning, St. Paul spoke in similar terms about being nailed to the cross with Jesus and about Jesus living in him. Certainly, there is a danger of misinterpreting such language, and the questioner does seem to be “egging” Padre Pio on a bit, but I think that there is a perfectly sane and sound interpretation of each thing that Padre Pio says above – a meaning that can be applied not just to priests celebrating Mass or to mystics but to every Christian.
I would be very interested to hear what Tony Blair has to say to the students at Yale. Whatever one makes of his recent conversion (ie, vis-a-vis his political past), it was clearly not something done to win friends and pick up votes.
Sandra, what can you tell us about this fellow Kerkeling that I read about in the International Herald Tribune? Is he as famous as all that? I recently did an interview for a documentary for the History Channel, and I was talking about the increased popularity of pilgrimages, and I realize now that this man should have been my Exhibit A, but… not knowing German, I had to wait, a few days too long, for the English translation.
Father Wauck good evening (and to you all)
Do you mean by any chance Happe Kerkeling?
He is the only *Kerkerling* who (as far as I know) has recently had a book published “Ich bin dann mal weg” = “I’m off for a bit, then”.. A diary of his “pilgrimage” to Santiago de Compostela..
You will of course know that Happe Kerkeling is a “bekennender” (= openly) G*y..
A very good comedian by the way and extremely inteligent.. he speaks fluent Italian.( among many other languages).
He has recieved multiple Awards,ie’.Bestseller Author of the Year for 1.1 million copies sold of his travelogue “Ich bin dann mal weg” (2006),And the “Adolf-Grimm-Preis” Besondere Ehrung = Special Honor of the Association of German Adult Education Centres.. (2007)
Is it he whom you are refering to??..
Forgot to mention;- Happe Kerkeling is the best known comedian in Germany, and very,very popular..
espeially his *Horst Schl?§mmer* character I *curl up* every time I watch him.. Recklinghausen (Kerkerlings home town), is only 3-3.1/2 km. from where I live..
Sorry made a mistake in typing the distance from where I live and Recklinghausen,it is 130-132km. ca’81miles
Hello everyone– marginally related to the topic, the GLobe and Mail has named Augustine’s Confessions as one of it’s 50 greatest books. The accompanying article is very good, here’s an excerpt:
“He is confessing to God Almighty every dark deed and false light of his life, bringing all of it forward ‚Äî I mean all of it, the tantrums and stolen pears and wreckful nights and lust upon lust for flesh and fame ‚Äî with the firm if fearful conviction that he is placing his spotty record before this perfect Creator who already knows all, who judges and forgives and loves, who made him in His own image and makes of him only the hardest demands of any human life: humility and honest reckoning before a higher power.”
here’s the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.w50books/BNStory/Entertainment/home
Thank you Josip for typing all that out for me about Padre Pio. I had part of it (what you posted) in a word document I deleted by mistake. I blame the webkins again.
ARN, unhinged can be many things to many people. You may be right though- some things are just not for everyone.
Michelle, I especially like your post though. It seems Augustine has been a topic here often enough that it is bringing it all back together in a sense. Thank you.
(I meant, thank you Josip for typing all that out for us) however, I happen to think I am the only one who would not be as familliar with it as every other Catholic here. Therefore I said “for me”)
forgot to mention- first time ever the child was pictured in the bulletin, today. This was big for her for about one minute. Then after dad went to get more copies after I noticed it, all she could say was- “Don’t we all get to be in it?” Sorta dashed his high hopes she would be impressed he got more copies.
I told her the book of life is not the bulletin. She “got it” right away. Soon enough, she will be teaching me.
Father said:
It is startling, but then, Christianity is startling… or should be.
I agree. I guess in more specific terms, I did not know how much so until I came home
for Michelle: I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,
Alive as you or me,
Tearing through these quarters
In the utmost misery,
With a blanket underneath his arm
And a coat of solid gold,
Searching for the very souls
Whom already have been sold.
“Arise, arise,” he cried so loud,
In a voice without restraint,
“Come out, ye gifted kings and queens
And hear my sad complaint.
No martyr is among ye now
Whom you can call your own,
So go on your way accordingly
But know you’re not alone.”
I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,
Alive with fiery breath,
And I dreamed I was amongst the ones
That put him out to death.
Oh, I awoke in anger,
So alone and terrified,
I put my fingers against the glass
And bowed my head and cried.
Sung by St Joan Baez?
Josip–What a dreadful tale. I’m sorry, but on reading that site what immediately jumped to mind was that hers was a hysterical paralysis from her traumatic experience being chased by those men bent on rape. Her later piety and (over???)emphasis on the singular wickedness of impurity was borne of an understandable effort to make sense of her life and her misfortune.
Of course i could be wrong. it’s easier to accept the saintliness of figures in the distant past who may have done strange things from a modern mindset. Harder when the examples are less than 100 years old.
Hello Arn! Actually it’s Bob Dylan. I thought of Michelle’s mention of him and her link to Augustine, and well I could not help myself..
In regard to your comments to Josip- I really must not be seeing the “tale” you speak of. Was it a link?
I have no idea what you are talking about with the “dreadful tale” but, it sure sounds interesting if only I could figure it out.
Thanks, Sandra. Yes, Happe Kerkeling is the merry fellow I was referring to. The book about his pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela interests me… as a sign of the times. The article I read said that it is one of the most popular books of the last half century in Germany. Makes one think, no?
I’m with Helen in my inability to read Josip’s link with the “dreadful tale.” Nothing appears on my screen.
Helen and Fr Wauck–Maybe it’ll only work with Firefox, or the fact that it’s a pdf file has something to do with it. Google “Alexandrina Maria Dacosta”.
Josip-Her claim to surviving on the Eucharist alone seems suspect. *Somebody* was sneaking in Big Macs or something when nobody was looking, like when the team of priest were monitoring her for 40 days. Did she die of kidney failure?
Doctors were monitoring her. My bad.
ARN, the patron saint of a parish here also survived only on the Eucharist in her last days. It’s apparently not unheard of. I don’t question the things, because they are supposedly carefully scrutinized and documented by many people who would be commiting a horrible mortal sin if they were fabricating stuff. Its supposed to edify us, to hear of these stories and open our minds up to the supernatural. I know thats as basic of a way to say it- I have no time to pick fancy words and the correct theological terms (for that we have others here who can) I hope that gives the cliff notes anyway for now.
About Blessed Alessandrina:
Don` t worry ARN, it` s not “dreadful tale”. “Doctors were monitoring her. My bad.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ALEXDRIN.HTM
Alexandrina Maria Dacostas——– Nourished Only By The Eucharist For Over 13 Years
From the link;-
“Beginning in 1942 until her death,
Alexandrina was fed only by the Eucharist, and
during a period of convalescence at the Foce del
Douro Hospital near Oporto, for forty days and
forty nights she was under supervision by several
doctors in her absolute fast and her condition of
anuria (absence of urine). After 10 long years of
paralysis which she had offered as Eucharistic
reparation for the conversion of sinners, on July
30, 1935, Jesus appeared to her saying: “I have put
you in the world so that you may draw life only
from Me, to bear witness to the world how
precious the Eucharist is. [...]
On October 13, 1955 she died..”
Sandra,
She was living only on Eucharist from 1942. until her death at 1955. She witnessed to the world how precious the Eucharist is. She offered her life for sinners.
I know that is hard to you to understand…
Now how would you know what I can understand,and what not?? are you now become psychic??
You move up in the world Josip… from (*claimed*) Psyhchologist to medium… congratulations
OK, Sandra, could you tell me what was the problem in the text you cited.
And, once again, (never enough repetitions for you!), I am not “(*claimed*) Psychologist”, but Doctor of medicine and Master of science (congratulations for me!).
Hmmm… perhaps it’s time for a musical interlude. Helen, I’ll see your Bob Dylan song about St. Augustine, and raise you one Leonard Cohen song about St. Bernadette:
Song of Bernadette
There was a child named Bernadette
I heard the story long ago
She saw the Queen of Heaven once
And kept the vision in her soul
No one believed what she had seen
No one believed what she heard
That there were sorrows to be healed
And mercy, mercy in this world
and here it is as sung by Jennifer Warnes (co-composer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZIFavgLd38&feature=related
The Song of Bernadette………
A beautiful book.. Michelle thanks for reminding me
Meditation on the Immaculate Conception
By Padre Pio, OFM, Cap.
http://www.ewtn.com/PadrePio/mystic/Immaculate.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5IQzX4jhZM
While we’re doing video links, I should get my two cents in… for what it’s worth. If anyone is watching CNN in the next 24 hours or so, you may see me talking about sin on the roof of my university here in Rome – the same backdrop that shows up in the photo at the top of the blog.
I’ll put CNN on right now!!!!! would not miss it for the world Father.
Do you know roughly what time?? give or take a few hours
Just read your comment properly did you realy mean;-
“you may see me talking about sin on the roof of my university here in Rome” surely not??
just kidding
I called my mother to ask her to keep an eye out on CNN. She said she will tape it if she sees it on. If anyone has an extra VCR to tape a copy for me I will pay for the shipping to have it sent to me, of course, I will send the money and the self addressed packaging to you first so you can just slip it in.
Well Fr Wauck–If you can compete with the disgraced NYS Gov Elliot (Ness) Spitzer. At the moment it’s “All Spitzer all the time.” All work in my husband’s office has stopped and this is all his colleagues are talking about.
Sandra, I think he means the “new sins” re: invironmental concerns,bioethics, ect. That was plastered all over the internet recently (I am sure you could not help but see it) personally, I think they still do fall under the existing ones and are common sense anyway (good stewards, ect.) I am sure you agree.
By the way, are webkins popular in Germany still? I sent them an email asking why there is no church or churches for the webkins to go to since the child thought they ought to be going to one. They sent me back a generic reply: thank you for sending in your question, due to the volume of mail we may not be able to respond to each request…
I am very certain they will not reply to mine, because I also complained about their “trivia” game where they make false statements about Gallieo.
I was hoping ARN would bring some NY insider perspective on the scandal there now. What’s your take ARN?
Helen–He was set up by the powerful fat cats on Wall Street he alienated. Spitzer, the idiot, just made it easy for them. The IRS made it a priority to track what was really chump change? I doubt it.
The joke in Mr. Arn’s office: Who will Client #10 turn out to be? Bill Clinton.
I sorta figured it was a way to put Hillary under the hot seat to ask her to give her “take” on it….
have to agree with you on the point that it seems unlikely this popped up on a random thing, or a “flag” – as you say, for him money spent on those things is negligible considering his finances. (I have to say I am just learning about all this now- so forgive my instant reflex judgment call if its off base)
His wife looked like she was barely coping, from what I saw. Or, coping with some “help”? I do think his family needs prayers, esp the children.
Bill does not have to pay for his fun at the expense of others. He gets others to pay for it.
Is Spitzer a Catholic? I sure hope not right now.
Jewish. This is the sort of thing they call “shanda fur de goyim”. Agree with you about the wife and kids. I hear she’s urging him not to quit.
Both of my Mothers came through for me. Mom sat in front of the TV all this time until she found out just now Father was going to be on. She had the tape ready to go, and will watch it. She cancelled a “date” with a recently lapsed JW friend who stopped to pick her up (mom forgot all about it as she was glued to the TV for me) and her friend ended up Joining HER to WATCH the program! Father, if either or both of them end up converting I don’t think The Church will consider it a “miracle” if you are ever up for cannonization- but rest easy I will keep this documented just in case. I will follow what happens with them both and add to the scrapbook. I can’t wait to hear their reactions- I can’t wait to see the tape!
So excited now.
No pressure on you Father, of course.
I just hope you were “on”!
Mary, hear my prayer
Just called her, did not know how long the spot would be, so I did not want to interrupt the flow by calling, but I could not wait so I did call finally.
Her comments: It seemed the interviewer was trying to prod him into a fight of some kind.
He had a witty comeback in reply to a negative thing said about the pope.
It was far too short of a slot, there were some things said she would have liked to hear more on.
Lastly, I asked if anything what could Father have said/done better in your opinion.
Answer: He was far too polite.
My reaction: Mom, isn’t that what you say one should do even if under challenging circumstances?
Her reply: Yes.
I guess it was a thumbs up. Her friend said you are good looking.
That’s about it.
Morning Helen,
Sorry I do not know what “webkins” are / is :$ I don’t browse the internet much,but if you can tell me what you mean I could pos. find out..
Yes the ” *New* Mortalsins”.. I heard about that on TV news Monday. The most “interesting” ones I thought were, “accumulating excessive wealth” (won’t go down well with many high ranking Church officials =all denominations= ) and “exploiting the poor”, another thing that won’t go down well with them, after all that is, usually, where the “excessive wealth” comes from…
Father,I am afraid despite being “on watch” I seem to have missed your interview… or it has not been shown on CNN Europe yet?? there has been no menton so far as I have seen… but we wait and anticipate still.
Ah, yes Helen, OUR “good looking” Father Wauck…. swoooooooon!
bye for now, I’m off to work,only 3 more days till Easter holls…….yipeeeeeeee
Now you;ve done it Father Wauck…………
I will be late for work…….. your interview just aired Ivano saw you and called as I was leaving…….
just in time…………… more later I must reeeeeeeealy get going
Here ya go, people:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/03/10/vatican.updates.sins.ap/#cnnSTCVideo
Before they let you see the video, you have to sit through an ad illustrating the obscene wealth the following video condemns. Heh.
And open air confessionals?
Who will “client nr. 10 be”??
Well,Jay Leno asked the other night, “Hey he’s .Governor of New York … who can the other 8 clients ranked above him be??”
Puting humor aside, private matter it may be,but just as a Priest,Bishop who openly acts in defiance to the ethics of his “office” these things shed a wide “shadow” on the institution they represent…
“Private matter” ????? Not so VERY private now!!! Should he resign? YES!! if his family ever expects to get over this still standing,it’s the only solution,’cos it will not “just go away”.. Eliot Spitzer has, as ARN sujests,too many “enemies in Wall Street (where politics are dictated),his career is over the sooner he accepts that the better all round……. “Irren ist menschlich” = to error is human, stupidity also….
By the way, lots of *jokes* going around in Germany too, Spitz(er) is an adjective used to label “over-soxed” people….. you can guess the type of joke… one of the less sleezy being “Of all those who do credit to their name, he must head the list” (rough translation)..
Sandra–The escort service should have assigned him #1, like the license plate on the official car he’s chauffeured around in: NYS-1. The jokes and puns are flying around fast and furious-his name provides some delicious ones I won’t repeat here. But his past reputation as a moral crusader(he went after prostitution rings too!) has earned him the name “Uncaped Crusader” referring to his aversion to c*ndoms implied in the afadavit.
I have CNN on now and it looks like he’ll be resigning soon. I think he should fight it but it now like he’ll never get out from under. Oh well, I really loved that guy. He was just as mean and nasty a spectacle as our ex-mayor Giuliani, but at least Spitzer was going after the banks and the big shots.
The bigger they are the harder they fall.
Thanks ARN that’s the one I saw this morning……….
The fact that less and less Italian Catholics go to Confession is also alarming…… but a well kown fact for many years. “Openair confession” going a bit too far,would look like those TV. Ministries we see.. urgh!!
The “new sin” of excessive wealth, could be a bit of a *two sided sword*, for if this is (and it now is official)a mortall sin,then to actept money or other “donations” from such people / institutes / companies, would also fall into that category,or not?? I do not expect that the Vatican would accept money from an
“Abortion” clinic or would they?? Lots to think about here…..
Oh ARN,
( “he went after prostitution rings too!” ) yep!!! I suppose one could look at it that way
The bigger you are……… yes that is true, not living in NYCity as you, I can not say much for nor against him,execpt that he was more than stupid to think it would not be *discovered*,he knew his enemies,he knew how they operate,he took the risk (as others have)no use crying about it now and being sorry…. As always the inocent (his family) have to pay the highest price…. but no worry his “Abfindung” = compensation pension, will be sweet “comfort” to him……. after the “bitter pill” of resignation.
I don’t have audio on my computer but the written account is intriguing “excessive wealth” particularly. How to define it? Like poverty which is relative to the rest of that society? That would seem the best. The huge disparities in wealth between the lowest and highest income groups you see in Latin America certainly fit, perhaps even the disgraceful one existing in the USA. My guess is that in that department Canada and Western Europe are off the hook.
Sandra–His case gets curiouser and curiouser as more is uncovered. He apparently spent $80K over a couple years. It’s looking less like a h*rny guy who’s arrogant and powerful and thinks the rules don’t apply to him, and more like someone with a mental problem so utterly reckless as he was. Did he want to get caught? I didn’t think so yesterday but now I wonder.
Why didn’t he just get a girlfriend who was discreet? Equally sinful but less crazy. Certainly less of the Freudian circus we’re seeing today.
“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”.
Who is that quote atributated to.?? two come in question…
Sound sense I’d say, and still valid today.
Maybe Mr.Spitzer should have read it before, taking the liberty of privately, allowing himself, the “liberty” he denied others. Just joking here, but I still like that citation……..
Why didn’t he get a girlfriend??? well, they are not “professionals” are they, if a “girlfriend” gets the push,she gets the *hump* too,then ultimately the news people get the story… best pay for *services rendered* and have done with..
Your theory about “mental problem” is not so far off, I suppose, being confronted with the “materie” in detail must, in some people create a certain curiosity………which he aparently could not resist more the worse for his wife and family..
Well, he just resigned. His wife at his side with daggers in her eyes looking at him (“You blew it, moron”) He’s out next Monday. There’s was a certain unseemly death watch on CNN-helicopters capturing the motorcade from his Manhattan apt to his office in midtown.
Oh well. The guy was a self-sabotaging time bomb. Who knew? A bright Ivy-leaguer who was always the smartest guy in the room.
“…best pay for *services rendered* and have done with.”
Nah…that’s not it. He went after dishonest Wall Streeters, banks and insurance companies..and prostitution rings??? Please. Why bother with them-they’re nowhere close to being in the same evil league as the others. I’m wondering if he had a “thing” with the fact of prostitution, the paying for it, such that a consensual relationship with a mistress would in comparison be insufficiently er*tic.
Yes, just what I ment ARN.. it comes with the job… “The company you keep”, or have to keep in his case.. the “dirt” rubs off as they say.. Check your post I sent you a little diddle…
I suppose he could not have withstood the pressure if he had not resigned,impeachment was a sure bet,done deal in any case………..
Good old JFK. will be rolling in his grave with laughter, thinking, “But for providence there stand I”,going on what we know now, he would certainly have been “client nr. 1″
Enough, enough wallowing on other people’s “missfortune”….. deserved or not.
But it does make one wonder,would a woman have goten herself in such a mess??
Interesting post on the quality of the reporting on “new sins”:
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3255
Yes, the reporting in my own local paper was a little mangled, too.
“A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:
“A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1792. ME 16:263
“Moral duties [are] as obligatory on nations as on individuals.” -Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1808. ME 1:480
Wise words, not so “new” either
The “headlines” in most news papers I have always thought to be *linguisticly* deplorable… no exception in this case..
But having said this, do we really take them “on face value”? I think not…….
Arn, you said something that trigged a memory of a quote, about a young man to be president of a country who got his father upset by ignoring someone who was wishing him well. The father asked why he ignored the young man, and the son said he had no use for him as he had made some critical remarks earlier about him.
The Father said something like- The higher the bamboo grows, the more it bends.
I know the opposite is- the higher the monkey climbs the more he shows his ***.
But I am having a hard time recalling the young man’s name now- who ended up President of his little corner of the world..
?
Anyone recall this?
I will try to recall it, but it may take some time. My husband checked out a book from the library for me today “The Life And Times of Fulton J. Sheen” America’s Bishop by Thomas C. Reeves. I am suspect right off, as this man is not a priest who is writing it, and also wrote:A Life of John F. Kennedy. (have not read)
But, seems like its a gamble if its going to be edifying from his view.
I will make clear I love Bishop Fulton Sheen. Even my mother remembers hearing him. She has nothing bad to say about him.
“The higher the bamboo grows, the more it bends”
Good advice to the powerful and ignored too often. It really pays to be magnanimous. You offend a little guy and he may make it his mission in life to ruin you, and he may succeed! You don’t know what the future holds. Don’t know the source of the story either.
Sheen–You’re younger than me so you don’t remember his TV show. Unbelievable now, giving him a slot in prime time. Now he’d be relegated to EWTN, or an early morning slot on cable competing with infomercials for Ginsu knives, or…even worse, an early morning slot on EWTN.
One more remark about the Spitzer affair and I’ll stop obsessing: The destructive fallout on the people involved–
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/nyregion/13kristen.html?em&ex=1205553600&en=a0292d4714a843dd&ei=5087
My husband and I agreed this is a pathetic tale and after all this negative attention and outright cruelty-no other word will do-this girl’s life will never be the same. Imagine posting insults about her on her MySpace wall, the creeps. Maybe we’re sympathetic b/c one of our kids is her age and we know how vulnerable they are. A product of a broken marriage who “lives for her music” You just know she’ll fail. Yup, you’re a sweet young thing with a beautiful body that men want but you’re a total idiot ant terribly naive. Isn’t that the case with most 22 year olds?
At 22, many think they will live forever and that they won’t be forty for at least a hundred years. So, I can see how she really doesn’t view here todays as being potentially life altering to her tomorrows, if she will have many tomorrows-
During all the years since time began,
Today has been the friend of man;
But in his blindness and his sorrow,
He looks to yesterday and tomorrow.
Forget past trials and your sorrow
There was, but is no yesterday,
and there may be no tomorrow
Unknown
–Arn, the type of people that pick on such a young girl, are plainly bully on the playground types. I have no patience for those who delight in tearing up someone like her.
I think it was Carlos Romulo who the young man was- the former President of the Phillippines who learned a lesson about how bamboo is really strong.
I found a story about Cardinal von Faulhaber of Munich who was reported to have had a conversation with Einstein,
“Cardinal von Faulhaber,” Einstein said, “I respect religion, but I believe in mathmatics. Probably it is the other way around with you.”
“You are mistaken,” replied the Cardinal. “To me, both are merely different expressions of the same divine exactness.”
“But, your Eminence, what would you say if mathmatical science should someday come to conclusions directly contradictory to religious beliefs?”
“Oh,” the Cardinal answered with ease, “I have the highest respect for the competence of mathematictians. I am sure they would never rest until they discovered their mistake.”
Good German comeback!
Sandra, sorry I forgot to mention the insidious little creatures called webkins but Arn jogged my memory by mentioning MySpace. you see, they are virtual pets you have to bathe, shop for and well- even take to school. Naturally, part of taking care of a child in my child’s view- is going to church. How does it tie in to MySpace you wonder? Well- here’s the rub- the child can enter in their friends on their little chat phone and exchange converstations with each other. Its basically the getting your feet wet at a very early age to online chat rooms. I refuse to allow my child to enter in any friends on that site, and absolutely ban the idea of using the feature. That was the deal when the “adoptions” took place. You know me, I lean on the side of caution at this age.
ARN, I had no idea about the Spellman/Sheen ruckus until just now. If this book I am reading is correct, it sure seems like Spellman was suffering from a Napoleon complex. The most powerful Priest vs the most popular Priest in America. Get your tickets, and watch the show! What a darn shame to read about.
Hi! everyone..
Ok! Excessive wealth???? excessive = more than enough.. right?
Ok, what is more than enough?? More than I need to live in comparative comfort?,or, more than I can spend??
What is happening in our world? The cost of (just) living is increacing practically hourly… the peoples of the “third world” are starving.. while we watch.. The rich get richer and the poor get even poorer.. money is squandered on wars, and absolutely unnescessary luxus, which we could very much do without.
Now,I must confess to a “grave sin”.I sold today 3 Kruger Rands, with the “enormous” profit of roughly ‚Ǩ.1100,- but taking into account the “inflation” .. from the time that we bought the “Kruger Rands” which cost then roughly DM.500.- each (old currency now nearly 2-1 DM = ‚Ǩ.) a very lot of money then… we have not realy made a cent!!! Wow!! Have I now endangered my soul??… Just kidding…………..
My husand,is *handcaped* due to a very bad accident which left his right leg unable to bend (12 operations)..
He,through this *handi-cap* fell 1.1/2 years later on an icy footpath rendering his left elbow also stiff.. 4 Op’s.. He now has an ackowledged “dissability” which allows him to park his car on the “disabled” parking place… all well and good… but it costs him every 2 years ‚Ǩ.50.- to renew his pass… ok.. not so very much.. but in order to do this he must get a certificate from a specialist.. 250. km’s drive.. + he must pay ‚Ǩ. 10.- before even seeig the Doctor, who always sends him to a specialist, to asess the disability grade once more.. another ‚Ǩ.50.- fee.The whole process is still not finished.. let’s forget the rising price of petrol for a moment… (polution not included).. after being “con-firmed” as “disabled” he then has to send the *documents* 3 fold, to the apropriate agencies.. further cost.. at the end of the day he is then given a “pass” which enables him to park his car on a “dissabled car park” this again costs another ‚Ǩ.60.-………
Moral of the story You have to fend for yourself in this world…. and hope for the best in the next..
The “new sins”, in light of this, seem actually quite relevant… but to announce them as *new* is a little presumptious.. for,sins against humanity,have always been “mortal sins”. As Fa. Wauck in his interview states “what we do to one is also done to all mankind”,more to the point..Jesus said, “what ever you do unto your brother you do unto me” It seems though, to the unbiased onlooker, that some are more exempt (from the rule) than others.. The many religious communities, (Catholic inluded) wine and dine the “excessively rich” in anticipation of reciving “donations”, which they graceously accept.. All well and good to (later), condemmn the “source” of the donation,but this does not make for very much credibility regarding the Religious leaders of our Christian society.. Time they thought about that,and declined ANY / EVERY, such
“donation”
That would be an example to the rest of us… It does not become “institutions” who have, over centuries eccumulated great wealth (in form of works of art,literature,and other priceless objects), to condemmn others who do the same.. for as we know, not all of the priceless “artifacts” were,”stricktly leagaly”, aquired..
Helen you are so right not to allow such things for your daughter.. these “web.sites” are often frequented by the most disturbed of people… You know who I mean..
Oh, Sandra, how is your economic situation going worse and worse, practically hourly, it looks like that you will have to sold your PC. Where are that times, just weeks ago, when you were going in obsessive shopping?
“The many religious communities, (Catholic inluded) wine and dine the ‚Äúexcessively rich‚Äù in anticipation of reciving ‚Äúdonations‚Äù, which they graceously accept.All well and good to (later), condemmn the ‚Äúsource‚Äù of the donation,but this does not make for very much credibility regarding the Religious leaders of our Christian society.. Time they thought about that,and declined ANY / EVERY, such
‚Äúdonation‚Äù’
Well Sandra, The cost of wining and dining the fat cats is a drop in the bucket in the big picture, and if it persuades potential donors to deliver so you can pursue “worthy causes” then it’s well worth it. How else to get funding? The fact that the donors are giving away some of their wealth is a good work and the extent to which they part with their money diminishes the obscenity of their riches lol…that’s one way to look at it.
Consider the obscenely rich Bill Gates. Is he, one of the richest men in the world, hellbound? Maybe, but probably not because of his money, since he’s giving much of it away via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (to be sure, some org getting funded do’nt agree with RCC policy).
“It does not become ‚Äúinstitutions‚Äù who have, over centuries eccumulated great wealth (in form of works of art,literature,and other priceless objects), to condemmn others who do the same.. for as we know, not all of the priceless ‚Äúartifacts‚Äù were,‚Äùstricktly leagaly‚Äù, aquired..”
Come on Sandra, if the Vatican were to liquify its holdings and give the proceeds to NGO’s in Africa, do you really think it would do enough good there to offset the damage caused by its abdication of its role as Western Civilization’s curator-by-default (i.e. Vatican library and Museum etc.)? There are many NGO’s there which have tried to relieve that poverty and have more money and talent than the RCC and they haven’t managed to accomplish as much as you think they would. The Metropolitan Museum o Art holds billions of dollars worth of art but nobody would think of criticizing it for being too rich b/c in a sense its treasures belong to everyone. Same with the Vatican.
==not all of the priceless “artifacts” were,”stricktly leagaly”, aquired..”==
Probably not, but back in the day people were less fussy about provenance than they are now. My bet is many of those plundered works are safer and more available to the public than they would be back in their countries of origin. Even Greece can’t be trusted according to the English. They still haven’t given back the Elgin marbles.
ARN…. You mentioned “the Vatican” not me.. lol
Anyway, “if you’re in for a penny you’re in for a pound” It’s All or none!!! No way to say “but it was for a good cause” Or is that a “clause” in the “new sins”?? They did not specificate, or dd they?..
As Fa. Wauck says;- ” being rich is dangerous for your soul” or did I hear wrongly??
By the way, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, does not claim to be an “authority on “moral behaviour” or does it??
Josip ;- “how is your economic situation going worse and worse”.answer; no worry I’m doing quite well thank you..
Josip=..”Where are that times, just weeks ago, when you were going in obsessive shopping?” answer;-I still am!!! Altough,it is none of your buisines what I do with my money… it’s not you ,lol. do you wish it was?
By the way,Envy is still a grievous sin I believe Josip…
ARN I do not, did ot mean,the works of art that you mention, I mean stolen or requisited works of art that were definately taken / stolen, from their rightfull owners ,and never given back…We can cite the more recent history, or go much further back in history …. Theft is theft… no matter how one would like to define it.. To say that “it is better left were it is” does not rectify the fact that it was “stolen” , and at the time, was stolen to enrich the “culprit”. Sorry to disagree with you on this but, “theft” is theft no matter for what so ever reason… Good or bad.. If you were the “victim” would you see it differently???
Sandra, when you are doing quite well, please liberate us all from your heartbreaking performances about your “care” for poor people.
By the way, I cannot be envious at you in any sense, as anyone here, too!
Josip, you are, one of the “poor people”
Sandra, you are a liar par excellence!
Josip, a very well ment tip from me, you are out of your depth,as far as cynicalisim is concerned. You may not have noticed… as you seem not to notice so very much….. but your attempts, at the same, are quite infantile/inadequ??ate. you would do yourself a very great favour (in future), if you would decline from attpemting to assume any what so ever perfection in the dubious art of the same… it is laughable / imposible, at least for you …
Tut,tut, Josip,,,,,,,,You repeat yourself… have you no more arguements???
You realy do amuse me.
Sandra,
if you think that Opus Dei members and other Catholics on this blog are infantile (read: stupid), just continue with your infantile (read: compulsive) lies. You just lose your time in maniacal repetitions. You have a demonic hate against the Catholic Church, and that`s your “job” on the blog. I do not have a fear of you. I am a proud Catholic, and have nothing to shame in my life. I am not anonymous and am (and was) always open for a meeting with everyone.
When the *”Repetitioners”* knock on your door (and your brain), just give them this paper.
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/solascriptura.html
SAPIENTI SAT!
Oh Josip, I have no fear that you (*‚ÄùRepetitioner‚Äù*) would ever come knocking…… so I am in no need of your kind offer. Thanks all the same………
= “Opus Dei members and other Catholics on this blog”= puting words into my mouth (again), I ment YOU and YOU alone.. BTW. “infantile” is still infantile in my dictionary = childish..
“Stupid” is an adjective *you* seem to atribute to yourself, but then.. “call a spade a spade”
Just two more things Josip,
1).It interests me to know, how you and your “oversized ego” find room infront of your PC..
2)If you dislike me so much why do you read my cxomments (when not addressed to you)? I only read yours when they are addressed directly to me, and I feel like a good laugh…..
Now, enough amusement for this morning, I have to get back to the real world (you do realise that there is one?) so,with heavy heart,I will for now, leave you and your best friend (ego), to ponder over the next,out-pouring of your *not so*…”Beautifull mind”.. Have fun together
Josip–I know that you too are skeptical of some modern “miracles’ such as the visions at Medudjor(sp?). But Alexandrina’s doesn’t seem to strike you as doubtful as it did me right away. She seemed a hysteric and delusional. Her pathology took a religious form and was influenced by the Fatima visions of which she was aware. She repeated some of the same messages the Fatima children did, as if she was jealous of their fame. I bet she knew of St. Catherine of Siena who also lived for long periods on the Eucharist.
She claimed that the devil would throw her around (witnessed by her sister) and put unwanted salacious thoughts into her head. I’m sure she believed it but a psychiatrist would see that she could move on her own despite her “paralysis” and was blaming someone else for her s*xual fantasies. Her terrible suffering which she seemed to welcome rather than wanting to remedy makes her look like a masochist. No way can anyone think of her as a healthy role model. I see her case as sad and a pathetic example of religious fanaticism. That’s my take. YMMV
Helen–I wasn’t aware before of the Spellman Sheen rivalry but googled it. Well, big shots are the same anywhere, even the Church. Lesson #1 Don’t upstage the Boss. I guess NYC wasn’t a big enough town for both of them. For his efforts poor Sheen was exiled upstate.
Sandra–Giving back “stolen” property. Well I suppose whether something is stolen or not is open to interpretation. If long ago the trail is probably cold and the museum’s in the clear. If more recent, it should be judged case by case. I know American museums have that policy. If say some kleptocracy in a benighted corner of the world claimed a museum piece so it could later sell it to the highest bidder and remove it from public access, the museum should hesitate. But OK, that’s an extreme case. I dunno what the English are thinking holding on to the Elgin Marbles that Greece has been wanting back for some time now.
“‚Äúif you‚Äôre in for a penny you‚Äôre in for a pound‚Äù It‚Äôs All or none!!! No way to say ‚Äúbut it was for a good cause‚Äù Or is that a ‚Äúclause‚Äù in the ‚Äúnew sins‚Äù?? They did not specificate, or dd they?..”
Sandra, I think it’s clear they’re not talking about institutions but *individuals*. Is General Motors to be condemned for being worth billions? No, and their “good cause” is just making cars. How much more worthy are most religious institutions (except for Scientology) who do good works? How can an institution carry out its mission unless it has the money to do it, keeping (perhaps excessive from your POV) a big reserve?
“As Fa. Wauck says;- ‚Äù being rich is dangerous for your soul‚Äù or did I hear wrongly??
By the way, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, does not claim to be an ‚Äúauthority on ‚Äúmoral behaviour‚Äù or does it??”
What does that have to do with it?
Re– the so-called “treasures of the Vatican”– I have a small observation to make, just a general impression I have based on years of reading the paper, I haven’t recorded any hard data to back it up. It seems to me that, in my country at least, the groups of people who denounce the Vatican for caring for all that priceless art are the same groups who whine and complain that the government doesn’t give enough funding to the arts! Guess Vatican art isn’t the right kind of art in their opinion…..
And here’s another resource for you, to add to Father’s CNN interview and ARN’s link to the Get Religion blog, on Archbishop Girotti’s interview:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/media/me0071.htm
Michelle–The reporters just didn’t get it, or if they did chose to play it as kinda funny, not serious. Like when reading TDVC, I was tremendously irritated with the ignorance of Catholicism shown.
Bear Stearns is tanking. It’s the end of the world, folks.
“Michelle‚ÄìThe reporters just didn‚Äôt get it…..”
No kidding– I also wonder how much of this apparent media ignorance of matters Catholic is due to feigned ignorance or willful misunderstanding on the part of writers who are lapsed or fully ex-Catholics. I know I’m just speculating here, but in my own city newspaper, the former religion reporter had been raised Catholic, and there is one regular columnist who thinks he’s being funny when he calls himself a “recovering Cath-o-holic.”
That scenario occurred to me too, and if true shows the lack of clout and respect the Church has now with the media. The “playful” tone and faux ignorance wouldn’t have passed muster with the editors otherwise. Is this something new,i.e. post-Scandal?
Two quick questions: What is YMMV, and what is TDVC?
This book is so far, if accurate to facts fantastic. Since the topic of this post was started with a poll regarding Catholic Faith, I will quote from my book on page one a poll done that we all may find of interest (at least it was to me) …..In a poll taken by the Internet Catholic Daily (Catholic Daily in italics), with 23,455 people casting ballots, the top four Catholics of the century were Pope John PaulII, Mother Teresa, Blessed Padre Pio, and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. (citation- on page 383 of the book is See “Top 100 Catholics” at http://www.catholic-internet.org/.
The Catholic Almanac for the year 2000, published by Our Sunday Visitor, described Sheen as “perhaps the most popular and socially influential American Catholic of the 20th century.”
The more you learn about the man, the more you realize how much he gave. And, of his own funds also. I think over 10 million of his own money. He also was the biggest fundraiser guy we ever had. He needs to be declared a saint. I think he has done plenty to be official by now, esp the mortification he suffered at the hands of Spellman. Not to rag on Spellman too much, as I am sure he did what he thought was right, and I can’t read his heart- but the man had zero humility in any interaction with Sheen it seems. He did not know about the bamboo.
I wanted to type Pope John Paul II of blessed memory but, I was merely quoting the book. That’s how I like to refer to him anyway. Such a good man.
Praying for peace on my side of the globe here for all. Remember, if John Paul II of blessed memory could handle the meanie Greeks protesting his visit there, we can handle anything.
J+M+J+
I dont even know who Bear Stearns is, or what is tanking.
http://www.zenit.org/article-22047?l=english
Happy Anniversary!!
Happy Happy!
I am very happy for Opus Dei!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_Sheen
Helen–The entry doesn’t touch on the Spellman-Sheen rivalry but does show what he had going for him looks-wise. All the parish priests in my girlhood were inevitably strapping and handsome specimens of young Irish manhood and Sheen epitomized the type. No wonder he made a hit on TV. I remember him as very eloquent too although his books and ideas seem dated now. (The singular evil of Communism!!!). A born showman let me tell you.
How could that fireplug Cdl Spellman compete with this? So off to Rochester with Sheen where it was hoped apparently that his charisma would be contained.
Here is where I think Father and Sheen share one specific (though there are many) traits:
…I will see anybody with a spiritual problem…..
in his official date book-
Sandra, he was openly outspoken about being against the Veitnam war (’67 he made a big statement about it) – a point you will also agree on
Josip- he fought communism like nobody’s business! Famous communist sympathizers agree he was a powerful force against it
He also fought for civil rights long before the likes of Martin Luther King ect. Billy Graham loved him, and he is responsibele for the conversions of Henry Ford II, Leftist writer Heywood Broun, author Clare Boothe Luce, (Wife of Time owner Henry Luce) former communist pig Louis Budenz, and Fritz Kreisler.
This man is so amazing!
God Bless America and the Irish who came here!
ARN, you make a good point, and in the book they mention his penchant for good dressing/looks, ect-
I will try to highlight that point- and his concern of his appearance along with the kids he grew up with and their view of it, and how yet they all knew he would be a priest anyway- even though the girls would have all agreed with you (as I do) he is attractive, yes.
However, Spellman did actually lie. Sheen would not back down to his threats because of principle- not pride
He went to the all male Spalding Institute with classmate Jimmy Jordan, later to be known as Fibber McGee, (and Molly was across the street- his wife in real life and radio- also in a close by catholic school) a block away would be Charles Correll, or Andy from Amos and Andy….
All from Illinois!
God bless Illinois!
Wow by keyboard or my fingers are way off on the typing today!
“Was it not God who implanted this insatiable craving in our hearts for illimitable happiness, love, and truthe and beauty? And is God therefore to be conceived as urging us on irresistibly to an end which we can never attain? Must I who feel made for happiness and truth by virtue of the nature which he has given me, sink back into nothingness after this life of trouble and turmoil is over? Is it possible that of all living beings on earth and man alone- an in his highest powers- is to be aimlessly diproportioned and mis-adapted to his environment? Is this highest if rational insiticts destined to be universally frustrated? Are the loftiest and best yearnings of the noblest and best work in the rational universe to be forever vain and illusory?
Archbishop Fulton
Sheen
Hi Helen,
Thanks for all the great posts. I’ve enjoyed reading them.
I just wanted to let you know that the link you gave regarding the “Top 100 Catholics” didn’t work. Also, the organization that put out the list rejects the Second Vatican Council and they also reject every Pope since Pope Pius XII. I can’t tell for sure what exactly happened with the people running the website since the list was published in 1999 but it looks like they had a change of heart.
I looked at their bio on Pope Paul VI (Number 10 on the list) to see how they handled the delicate situation—they consider him a heretic (these days, anyway) and their viewers voted him the 10th top Catholic of the century. When the list was published, they were struggling with the issue of Vatican II and made it clear that there are two sides. In the end, though, they were lenient on Pope Paul and gave Vatican II the benefit of the doubt: “The jury is still out. There are those who contend that Vatican II sold out and the result has been heresy within the Church; others maintain that it was the best thing that ever happened to the Church and freed her from the chains of a staid old institution by two great Popes. Both claims are extreme and we prefer to believe that the Council was good and truly inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the implementation of all that was decreed left a lot to be desired and that is the inherent problem today. There was not enough education to the masses on what was truly proclaimed by the Council Fathers and because of this many liberals took advantage to advance their own agendas under the guise that it came from Vatican II.“
Sadly, it looks like something happened in the minds of the website authors since 1999. They now claim “We reject Vatican II for it formed a separate church, apart from the true Vine which has been proven by the bad fruits just as Christ affirmed in Matthew 7: 15-20.”
Helen here a link where you can listen to Bishop Sheen (24hrs) many topics… The link can be found at the bottom of ARN’s link ( click “Life is worth living” ) you can get it over Media Player..but just in case here it is.
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/sheen.htm
I hope this works..
By the way Helen yes you are right,I do agree with anyone who speaks out against violence / war etc’
ARN,
I just want to know do you believe in (possibilities of) existence of “supernatural” and “invisible” (part of the Creed). There is no hidden intention in this question, just as an introduction in discussion. I was, and am, always polite with you because you are sincere/honest person. Although, apparently, looks like that we do not agree in attitudes, we agree very much, just things have to be put in the right place, and the truth is always one (real science is never in collision with the faith).
Thank you Tony for checking out the site, I did not. I merely quoted from this book what the writer provided as a citation- good evidence he is not exactly a on the ball Catholic (the writer that is)in fact, he does not even make the claim to be Catholic, he does claim he is trying to be objective and non biased, but- his book, if factual in detail about Archbishop Sheen, is really quite interesting so far.
So, I guess that site was run by sedevacantists or SSPXers then? I really don’t understand why they have not snapped out of it yet.
Thanks Sandra for the link also.
Here is another blip from page 229 re: polls
Life is Worth Living went on the air at the right time, for the 1950′s marked the golden age for American churches. In 1952, 75 percent of Americans told pollsters the religion was “very important” in their lives. Five years later, 69 percent believed that religion was increasing its influence on national life, and 81 percent said they thought that religion could answer all or most of life’s problems. In the mid 1950′s a record 49 percent of Americans reported having attended a church or a synagogue in the past week…..
This book is peppered with polls and stats, however it appears the sources of the pollsters are not too reliable in some. I wonder why local arch’s dont poll themselves? Maybe because they don’t want to release the results? I guess it would be embarrasing if they had members marking off they don’t believe in core teachings.
Good afternoon to all.
I am just back from weekly shoping.. and have just looked in to tell ARN that I have not overlooked her comment on “Works of art” stolen or not..
I think you seem to have misunderstoond my point ARN.? I was really not,only refering to Museums, Vatican (this time)..
But refering to many “private” persons who also “co-incedently” are heads of Companies, Banks and so on..They have not all “come into money” (to be able to assertain such “artifacts”) by stricktly legal process.. Somethings may not be, in terms of legality, “forbidden”, but moraly condemmnable,many of the “old money” are as bad as the “new rich”.. Any wealth accumulated from the suffering of others is, I suppose, what the new sin “excessive wealth” amongst other things would entail..Monsignor Girotti also mentioned “drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that cause an unbearable social injustice”
*Social injustice* often caused by unscrupulouss individual’s desire to become even richer,at any cost..
I ment(in my comment),that ANYONE, who also, in any form what so ever,benefit from such people,knowing exactly where and how they “came by” their wealth,are commiting the sin of “accomplice after the fact” and also by giving them the “air” of acceptability signaling others that, it’s ok to, “rob the poor to give back to the poor” a small % of their profits………. This is,if I remember rightly, also “Money laundering” the “donor” gets a receipt for the “tax man” to (nice and neatly) right off the ammount against their profits……..
There was a great scandal here in the late 80ties early 90ties,where a “certain” pharmaciutical company (very well known outside europe), “donated” medicines to a war-torn country it turned out that all the drugs were “out of date” or “A.d.H” = out of production due to some health risk…. The Company “wrote off” the whole ammount from their tax rebate……… nice one! don’t you think??? They later sacked (with a large…… ” payoff”) the employee who *unwittingly* (ha!!) endorced the shipment.. They got off with a *slap on the wrist* and a fine…. drop on a hot stone…..
The Metropoliton Museum has nothing to do with this “strickly speaking” your right… but in any case they do not dictate to their *visitors* what is or is not “sinfull”.
That priceless works of art are better off in such places goes without saying…
I did agree with you last time we were on that subject…….
Still I stand by my earlier comment it is not “prudent” to forbid,or denounce if you like, excessive wealth gained by extortion, (and it’s owners), in one breath and then, accept some of that wealth with a condoning smile…. Who ever does it….You either decline, or take it (for a good cause), and mumm’s the word.
Now having had my say…… I do very much acknowledge, that there are very many “good” generous people out there,who, despite having excessive wealth give a large ammount to the diverse charities,they command our respect.Now enough of wealth or I may be ccused of being “overly obcessed” by it………
“recovering Cath-o-holic.”
Michelle…….
What a line… He should be reccommended for the Pulitzer-Prize
No kidding, it is just tooooooo silly. But then, the decline in good jurnalism is taking leaps and bounds.
Correction to earlier comment = “accused” sorry…. I missed an *a* .
Tomorrow is Palm Sunday,a reminder of how fickle *the world* still is………
All the Family are off to Denmark (Isle of Fan??) we will be joining them in a few days, but will not stay over Easter..as I have to do some “homework” for the Tuesday after Easter when I go back to work..So I have to get some packing done,2 types of clothing,as always for Denmark,as the weather is very unpredictable
Have a nice afternoon all.
PS. Father Wauck…… “Italian tifosi are wearing black”..what hapened to Ferrari??? “my” boy is doing well don’t you think??
==…do you believe in (possibilities of) existence of ‚Äúsupernatural‚Äù and ‚Äúinvisible‚Äù ==
Josip–I don’t rule it out. For instance, I never question if reported miracles in the distant past really happened or not. It’s enough that the folks at the time believed it. It’s inappropriate in a way for us moderns to “go there” and debunk an event that deeply affected people of a radically different mindset than the one we have today. Reading accounts of miracles in the middle Ages say, it’s striking that everyone seemed to believe it. There were few if any doubters so impressive was the event. Can’t guarantee that’s what really happened(the convincing nature of the miracle) since I don’t have a time machine to go back there and check, but I give it the benefit of the doubt.
So what about modern miracles….? Well for one thing we’re more skeptical and rational, and so the bar would be much higher. A claim that one was cured of paralysis wouldn’t fly as a miracle for instance b/c there are too many other explanations for the event. Anything that struck many people as cheap or meritricious even if difficult to explain would disqualify it as a bona fide “miracle”. So what would it take? I’d say an event that *everybody but the most stubborn believes to be miraculous*.
God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows all about our skepticism and sophistication. He knows what it would take to iimpress us and is able to do it. So if He worked a miracle Himself or through a modern day saint, He’d know exactly what to do. And so I’m unimpressed with Alexandrina’s claim as I am with Fatima. I know I’m not alone. Only a minority believe. That’s enough to make it not a miracle.
“…ANYONE, who also, in any form what so ever,benefit from such people,knowing exactly where and how they ‚Äúcame by‚Äù their wealth,are commiting the sin of ‚Äúaccomplice after the fact‚Äù and also by giving them the ‚Äúair‚Äù of acceptability signaling others that, it‚Äôs ok to, ‚Äúrob the poor to give back to the poor‚Äù a small % of their profits‚Ķ”
OK I understand your point. Sandra, that’s a tough one. It stinks that by accepting money from a morally reprehensible enterprise you bestow on it an undeserved respectability. OTOH beggars can’t be choosers? Sometimes if you want to facilitate a socially worthy project you compromise the purity of your principles? We live in such a complex world and if the alternative is to do nothing or less than we could that too is the wrong choice.
There is an expression out there among businessmen doing business overseas: “Does it pass the smell test?” If you find your partner in the country you’re trying to start an enterprise so repugnant you resist doing it, then don’t do it. Maybe that’s the best guideline although its admittedly flexible and will vary from one person to another.
For instance what would fly in Venezuela with its needy population and corrupt gov’t would not in Denmark with its few impoverished and its clean and smoothly running system. With time, maybe the bar will get higher in those poorer countries and perhaps the efforts of charitable organizations will help make it so.
Consider that captain of industry ..or robber baron (depending on your POV) Andrew Carnegie who wrote that it was his duty to give away his fortune to help others; that philanthropy was a reason to get rich in the first place. Now he caused much suffering, treating the city of Pittsburgh as practically his private fiefdom and is hated to this day there (According to my SIL)…not a nice guy. And yet he funded library systems throughout the country and several institutions of higher learning. Now his rationale sounds an awful lot like rationalization and the relieving of feelings of guilt at the end of his life, but isn’t it better that he gave it away than if he hadn’t. Of course you can make the case he shouldn’t have raped the land and plundered his workers in the first place, but he did.
Sandra–Fano…I’m green with envy. It looks like a gorgeous place on the Google Satellite Map
ARN,
Speaking about “distant miracles in the distant past”, I agree that we do not “have a time machine to go back there and check”, as also we cannot go back and check events in biblical times and what is written in Gospels, but that is not point. Here comes the faith.
About modern (your quote) “miracles”. Alexandrina was not beatified because she had mystical phenomena, but because she was faithful to Christ in obedience and humbleness to the end. Also, faithful Catholic is not obliged to believe in any apparitions, even if they are recognized by the Church as authentic, like Fatima.
Truth and/or miracle have nothing with the number of those who believe in it or not.
We cannot turn the time back and go in forties of 20. century, but the whole examination and certificate was signed by eminent doctors in the Clinic where she was observed. Do you think that the scientist (professors) would suppress their career signing it, that any defect would be proven in their findings?
I don`t need Alexandrina, because I believe in Real Presence, but that is something what, so to say, gives warmth to the faith. Alexandrina was beatified in 2004. and be sure that without very extensive examination (including psychiatric) she would not be beatified if there is anything in her life and writings what can be suspicious to the mental illness. What joy it would be for the enemies of the Church!
Yes Fan?? is quite lovely also very tiny…will try and paste a photo taken there with the family…….. (last year)…
anyway here a link you might want to visit ……..it’s long and *scarry* but summs up the “true story of the robber baron”
http://www.mises.org/story/2317#5
I’ll send you a photo in the mail I can’t get it on here…
Well OK Josip. Here we’ll just have to agree to disagree. One correction– when I said “go back to the Middle Ages to check”, I meant to check if most people then believed in the miracle ,not what my own reaction would be.
I ask you to consider that perhaps the doctors may have believed her because they too were dazzled by her reputation. There’s a reason that many studies now are “double-blind”; to avoid the researchers’ fooling themselves. That was one thing that occurred to me.
” lack of clout and respect the Church has now with the media. The ‚Äúplayful‚Äù tone and faux ignorance wouldn‚Äôt have passed muster with the editors otherwise. Is this something new” (ARN, above)
My impression is that it is not anything new where I live– the media in Canada has always been a little anti-Catholic– or at least ill-informed when reporting on matters Catholic. I would think that the only region where the Church had any kind of media “clout” would have been the French-speaking press in Quebec, and that ended in the late 60′s, early 70′s with the quiet revolution. The city where I live was founded by Scottish Protestant railway barons
(e. g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_MacNab) and the poor and working classes were made up of Catholics– Irish and Italian immigrants, and some Francophones who had re-located.
Slightly related interesting fact (don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned it here before)– the first Canadian chapter of the Kl* Kl*x Kl*n was founded out west in order to harass Catholics. I learned that many years ago in my undergrad Canadian history class.
But on a positive note, I find the National Post reporting to be a breath of fresh air, it is the paper that carries Father Raymond DeSouza’s column, which I’ve linked to on occasion.
Helen, I want to clarify something from my last post. In my comments about those who reject Vatican II, etc., I was only referring to the folks who run the website which published the “Top 100 Catholics of the 20th Century” reader poll. I was not including Thomas Reeves, the author of the book you’re reading, with that group. From what you said, it sounds like Reeves was just quoting the results, and didn’t have anything to do with the survey or the website.
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that Thomas Reeves is a convert to Catholicism and is considered a pretty solid author.
Sorry if I caused you any confusion.
Tony
Thanks for helping me out on that one Tony- I am glad he is a solid Catholic.
Since we have mentioned mystics, and Padre Pio before- I thought I would add this happy news:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=6022628
Have a great trip Sandra
ARN,
going in Middle ages to check if most people then believed in miracles is irrelevant, because it has nothing with did the miracles (or supernatural events) happen or not in that time. It can be interesting for history of medicine and some “speculative” investigations.
In forties of 20. century doctors had all necessary knowledge and tests to distinguish “hysterical” from organic paralysis, and clear criteria is something mental illness or not. “…perhaps the doctors may have believed her because they too were dazzled by her reputation.” This is, simply, without sense because they made investigation which is appropriate and, properly understood, equal for today standards. In that time (as well for today!) any defect in investigation means end of career.
In today scientific literature is completely normal that scientist describe single (or few) case, and is valid for improvement of science in that matter (and, by the way, in her case, double-blind study is impossible, and is, completely not necessary, because every findings in proper investigation is valid and can be announced as scientific paper in eminent (CC) scientific publications). But it depends on…
Nothing in the world is “we agree to disagree”. That`s the way of speaking of infantile persons. You do not belong to them.
Everyone– the Catholic Educator’s Resource page this week is excellent, many articles touching on things discussed here in the last month or so, excellent reading for a Sunday afternoon:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/
We saw Horton Hears a Who yesterday, and today went to a local parade and saw Mike Ditka. Now we are baking cupcakes and bundling little surprise packages for the kids at school.
Josip, don’t be so hard on ARN. She does not rule out the supernatural, and I think that is all she is required to do as far as I can tell.
Wish I could elaborate on why I think different saints are inspirationally different for us all, and why but no time now. For instance, I especially pray Sheen will be a saint soon as he appeals to me personally and he has no mystic stuff to potentially turn someone off-
Don’t misunderstand- I for one have no probelm with the mystics, or the ones who survived of the Eucharist, ect- name it- I don’t have a problem with it. But, that’s me. And, at different times in my spiritual journey different things were helpful to my continuing growth (don’t everyone laugh all at once now) but, seriously- I don’t think any of the saints need defense.
Josip, if I am wrong, I always welcome your correction. I know you wish the best for us all and will give the best advice.
“…going in Middle ages to check if most people then believed in miracles is irrelevant, because it has nothing with did the miracles (or supernatural events) happen or not in that time.”
Oh but it does. Those folks *believed* in them. They found them inspiring. God performed them, often through his saints. *He knew what it would take* to have the desired effect. What *WE* would think looking backwards into history is the thing that’s irrelevant. This different time called for a different standard, which may or may not look suspiciously easy to us, but they were not performed *for us*, so what we think doesn’t matter.
“In forties of 20. century doctors had all necessary knowledge and tests to distinguish ‚Äúhysterical‚Äù from organic paralysis, and clear criteria is something mental illness or not. ‚Äú‚Ķperhaps the doctors may have believed her because they too were dazzled by her reputation.‚Äù This is, simply, without sense because they made investigation which is appropriate and, properly understood, equal for today standards. In that time (as well for today!) any defect in investigation means end of career.”
I dunno about that. It’s certainly conceivable that these doctors, even if they weren’t dazzled by her reputation may not have been so willing to go against popular opinion and be a wet blanket, a”Mr. Bringdown” by saying it was all false. That may have been uppermost in their minds, perhaps unconsciously, rather than the career-killer they’d suffer by signing off on a popular “miracle”. Off course, I can’t know for sure, but that’s a plausible scenario.
“…by the way, in her case, double-blind study is impossible,”
Right. I would’ve been impossible in her case. I only mention it to show why precautions are taken in modern studies where it *is* possible: Because it is so easy for researchers to kid themselves.
“Nothing in the world is ‚Äúwe agree to disagree‚Äù. That`s the way of speaking of infantile persons. You do not belong to them.”
Josip, I’m sure we agree on lots of things and we *disagree* on lots of things. It has nothing to do with being infantile. You and I are both reasonably intelligent people with at least decent educations. We don’t have to convince each other on the issues on which we disagree. You and I are only exchanging points of view, alternate scenarios, that we want the other to consider in the hopes of mind-changing. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. So what? I’ve enjoyed this exchange; it gets my juices going. Same for you, I’m sure. We both like to spar. But right now the Vicodin prescribed to me after my knee surgery a couple days ago is kicking in and I must bow out.
Guess this is more mortification for me! Yeah!
Everyone has a decent education as we are all aware. Except, for me. We are also all aware of that.
How nice.
*warning* must be elite to enter here
Not to beat a dead horse, but Josip- all the “educated” people at one time embraced Arianism.
It was the poor slobs out there in majority that did not like the “new theology”
of the oh so “smart” ones
Helen,
I don’t know what level of FORMAL education you have, but you clearly have plenty of knowledge that you gained over the years. It’s been valuable stuff and we all appreciate it.
I know you already know this but just in case, it seems to me that no one on the blog is concerned with anyone else’s formal education; your posts are how we know you, not your resume.
As for your “warning,” I’m willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you have a higher formal education than most of the 12 Apostles. You can’t really lose being in with that crowd, now can you?
Sorry I was a bit too sensitive about it, forgive me.
ARN,
You are a very intelligent person with decent education, and you know exactly, reading my posts, directly and indirectly (“between the lines”), what is my opinion about you, and I am sure that you understand me very well. I look at you, primarily, as a sincere and honest person, everything other is of secondary importance.
I didn`t say that you are infantile, but something completely different and everyone who understand Croatian (my posts on the blog) know that I said you a big compliment.
Helen, everything what I wrote in Croatian is open for you. You will see then everything clearly.
Just back from a six-day retreat out in Abruzzo. If anyone’s seen “Where Eagles Dare”, you know the neighborhood. Been prayinng for everyone on the blog. Interesting to catch up on the last week’s news all at once. Eliot Spitzer is already forgotten – pushed aside by Rev. Wright, I believe.
I probably should have been clearer in not making any claims for that CNN interview. TV interviews – unless it’s some special report – are always very short, and it’s always a tiny fraction of what you said (the first thing I said here was that the Vatican had not issued any list of new sins!); I didn’t mean for people to spend time looking for it.
Father, I just finished watching the tape. You were not on it. Sadly, it was dissapointing to see instead of you- a Father Edward Beck- who should not do interviews IMHO.
I dont know if you were on at some point, but that spot was regarding the new sins stuff- and let’s just say it would have been better had you been on instead of Father Beck.
And, as far as my mother’s friend is concerned- he can’t even get by on good looks if you ask me. I personally think he is not in the least bit good looking on top of being a bad rep on TV. Sorry Father Beck, but I am being totally honest here even if brutally blunt.
“TV interviews – unless it‚Äôs some special report – are always very short, and it‚Äôs always a tiny fraction of what you said (the first thing I said here was that the Vatican had not issued any list of new sins!);”
I have no audio so I don’t know what you said, but it’s a favorite trick of journalists I understand: Take statements out of context to make them more “interesting” and potentially controversial than they really are. The journalists aren’t exactly performing their public duty to inform the viewer of the rather more boring truth. Other coverage of this story I saw on TV provided the people in the studio a chance to yuk it up, like I was telling Michelle. I haven’t a clue how people in the news can avoid that. The media seems to hold all the cards here.
Well, off this p.m. to buy Whiz Kid a suit, who helpfully is taking a break from his ongoing nervous breakdown to do so. This in preparation just in time for his sendoff into the Wall St-bank-financial community meltdown in search of gainful employment. An auspicious beginning. He wants to go to grad school but we’ve insisted he work a while at a “real” job first and not put off the real world. There’s gotta be something out there for a newbie, if only helping to shred documents.
“I have no audio so I don‚Äôt know what you said, but it‚Äôs a favorite trick of journalists I understand: Take statements out of context to make them more ‚Äúinteresting‚Äù and potentially controversial than they really are”
I’ve heard media coaches say that if you want to get a particular point across, you just have to find ways to keep repeating that point– then they have no choice but to use it if they want a quote from you. I always thought that they would just then turn around and write that you kept repeating yourself– but I guess it works for politicians!
Another thing that happens is the editing of “letters to the editor” for brevity. It’s always safer to be brief. If you lay out a nice long convincing argument that goes from point A to B to C and concludes with D, they may well make you look like an idiot by removing points B and C. It happened to me a long time ago, and now I’m careful to write “editor-proof” letters.
It’s 1:20 here now as I write this, but if anyone can join me to pray the Divine Mercy at 3:00 please
Count me in, Helen.
Here is a link to the Divine Mercy chaplet for anyone else who would like to:
http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/dmmap.htm
I would like to make clear that, even those who may not believe in this prayer, I pray it with the hopes of joining our sufferings to Christ and to Christ alone.
This will be clear to who I am speaking to.
I am not praying a “repetitious” prayer, my dear friend.God never tires of hearing how much we love him, and those HE loves.. I am praying as if these sufferings are joined with Christ’s on the Cross, and I am praying for all sufferings too..
The Lord never tires of hearing a heartfelt request He and only He can grant my friend.
You know this. I love you if I forgot to tell you lately, I am truly sorry I did not.
J+M+J
Forever Amen
Ad te Beate Ioseph – To thee, O blessed Joseph
Written by Pope Leo XIII.
TO thee, O blessed Joseph, do we come in our tribulation, and having implored the help of thy most holy Spouse, we confidently invoke thy patronage also. Through that charity which bound thee to the immaculate Virgin Mother of God and through the paternal love with which thou embraced the Child Jesus, we humbly beg thee to graciously regard the inheritance which Jesus Christ has purchased by his Blood, and with thy power and strength to aid us in our necessities.
O most watchful Guardian of the Holy Family, defend the chosen children of Jesus Christ; O most loving father, ward off from us every contagion of error and corrupting influence; O our most mighty protector, be propitious to us and from heaven assist us in our struggle with the power of darkness; and, as once thou rescued the Child Jesus from deadly peril, so now protect God’s Holy Church from the snares of the enemy and from all adversity; shield, too, each one of us by thy constant protection, so that, supported by thy example and thy aid, we may be able to live piously, to die holy, and to obtain eternal happiness in heaven. Amen.
Helen,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K45HwwYq7yo
In Christ,
Josip
Hello everyone: Sandra’s daughter Gabriele has had some difficult news. Here is a place where we can join together in prayer for her and her family:
http://bloomingprayers.blogspot.com/
Michelle–Thanks
With special prayers for Gabriele and Sandra, a Happy Easter to one and all.
http://www.zenit.org/article-22112?l=english
Happy Easter Father
And everyone
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_eu/pope_muslim_convert_4
May God keep this man safe
Another blip from the book I am reading now, that does tie in to Father’s post and is on topic. (at least I am trying to make it fit)
page 230
3rd paragraph
Critics of the Church focused on its rapid growth. Indeed, between 1940 and 1960, even cautious estimates has the membership doubling, from 21 to 42 million. (There may have been nearly 40 million Catholics in America as early as 1956.) In 1954, there were 158,069 religious sisters running hospitals and parochial schools. There were 46,970 priests and 32,344 seminarians. Two-thirds of the Catholic laymen and three-fourths of the laywomen reportedly attended Mass regularly. Between 1949 and 1959, Catholic School enrollments leaped from 2,607,879 to 5,600,000.
**********
Oh how times have changed.
Fulton Sheen, pray for us
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/wgorbachev119.xml
Happy Easter!
Prayers for Gorbachev going up right now
Protesters at Holy Name Cathedral during the Holy Mass. They were arrested. Cardianl George handled himself well in the interview. Very sad.
Happy Easter to everyone and their family & friends!
interesting site I found that is attempting to get more in the Church.
catholicscomehome.org
I hope it leads people home.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200803260001
He then produced a copy of The Way — the book for meditations written by St Josemar??a Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei — which is now a best selling spiritual classic. He showed me Point 42 which says, ‚ÄúWhy those variations in your character? When are you going to apply your will to something? Drop that craze for laying corner stones, and finish at least one of your projects.‚Äù
The question is, has Josemaria Escriva led more to God in America than Sheen?
I vote, not.
Helen, why even ask the question? It is the Holy Spirit that touches the hearts of men and women, people are simply the instruments of God– even the holiest of saints, and the saints describe themselves as such. None of us here on earth is in a position to know the whole picture on how anyone’s conversion came about, and via which combination of experiences, and when. We may only know bits and pieces of someone’s particular story, through a glass, darkly.
True Michelle. I just think its a shame that someone who clearly did bring many into the Church is not fast tracked in for that alone, and if that isnt good enough I sure dont know what is.
Fr Wauck
Fr. Wauck, what is the difference between an Opus Dei priest like you who teaches at a Pontifical University and a Jesuit or Dominican who teaches at a Pontifical University? I know you are considered a secular priest and they are considered religious. Is that just a canonical nuance with no practical ramifications, or is their normal day to day different from yours? Thank you for your consideration.
“I just think its a shame that someone who clearly did bring many into the Church is not fast tracked in for that alone” (Helen, above).
A shame for whom? I don’t think Archbishop Sheen has anything to be ashamed of by not being formally canonized, and neither should anyone who has a personal devotion to him (as long as we understand that the Church is studying his life more intently than we are, so we need to defer to the Church’s final pronouncements). I’m pretty sure Abp. Sheen isn’t even thinking about the issue—he’s more likely praying for you and the rest of us instead of all that.
Here’s an article that I think may help explain things better. One perfect quote from the article:
“A proclamation by the Pope does not make someone holy or obtain entrance into heaven. The Holy Spirit is the one who does the sanctifying and it is the Lord Jesus who welcomes a saint into heavenly glory. There are many saints enjoying the beatific vision after lives of heroic virtue who are not and probably never will be canonized. That’s why we celebrate All Saints Day on November 1.
So the acts of the Pope are not intended to benefit the saint in question, but rather us who are still saints in training. We need intercessors and models of authentic holiness.”
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/710/Canonization__How_it_Works_and_What_it_Means.html
Oh, Tony the reason I think its a shame is it appears the Church to be rather ungrateful for his efforts.
I understand that one does not need official cannonization to have the BV. I also understand that we are asked to spread the Gospel and the goal is obviously to bring them to the Church so they can live it more abundantly. All other things, may be inspirational for someone’s spirituality ect, so on- but this all comes as number two or three or four. Number one is get the word spread, and get them in the pew. Of course, I am sure they are discecting his every breath to make determinations. What a bloody waste of time! Just get him cannonized already for crying out loud! Its no wonder priests feel there is no need to bust their butts getting the word out. What will their efforts get them?
http://www.uni-erfurt.de/presse/archiv/pressemitteilungen/2008/doc/49_08.htm
Was ist das? Mein Deutsch ist schlecht.
Oh, Its only in German and Austrian at the moment- its news about just found documents that may have been Augustine’s! I hope we will be finding out more about this, and if they are in fact authentic!
Oh, what a relief. Thanks for the explanation. When I clicked on the link, the first thought that came to mind was that the whole world was playing an April Fool’s joke and everyone ‚Äúwent Deutsch‚Äù on me. I didn‚Äôt want to let on too much that I was ‚Äúon to what you were all up to,‚Äù hence my try at a German question.
Which reminds me of a quote a friend’s father used to say: “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not after you.”
Cheers!
I resemble that remark Tony!
That’s funny, I resemble your emoticon.
“Just get him cannonized already for crying out loud!”
Not so fast. How do you know if the idea hadn’t been broached long ago? ..And then dropped when something that would have become pay dirt (if the campaign of sainthood were pursued) for the Devil’s Advocate was uncovered.
Consider the sad case of Thomas Dooley M.D., Navy doctor, who ministered to the Vietnamese before the war geared up. He campaigned tirelessly on the Vie’s behald, complaining to the CIA that enough wasn’t done for them, writing books with *lies* (who can forget the chopsticks stuck into the Viet Catholic schoolchildrens’ ears by the Communists? Not me, horrified by nuns’ tales when a schoolgirl myself.) He didn’t have to lie, the truth was bad enough, but he was a showman. He really did serve those people but proved very “flawed”.
BTW, my kids’ elementary school was named after him. I imagine when his rep was at a high in the early sixties and before the disqualifying truth was discovered. A portrait of him is still in the stairwell outside the principal’s office.
Not saying it’s the same for Fulton Sheen, but you don’t know what happens behind the scenes.
Arn, The Devil’s advocate was done away with by JPII of blessed memory.
Sorry to be a bummer but, its true.
Arn, post script- that could be why others got in quick*
“Arn, The Devil‚Äôs advocate was done away with by JPII of blessed memory.”
It was? Yeah I forgot. Yeesh, that policy could potentially yield a veritable embarrassment of embarrassments! If imposed sooner, potentially we could even have a St. Thomas Dooley, patron saint of Navy doctors and urnings. That would be too good to be true.
Arn “Vie‚Äôs behald, complaining to the CIA…”
Should read “Vietnamese’ behalf, complaining to his CIA handlers…”
Not sure why we would be in a state of embarrassment over anything really- either way.
We seem to be just fine about knowing sinful men can be pope.
We also know that even a cannoized saint is not perfect. Only Christ is.
What is the big big deal here? They are simply meant to be worthy of emulation. The priority of what is worthy of emulation is the problem it seems.
Looking up St Thomas Dooley now.
Thanks ARN, for keeping me on my homework!
“St” I assume, is not official yet. Based on your post.
I just wonder how many others there are out there that did so much that we do know did. Of course, the ones we do not know of are another matter. But the ones we do know of…
How dissapointing ARN. There is no basis to believe Thomas D brought anyone to the Church. Let alone tons of people. Nor did he speak the gospel to zillions of people via books/tv, personal appearances, ect.
What the heck?
Now, he may have brought some to Christ- I wont rule it out of course. but, what a silly comparison.
Comparing him to Sheen? I really don’t get your humor today.
My ecumenical post of the day:
Sheen?
“While we may not be able to meet in the same pew, we may pray together in unity of heart and prayer by the Holy Spirit”
Santo Subito!
Helen– we have to trust these things (like so many others) to Divine Providence. Remember St. Thomas More was not canonized until 400 years after his death– I think the beginning of the 20th century is when the world needed that news! Speaking of which, r.i.p. the actor Paul Scofield, who played him in a Man for All Seasons– excellent movie.
There was a campaign to beatify Thomas Dooley early on before it got derailed when it was found out he was gay. He may not have passed muster even if he was straight as he was not the most introspective of people and not particularly saintly in the rest of his life either, although he did champion the Vienamese people. He was perfect for the times until you looked too close. An early death in his prime, an anti-communist “martyr”. I remember.
A good chunk of Randy Shilts’ book “Conduct Unbecoming” is devoted to his case. It makes great reading although Shilts simplified Dooley’s story too for his own ideological objectives.
” r.i.p. the actor Paul Scofield, who played him in a Man for All Seasons‚Äì excellent movie.”
Loved that movie too.
ARN- yes! TV Ontario used to show it as part of a double bill on Saturday Night at the Movies. The second movie was, of course, Anne of a Thousand Days, with Richard Burton (Henry VIII) and Genevieve Bujold (Anne Boleyn).
Ivy league abstinence clubs! From the NY Times Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/magazine/30Chastity-t.html?ref=magazine
What depraved excess will they think up next?
I formally defected from the Catholic Church last year. I will not join another. I did so BECAUSE the Catholic Church is so accepting and supportive of adultery and bends over backwards to keep people who have utterly devastated their spouses and in most cases their own children, through unjust divorce.
Look at the case of Bai Macfarlane if any of you read the news. It is heartbreaking. At least she has not had to suffer the humiliation of defending a valid marriage before a Church tribunal, as I did.
I am not here to argue with you but you all are sadly mistaken if you think the Catholic Church, in practice, means what it says about the “Sanctity” of marriage.
If that was the case the Church would investigate marriages, much like it does for nullity, and determine exactly who decided to end the marriage. Then it would formally act to demand that their be a reconciliation or those that refused, who were responsible for the decision to divorce, would be formally excommunicated.
I am very sad that I felt compelled to act as I have and I pray that God may forgive me one day, but I cannot support/be part of a Church, which I am morally certain is intent on false nullities and steadfastly refuses to shut down the American Nullity Mills.
Thank you
If this puzzles you, Father, feel free to email me at the address I posted. Otherwise, please pray for me and our family.
BTW, the Canonist who was the Ponens in our second instance case, which upheld the validity of or valid, sacrament, the FIRST time, was an Opus Die priest, Monsignor Cormac Burke, now teaching in Kenya.
Opus Dei, forgive the misspelling. Please correct it, father.
“Then it would formally act to demand that their be a reconciliation or those that refused, who were responsible for the decision to divorce, would be formally excommunicated.”
But isn’t it true that once a marriage comes to the attention of the divorce court or the annulment tribunal, it’s past the point of no return? How do you tell the person who unilaterally decided to nuke the marriage that he must reconcile or be excommunicated? I can’t imagine the threat at that point would cut much ice with most alienated spouses. If it did, perhaps in another time and in another place besides America, how happy would the aggrieved party be with somebody who really didn’t want to be there? A pyhrric victory it sounds like.
I’m sorry about your broken marriage, but you really must accept the loss and move on with your life. I know you don’t want to hear this. The tribunals are caught between a rock and a hard place. The reality is clear enough, (a sad unilateral break) and their mandate is damage control/harm reduction. I’ve heard of the MacFarlane case and my first thought was, she wants the impossible. If someone doesn’t want to stay, you just can’t force them.
Karl– the Church is still the Church founded by Our Lord, in spite of the failings of lay people, of clergy, of marriage tribunals, of your failings and mine. St. Josemaria once said “I believe in the Church, in spite of everything…” I hope you come back home. Prayers for your family.
I think Karl’s been badly hurt and feels he’s been blindsided. I can recall the condemnation of remarriage and the suspicion of divorced people which served to minimize the number of broken marriages. Maybe he was relying on that community and church support to keep his marriage intact as it may have so many others. But that kind of thing works until it doesn’t.
Michelle, I don’t necessarily believe the tribunal did anything wrong here. Perhaps the wife really believed she was too immature to contract a marriage or was eligible for an annulment for a reason that had nothing to do with the husband. Can Karl really claim that scenario is impossible? It is sad for the one who’s been left, but the best thing for all concerned is that once it’s clear the marriage is dead everyone move on. The tribunal recommending a reconciliation to a partner who’s hopelessly alienated under pain of excommunication? Makes no sense. It would make the Church look so foolishly ham-handed.
I was reading Bai MacFarlane’s website earlier. An embarrassment, but I kept reading as it was impossible to tear myself away from this slow-motion train wreck of a marriage. It brought to mind Woody Allen’s expression”a divorce made in Heaven”. As if airing their dirty laundry on the internet will make her husband want to return. As if hitting him over the head with exhortations concerning his duties and obligations despite his probable (at this point anyway) animosity to her will make him do something other than run in the opposite direction. The separation was over 4 years ago and she’s still fighting. Crazy.
“Michelle, I don‚Äôt necessarily believe the tribunal did anything wrong here.” (ARN, above)
Sorry, I should have been more clear (thanks for pointing it out!)– I wasn’t meaning to comment on the marriage tribunal in this particular case, not knowing anything about the situation– I meant marriage tribunals in general, and the failings and perceived failings of any or all of us. I meant that the Church is still the Church in spite of any failures or perceived failures on the part of any of her members.
Good evening everyone,I got back yesterday from a prolonged Easter break (longer than planed).
Firstly,my thanks to all who have kept us in their thoughts and prayers,it is comforting to our whole family to have such support.. “Thankyou”!!!! More in personal e-mails later..
Secondly,I hope you all had a peacefull Easter feast.
I have not had time to read the comments that have been posted during my absence..
But the last ones from Karl,Michelle and ARN.. I would like to comment upon..
While my heart goes out to Karl and his family,I agree with both Michelle and ARN..
Arn because,I also think however much one wants to keep the sacrament of marriage, it takes two to make it work,anything that is so “broken up” (for what ever reason), simply can not be “made” to work.. It is surely no consolation to anyone to have the partner that they loved,or still love, be excommunicated,the whole family must ultimately suffer all the more.. (especially when children are involved)..
Perhaps there could be a change of heart at some point,but forcing the issue will not help bring that about..
Michellle, IMHO.your comment is also very true,the Church is full of humans, and as we know “errare humanum est” (Lucio Anneo Seneca). But THE Church still stays THE Church,a community of humans,trying their best not to err.We try,and often fail,but we try again,and again.. This is where friends and fellow Christians are a great support,to leave the community in which we can find such support is not the answer,in fact it could be even contra-productive at the least.. I, from experience know that to be true..
Karl,you as so many before you,will realise with time,that life does and must go on,also that it is easier to come to terms with heartbreak and painfull experiences when there are people around you,who believe in the same values and way of life as you,and are there to help and comfort you.. I do hope that you will be able to move on to find once more happiness and fullfillment in your life..
Resentment towards persons that we believe have “let us down” is like an illness that eats away at us.. We become bitter and miss out on so many other things for which we should be greatfull.
Karl I hope that my comments have not offended you,that is not in any way my intention.
Computer up and running again now after a breakdown.
Karl, please stay on here. I am praying for you and your family.
I beg you to reconsider tossing out the Bride of Christ in what now seems to be “your only choice” but let me tell you its not worth it Karl! Don’t do it, please don’t.
I will be back with some encouragement for you Karl. You are clearly hurt and this DOES happen, and its very sad when it does, but you are not alone! You are part of a living organism- the mystical body of Christ!
Its not a mere organization Karl. I am sure you know this, and thus the added agony of course.
The body includes YOU Karl. Stay in it.
At least, please stay for a while and hang in there, even if by a thread– just hang in now. I will help carry your cross with you in any way I can.
Don’t be hasty.
Who cares about the tribunal Karl? They wont be the one you will see face to face on that day.
Right or Wrong, they are what they are. No more than that.
“All misunderstandings come from regarding the Church as an organization. It is not an organization like a club, it is an organism like a body… The Church was in existance before Peter or James or John or the other apostles became believers. It was an actual existance the very moment when the Word was made flesh and dwelt amoung us… The written Gospel is the record of His historical life. The Church is the living Gospel and record of His present Life.” were it not for the mystical body of Christ, The Church, “where could Christ find His lips with wich to speak forgiveness to penitant thieves?…….
Sheen
When God closes a door, another opens Karl. Not outside the “home” – right inside it.
Why did you “formally defect”???
Why?
And Jesus asked Peter, will YOU leave me too?
Karl, just where will you go? Where?
The Reformation should have been a reformation of discipline not faith!
“We must remember that those who are outside the Church are not there through any fault of their own. They were brought up in prejudice and have accumulated a mass of ignorance. If we believed what they believe about the Catholic Church we would hate it ten times more than they do.”
Sheen
You were not one of these Karl. Now what will you do? Having full knowledge and making this choice?
One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism!
I don’t think its forcing anyone to literally stay married who dont want to that Karl is looking for. He is wondering why an annulment was granted it sounds like. Obviously, the annulment (handled properly or not) or better said the rejection of a request, is NO garantee the parties will be honky dory afterward. However, if the annulment is not granted (assuming again that there are no valid grounds for it) then, if the other partner wants to sail away, fine,. they do it in direct disobedience to the Church. Maybe Karl was hoping that the annulment was not going to be granted because (I hope) He believes that there was no basis for the request. Unfortunately, we just dont know and even if we did, it wont change the fact that it sounds like its done. The point is Karl, that situation is up to God and those persons. You must still not use that or any other reason to do what you are doing. You are still responsible for you. Let others make mistakes (if any) and let yourself worry about your salvation Karl!
Sorry for so many posts but I almost forgot to add- Karl- Don’t let this color your judgment about Opus Dei.
There is NO connection. Opus Dei priests are not majical in any way. Their priests can be good or bad just like your parish priests can be, or any can be. The priest is not made perfect. Clay Karl. Its all in the clay.
I am sure Father will not disagree. If I am wrong, I am always open to correction.
Fulton Sheen pray with me for Karl
Oops. I see the Opus Dei priest was “on your side” (or maybe more properly put- on the side of what the Church teaches) Karl. I misread, sorry for the mistake.
I do hope you come back and are not put off by all my posts. Just know its spinning my head, and I am truly concerned. Perhaps I should have stayed off and thought this through before posting, but I feel as if I would be damned myself if I did not tell you what a danger you are putting yourself in. Don’t punish yourself like this!
I apologize to ARN, as I see I have a different Thomas Dooley in mind. I wiki’ed him up and found a soccor player. I have no idea who you are talking about. But, in any event he is not a Sheen just because he spoke against communism.
I thought spreading the Gospel like Paul did was the most important thing.
Michelle, we already know that a true martyr goes to heaven- we read in Revelation where they are.
The Church has kept sloppy records of martyrs, but in any case if they are legit they are eventually formally cannonized, certainly. But, we are not talking about a martyr like Moore.
Is he not considered a martyr? I thought so., could be wrong.
I am talking about an evangelist.
I get so mad that “Evangelicals” take that name as if its distinct to them.
And, as long as the Church delays Sheen’s cannonization- they have more basis to think stupidly like that.
Helen, I see you’re awake! How are you? Anything on your mind?
I have to tell you that I think it’s just beautiful that you’re so “wound up” wanting to help Karl. I want to, as well, and I’m sure most of us do.
The question at this point is: Karl, are you still with us or have you moved on to a different site? Please let us know.
If you’re still here, I definitely encourage you to stick around for a little while. I think you’ll find some fresh perspectives from what you may have heard in some other places/forums, etc. There’s nothing any of us would love more than to help you. I’ll leave it at that to find out if you’re still on the blog. Hope you are.
Tony
Helen-here’s the right wiki entry if you’re still interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Anthony_Dooley
My point was that some beatification efforts go nowhere and maybe for a good reason. We may not be aware of them. In Sheen’s case, maybe there was some folks behind doing this but they found out that say..oh, I dunno he may have been the boss from hell to his underlings or some other severe flaw, and that was enough to have the campaign quietly dropped. How do we know somethng like that never happened? And it was believed by those people that it was better to let the man keep his reputation rather than have his flaws aired. Just sayin’.
Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?
Karl, Karl, why do you persecute me?
The abused has become the abuser. The sad irony here is Karl was upset about abandonment issues. Now, he has abandoned his family in the Church and feels its okay to do so. You left us Karl. You persecuted Christ, and abandoned us.
You became the very thing you hate.
Satan wishes for no other thing most.
I am no mental health expert, but thats how I call it Karl. Sorry if that hurts to hear. But, it must be said.
ARN, you know what? who cares if in fact he was a lousy boss? The key problem I have with this is he did the one thing we are to do. The one most important thing and he excelled at it beyond anyone’s wildest imaginations. Who cares if he ate too much chocolate, or was reckless with paperwork? That doesnt even matter.
Not all saints need to be inspirational for spirituality. What about getting the job done and done well?
I think Karl needs to get over himself and just accept he wasn’t the one for his wife. Let her go and find her own happiness. Why blame the Church which apparently from his post, tried to help her out? Wasn’t she suffering too? I’d ask Karl how all his bitterness and revenge looks to their children, if any.
Arn, if he has children, and they see their father has quit the Church simply because he did not like the way things were decided on, then would they not also have to question if he may quit on them also, if they dont do what he likes?
Ladies, please! Can we stop rendering verdicts for Karl already!!!!!! First of all, I think he’s had enough of them in his life, am I correct, Karl?
I don’t mean to be preachy, I truly don’t. But it would be so much better if we could practice some restraint here. Let’s be hospitable and listen to Karl’s situation.
This isn’t my blog (of course) and I don’t know if this is the right forum for this kind of topic. But if we’re going to go down this path, we should try to do it with charity. Love is creative and I really think there are folks on this blog who can help Karl.
I’m a little familiar with Karl’s situation and the pain he’s experiencing. One thing seems pretty evident, to me anyway: I think he wants to reconcile with the Church, somehow. The way he states it, through his anger, is in terms of reconciling only if the Church admits that it is wrong and begs for forgiveness, amends its ways, etc. That said, he says that he still loves the Church. He hasn’t “moved on” away from the Church. So we can and should pray first, listen and try to help in charity.
Yes, ARN, five children. The whole situation is much too complex for any of us to make a diagnosis and course of treatment at this stage.
I am wondering how a “formal defection” is not in fact moving on. Even if to nowhere, it is a move. Is it not?
Sheen-
“each man will have to learn for himself that narrow is the gate and straight the way to Eternal Life, and few there are who enter therein”.
There will be no attorneys to plead his case, no alienists to plead he was not in his right mind because he did wrong; no Freudians to plead he was not responsible because he had an Oedipus complex; all the masks will be taken off; he will step out of the ranks, away from the crowd, and the only one voice he will hear will be the voice of conscience, which will not testify in his behalf, but will reveal self as it really is; its xrays will penetrate beyond all moods and phantasies, gestures and schemes and illusions; no loud orchestra will play to drown his conscience; no opiates will be served to make him forget or waft him off into the delightful irresponsibility of sleep; no cocktails will be served at heavenly bars with angelic barmaids to make him deaf to the voice of conscience; no Marxist will arise to defend him and say that he was determined by economic conditions under which he lived, and therefore, was not free; no book of the month will be read to prove that since there is no sin, there can be no judgment.”
I do think its very loving to tell someone they are risking their soul to eternal torment Tony.
Josip helped me see what a game of russian roulette I play from time to time myself. There is no shame in the struggle, but to give up is despair and a sin. Struggle is not a problem. What kills me is the people that demand the highest standards from others fail on their own tests. I have done this myself, and likely will again. Hanging in there despite personal failings and the failings of individuals in the Church is a constant theme for many. Giving up, is not.
“Yes, ARN, five children. The whole situation is much too complex for any of us to make a diagnosis and course of treatment at this stage.”
Good heavens! Sounds awful, but my first thought was what causes someone with 5 kids to bolt.
Some war stories: Both my sisters divorced their first husbands. That they and their husbands were all knuckleheads in their early 20′s when they tied the knot probably had a lot to do with it. One husband was very immature, so much so his own brother threatened not to be his best man he was so concerned. The brother was right! The other husband fathered twins by a mutual friend and didn’t know himself for 2 years. It was a scenario out of Jerry Springer. Both sisters tried counseling but it was too far gone. Both said they knew it was all over when the idea of having s*x with their husbands became intolerable. Both were very relieved when they left.
And yet all the other siblings like these men, and still do. The twin guy is my brother’s best friend and was the twin guy’s best man at his later marriage. Sounds nutty and disloyal to a sister maybe, but their fight wasn’t with the rest of the family. As it happened everything turned out better than before and my sisters are amicable with their ex’s. I really do have a point and that is everybody should calm down and not embark on vendettas against decent enough people just because they couldn’t make a go of their marriages.
Tony–You know this man Karl?
Actually, isnt an intolerable spouse a blessing in a way? Its hard to see it that way, but is it wrong to see it that way?
Arn, he could have looked him up in those not so private annulment records site. Remember my outrage at how public those records are?
Good grief. What I wish I could ask Karl is why he feels this policy is strictly a US one? Is it?
If so, I would like to know why.
“Then it would formally act to demand that their be a reconciliation or those that refused, who were responsible for the decision to divorce, would be formally excommunicated.”
Well, its kinda like the question of why wasnt Pelosi formally excommunicated? Or Kerry?
Or our music director that had his sign in her front lawn?
Again- you are worrying about justice here on earth. Our kingdom is not of this world Karl. We are aliens.
Helen,
I’m not sure where the quote from Archbishop Sheen begins and where it ends. You have two open quotes and one close quote. The second paragraph doesn’t sound so much like Abp. Sheen; first paragraph is biblical, for that matter.
How a formal defection isn’t “moving on”— couples reconcile even after a legal separation or divorce, correct? If he’s “moved on,” he wouldn’t be going to Catholic web sites and pleading his case against the Catholic Church—including statements calling for the Church to amend its ways. Whether he’s objectively right or wrong, I believe that he sincerely desires the Church to do what he subjectively thinks is in the best interest of the Church. In other words, he cares about the Church. He is NOT blowing off the Church and disregarding it. And we, the Church, should feel the same way about him…one of the Church’s members.
Your quote about having to stand alone on your personal Judgment is all well and good. Quite over-the-top flowery on the verbiage, but that’s fine. Bottom line is that the Judge will have known us very well by that time. We, on the other hand? WE? We haven’t even said “Hello” to the guy and we’ve decided to sit down on the Judgment Seat as if to say that “we know he’s going to be facing this Seat some day anyhow”! It isn’t our Seat and it isn’t his time.
Isn’t there another way besides the threat of Hell? How about making, i.e., almost forcing, him to race toward Jesus and His Church, rather than simply scaring him to run anywhere away from Hell…and it just so happens to be, i.e., lukewarmly, to Heaven?
This is so moot until we know if the guy is still around.
“Tony–You know this man Karl?”
No. Don’t know what sites Helen’s referring to either. Saw his comments on other sites and some stuff that Bai wrote in reference to his situation a little while back, too.
Tony, as you may know Sheen quoted liberally from the bible.
Flowery and over the top, well- in his day apparently no so much. In our day, yes- it would be looked at that way, and I am sure we would appear cynical to the people of that time also.
So, you are one of the ones in the popular camp that votes to not hear about hell in the homily, keep it nicely tucked away in the CCC and know you wont go there, nor anyone you know will. Bury the head in the sand and hope it goes away. Sorry, but the CCC itself cant be ripped to shreads on that topic. If you were a member of the Church and you “formally defect”- whatever that means anyway- you cant erase your baptism, so good luck with that one. But, to make the descision to bolt the Church (no reason to do that either-why?) if one had full knowledge of the Church, and leaves- you know what the CCC says Tony. Dont play around with his salvation just to be friendly.
Oh, the site was posted here a looong time ago, that listed specific cases of annunlments. My hair went up on end reading these poor people’s lives in print like that. Horrible.
anyone desiring to share in His Glory must also desire to pick up their cross.
How can you expect to share in his Glory only, while He shared in our pain and the ultimate gift?
How can you toss that gift back in His face and expect your brothers and sisters to say, hey- its okay. It will all work out. What if he dies tomorrow?
Good evening to you all,
Firstly what I am about to write is not a comment nor a “diagnosis” on Karl’s personal case, for as you rightly state Tony, we have not the *inside information* nor are we called to do so..
We still can, as you put it, “go(ing) down this path”.
In my opinion it takes two to make a *match* and two to make a “miss-match*.. Most divorces,annulments are not sought easily,nor lightly,BOTH parties have in most cases tried to make things work.. there are nummerous reasons why one or both just can not. Love can not be forced, nor can anyone be forced to stay in a marriage
they have already *given up* on,much less the Catholic Church.
The threat of excommunication has in all probability already been considerd,and the risk taken,so that is not a “tool” to be used to make them stay..
I know my next words will be, by many strongly criticized ( something that every one is within their right to do), but never the less I would be a hypocrite if I did not express them..
I would ask you all, what would be the greater (moral) sin, to live a lie,in a marriage,with all the consequences (I mean ALL )to *pretend*,not only to one’s spouse, but also to one’s self,the community, the Church and to ones Faith.
Or to, as painfull as it would be, after much consideration, and after seeking advise from all sources, which ullitimately results,in ending that union,in a way which,allows both to remain not only *friends*,but assist each other in the very difficult task of *moving on*, and most importantly show their children that,despite all differences one may have,forgiveness,love and understanding, are (were) not just empty words.. When *love* turns to *hate* and resentment,it is not a “pretty sight”..
Normaly when two people marry, it is out of love,respect,and commitment,but allas there is no garantee,that it will always be so.. especially when they were very young.. everything seems “rosie” the whole of their life ahead of them,all dreams come true….. but life holds many surprises,disapointments and just plain old every day problems,realization that married life is not a dream,but lots of hard work..some just can’t cope,if the chosen partner changes,or they themselves find that it was not the *right* choice.. sadlly we can not all live the *saintly* life.. enduring a marriage,that should not have been in the begining..
Times have changed,morals too, but no one should be deemed immoral for ending a marriage which is no real union of love… with all which that entails..
At the end of the day (our life), God alone,knows what reasons are for Him *valid*..and most important of all what we felt in our hearts.. No court of law, nor tribunal of MAN can look into hearts,they can just pass judgement according to the statements given by both sides..They least of all, can be held responsible.
One last thing I would say is; “compasion”, “charity” begins at *home*… where,both parters should feel compasion for each other and their children,otherwise how can we expect it from others??
A terrible long comment sorry, but as a *divorcee* myself,I do have very strong feelings on this matter..
I married VERY young,after 12 (very painfull) years,I sued for divorce.. I am long married again, and VERY, VERY happy……… My Husband is all that I could wish for in a partner,and father to my 3, now grown adult children, plus a great grandfather to their children.. I thank God every day for being lucky enough to have found such a good man.
“This is so moot until we know if the guy is still around.”
Yeah, I guess so. Karl’s not coming back to the blog I’m sure. His apparent vengefulness just pushed my buttons. “If I can’t have her, no one can”. Grow up for crying out loud. This is not about an admittedly flawed and creaky annulment system that, let’s face it, has helped many desperate people, some of whom I know, but about a blow to male pride. It fairly oozes out of his comment.
Helen–It’s public?
Yes, someone here way back posted a link directly to a site that listed specific cases of annulments. I think it was here. I long ago erased it off my bookmarks. I felt dirty reading that information. I can’t believe its public like that. I guess its the “price one pays” or something. As if the processing fees are not enough!
What Sandra said.
ARN, speaking of if I can’t have her no one can…. husband’s family-
his wife’s (first) father dies and the youngest child decides to take half the ashes and scattter them. Knowing she ought not do that. If she cant have Daddy…..
This child also did the very same thing when her mother died very recently. Of course, this time not only knowing she ought not, but warned by the priest also not to do so. Did it anyway. If she cant have mommy’s ashes- then no one can!
And, of course she would not wish to defend herself either, and does not care about hell or believe in it.
When my husband asked her why she would do such a thing,a second time- she said: “what are THEY going to do to me?”
He said, well maybe nothing. But, what if He does?
I think it depends on the circumstances Sandra. If that is strong disagreement, there it is.
How about not so flowery or over the top?
Sheen enjoyed telling the story of how, while waiting for a train to take him to Lourdes, he entered a Paris church and promptly fell asleep before the blessed sacrament. “I woke up exactly at the end of one hour. I said to to Good Lord:’Have I made a Holy Hour?’ I thought his angel said, ‘Well, that’s the way the Apostles made their first Holy Hour in the Garden, but don’t do it again.’”
Karl, try going to adoration. It may help you find insight on this.
“Theological insights are gained not only from the two covers of a treatsie, but from two knees on a prie-dieu before a tabernacle.” Sheen
Yes Helen, that is the whole thing in a sentence..(nutshell)..
Who,but the two involved know the real “circumstances”?? answer……… GOD!!
BTW.. To agree to dissagree is something married couples should practise more often.. it does help.
Not ALL things must be “disputed to the brink of argument”.. even in a marriage opinions differ.
“that’s the spice of life”..Which does not mean that we should avoid making a valid point with passion,and deliberance.One thing that should not fail is the respect they owe to each other..
I don’t remember the “annulment link” but did find one on wiki… not very “in depth”, there is more about the Jewish “solution” there.. That IS *interesting”
Horrible thing with the “ashes”.. Most *distastefull* and utterly disrespectfull to the feelings of all concernd..
The fear of Hell may “convince” some, but that alone can not be the answer… the commitment to trying to be a good christian is what really counts..
I agree with ARN.. Karl has probably “moved on”.. It is always more difficult for the partner who has been *left*..
You are right Sandra, the fear of hell is not the answer to anything. Deliberately ignoring it is not going to make it go away either.
True!!
check mail nice recipe for you..
“I would ask you all, what would be the greater (moral) sin, to live a lie,in a marriage,with all the consequences (I mean ALL )to *pretend*,not only to one‚Äôs spouse, but also to one‚Äôs self,the community, the Church and to ones Faith.”
Well, I guess they don’t really *have* to misrepresent the actual situation with a lie. Rather, they can admit “Yes, I’m in a Hell on Earth, but I’m putting up with this because after all I’m in a sacramental marriage and must be a living testimonial to the *dignity* of such.” Imagine the impact that would make on the horrified witnesses. A “scandal” I would imagine but…wait.. they’re telling the truth! And the truth shall set you free! Read Bai MacFarlane’s site. An education in lunacy, I assure you.
So I don’t really get it. How, in a free and open society, do you get unhappy spouses to stay in the absence of “honor killings”, stoning penalties or ruinous social stigma. All that meant was the person stayed, not that he/she was content, or that the marriage was “sacred”, or was imbued by virtue of its sacramental nature with “dignity”.
The thing is Arn, there is and can be unhappy marriages just like unhappy members in the Church that stay in it. Not all can or should. Some do, and they should not be considered crazy for doing so. Happiness here is temporary. We can and will never find true and perfect happiness here, as its not our ultimate destination.
Since there are only 2 possibilities of where that eternity will be and if it will be a happy one, we take on many pains and sufferings of all kinds here and now, marriage or job or health, or what have you.
Pretending we can find ultimate happiness here, is a delusion. This could be why so many people hop around from one denom to another, divorce no matter the reason (I saw one tv show where the husband is “breaking it” to the wife by saying he was not feeling “fulfilled anymore” I had to wonder what he did think he was fulfilling to begin with?)
Since this quote is specific to America I thought I would add it for fun
America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil. Christ and chaos…The man who can make up his own mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind; anymore than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded.
Sheen Time magazine 1952
Thanks I will check mail Sandra- I know when to call in the Experts!
By the way Fulton, I would like to meet this man who makes the bed. You must not know my husband!
Another war story: Me at 11 accompanying my Dad on a visit to one his draftsman business contacts during which he(draftsman) talks about Catholicism and presses tracts from the John Birch Society on him when my poor father is unsuccessful in getting him to focus on the business at hand. The house is trashed by his 4 young out of control sons. We’ve met the long suffering drudge of a wife who has no dryer and is still hanging the wash in the yard.
Next thing we know, the draftsman has run off with “some bimbo”. I overhear my Dad talking to my Mom about it and ridiculing him, snickering about the hypocrisy of it all. On the surface, it looks like a midlife crisis but who knows what really was going on? All that talk to my Dad–was he really just trying to convince himself?
ARn you are killing me here. What the heck is a draftsman? I am so clueless.
But that guy was clearly a selfish person. How dare he do that to her and the 4 kids? What a hypocrite!
If someone loves the Church that does not mean they are hiding from something.
Very good people can fall, and there can be hypocrites also. But, that does not mean that one who does is either. Cant anyone believe that some people avail themselves willingly to her?
The scars of disfigurement on the victims of “honor killings” (some survive the attacks) are visible…
we are horrified when we see them… There are other “invisible” scars.. on the psyche of many who are for the honor of the family, or the fear of being “shun by society”, stay in an unhappy,to them distastefull or even violent marriage..
are those less worthy of our pity and compassion, I wonder?? These things are not always black or white, there are a whole lot of “grey zones” out there.. Children growing up in such environment also very often bare those scars their whole life long..
I do agree with many who say that divorce is all too often sought without the effort made to find another solution,and that it is so very much easier to just give in.. The divorce laws are at times very slack..( I think here on Princes Croline of Monaco.. she if I remember rightly had her marriage annuled Ah! to be a princess) … The rate of “domestic violence” is on the rise,not only in under developed countries but in our very own.. there must be a dignified and “just” way out of such marriages , or should they wait untill,one day it could be, the last??? There is also the psychological abuse.. is this also to be “born with stoic obedience” for the sake of honor,social standing?? some (many) can not and in my opinion should not. I am sure that a loving Father (God) would not ask for them to bare more than they can.. A sort of Adultery (pr*st*tuion) is also commited when a spouse, with distaste, has marritial “relations” just to “keep the peace”..
Any way we (on this blog) will not and can not solve this very complicated issue.. But we can have thoughts on the subject and “air” them, or not?
Typo alarm. !!!!! Princess Caroline of Monaco!!!!! it is really high time I got a new keyboard…
)…..
….(that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it
“Dont play around with his salvation just to be friendly.” Helen– I think that’s putting it a little too strongly, I don’t see that Tony is doing anything like that.
There is room for both prudence and gentleness in any apostolic endeavor– especially in a situation about which we actually know so little of the personal details.
“Actually, isnt an intolerable spouse a blessing in a way? Its hard to see it that way, but is it wrong to see it that way?” (Helen, above)
Not a blessing to affirmatively look for in a spouse. But if it happens, it can be a path to holiness, too. http://saints.sqpn.com/saintr01.htm.
“At least, please stay for a while and hang in there, even if by a thread– just hang in now. I will help carry your cross with you in any way I can.
…
I will be back with some encouragement for you Karl. You are clearly hurt and this DOES happen, and its very sad when it does, but you are not alone! You are part of a living organism- the mystical body of Christ!” April 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 am
“Karl, Karl, why do you persecute me?
The abused has become the abuser. The sad irony here is Karl was upset about abandonment issues. Now, he has abandoned his family in the Church and feels its okay to do so. You left us Karl. You persecuted Christ, and abandoned us.
You became the very thing you hate.
Satan wishes for no other thing most.” April 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Well, I guess I did tell Karl he’d get fresh perspectives if he stuck around…but that whole thing took less than 11 hours.
“sadlly we can not all live the *saintly* life” (Sandra, above)
Says who? That is PRECISELY what we are called by God to do- live saintly lives. And He would not call us to something that was unattainable. http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=2782
Pope John Paul II’s Exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” is invaluable on how the Christian family fits in the world. I thought I’d pass along the link to it: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html
Tony do you try your best to missunderstand my comments?? I also have a “flowery” way of expression
I do not dispute the fact that we should all try our very best, but it is as St. Paul says, “not all can fathom this”… We seem to have different views on “Sainthood”
I do not recall so many of whom I would think of being “saintly” being proclaimed as such,although they did try their best.. It is the effort one puts into being a good Christian that is at issue,and that according to ones means..
(from your link the following) ….. “The most important business you have is raising your children well… This will come about if parents become friends with their children; if children can always open their hearts trustingly to their parents when troubles of any kind crop up”…
Well, how much “open hearted trust” do Parents,who have shown that they can not manage their own troubles” with love and understading, expect from their children??
For people who have, despite trying their best,not “made the mark” (become saints), is there then no hope?? That is something I do (can) not believe.. It may be “not unatainable” but who decides what is called of each person individually by God?? as I have stated before.. we try and fail,but we try,and try againn to our BEST ability..Is that not “PRECISELY” what God expects of us??… A world full of “saints”……..Well who would not cherrish the thought..sadly reality is a different matter.. Christ Himself said love and most of all charity are two very important if not the greatest atributes to becoming a “saint” charity as (again)I have stated begins in the home..would you dispute that? (real question)
I’m off to work.. ’till later then (bis sp?§ter also)
Michelle, I am not so concerned with his marital situation- but the way he chose to handle it- his formal defection. I missed that part when I replied to him originally. Maybe I am reading the CCC wrong. It seems to be blunt on the matter from my view.
Its possible there has been an update and it is no longer a ticket to hell if one leaves the Church if they did in fact know it was the Church and leaves it. How is it that we can gloss over what is not so pleasant teachings of the faith when we want to? Its not as if its a teaching many are unfamilliar with as far as I know. Most consider it rather serious. Maybe its just my personality, but I rather find out all the possibilities and ramifications of my decisions especially if I acted under emotional stress when doing something so very extreme.
Sandra, the bible refers to all christaians as living saints. I agree with you that it does seem confusing at times as to why some are chosen as worthy of emulation formally though. Or that all can strive to be one formally. I cant imagine what is good enough for them, since spreading the gospel to tons of people and sparking countless conversions seems to not be enough. I guess you have to have some kind of new sell.
Helen– no one is glossing over anything here. Since we know so little of him, it’s best to pray for him and his family and address him with kindness if he returns to the blog. We have all already invited him, in one way or another, to reconsider his choice.
Let me give you an example here– I have a friend who became good friends with her own doctor. The doctor ended up converting to Catholicism eventually. I suspect they would never have become friends if she had begun with telling her she was risking damnation….
We can state what Church teaching is, we can explain what we believe and why, but to beat someone about the head with it gets us nowhere fast. Best to say our peace, and pray for the person, pray for other opportunities to gently instruct. It is important to remember ( I have to remind myself of this all the time) that when we are dealing with an individual person it is not the same thing as, say, writing a “letter to the editor”.
Okay, Michelle- I dont make up the rules or the teachings. But, I am not embarrased by any of them either.
Why do so many Catholics think its not charitable to simply repeat the very clear teaching about this?
We are not talking about wooing a potential convert either. If you are a Catholic, threats of hell are already something you are familliar with- say even if you break the fast or miss Mass. Threats of hell are a staple of the whole Catholic way of thinking. To say otherwise is simply odd. How can we believe nearly any teaching of the Church without constantly evaluating if we are in violation of some rule she has made for us to follow? How do we do an examination of conscience without thinking about it? We think about it all the time!
“If you are a Catholic, threats of hell are already something you are familliar with- say even if you break the fast or miss Mass. Threats of hell are a staple of the whole Catholic way of thinking.”
Yes, back in the 50′s that was a feature, not a bug. But now the whole Hell angle is downplayed and for good reason. Remember, You put yourself in hell, not God; You’ve cut off all communication with God. Do many people still believe that breaking a fast/missing Mass rises to that level anymore? I sure don’t and the fact I can still think about these issues is solely due to my jettisoning the more terrifying stuff the nun drummed into my head and started being an adult.
If one really believes that life on Earth is a tightrope walk with hell the probable destination then it would be an atrocity to bring more children into the world.
I agree Helen it can be confusing..
I personally believe that all persons who,in times of personal danger,to the point of death. still hold to their faith and never act in a way contrary to it, for personal gain or safety.. (This must surely be the utmost sacrifice.).deserve the honor of Sainthood..
But also persons who under extreme pressure still preach and live their faith in the cause of others,be it by preaching, comforting-physically or mentally,those who are in need.. A tall order.. and very hard for most to full fill
The *other* saintly life ( I imagine the one Tony refers to) is what each of us, I am sure would love to achive in the *smaller* instances in every day life..By seting a good example,being charitable to those who do us injustice,by not despairing in times of personal troubles,and by pure and simply being as good a Christian as we possibly can,in all of our daily doings.. Then the way in which we, conduct our seleves is, witness to the whole of the community in which we live, of our “interpretation” of being a good Christian.. By being Spitefull,Revengefull, Uncharitible,we not only expose our selves to critic but give way for others to be critical of the Church we propose to belong to..
Then the one commandment that Christ gave was “to love thy neighbour as thy self, and God above all things”
When asked “Lord, who is my neighbour?” Christ answered “What so ever you do unto the lowest of your brethren you do unto me”..
In the first centuries after Christ’s death, only “martyrs” were deemed Saints.. those who died for upholding Gods commandments.. since then,the “rules” have been “loosened”.. perhaps because it was felt the need for more “inspiration” was called for, examples of execptional piety,from people *nearer our time*,that we could look to for encouragement,there is no wrong in that,or is there ?? But it is not nescessary for someone to be “officially” pronounced a Saint. to make him / her one.. If it helps others to become better Christians they can, as you do, look to a person that has inspired them and take *heart* in his / her example.. why not?? is this *heretical*?? I think not.. (but then, what do I know)..
By the way it occurs to me that the “term” Saint is used much to blythly, in our time.. This was not the *original* intent… IMHO.. less “saints” and more good *Christians* is what we need.. this I mean in the best sense of the word “CHRISTIAN”.. with no ofence ment to all the many “real” Saints. whoever they be.
I have probably “talked” myself into “a noose around my neck” here,but the subject is just too important to so many that I would like to hear your thoughts on it.. There are some among the “higher” clergy who have recently also spoken out on this ..
I would like to hear your thoughts too Father Wauck… when time allows.. It seems fitting as yesterday was the 3rd. aniversary of the death of Pope John Paul..(quite a few are calling for his Sainthood to be proclaimed in the near future) Pope Benedickt held a commemmoration Mass in his honor..I was able to watch a small part on Italian TV programme…..
“Okay, Michelle- I dont make up the rules or the teachings. But, I am not embarrased by any of them either.”
To choose precisely how and in which circumstances one will discuss Church teaching, and to have this decision informed by how much one knows or does not know about a particular individual and also by what has already been said on the matter by oneself and by others is not the same thing as being embarrassed by anything the Church teaches.
Sandra, I certainly don’t try at all to misunderstand you or anybody. Reading someone’s words versus having a spoken conversation has always led to different results— writing lacks the tone, etc. Speech has its pros and cons, too. Email/blogs take the problem to a whole new level b/c now people fire off messages as fast (or faster) than they can type. Previously, one had to pay for a stamp for that written message so there was a little more thought and care behind it.
So, anyway, that’s my long way of saying that maybe you can just chalk up my “trying my best to misunderstand you” as reading something into your words that you didn’t intend. When I tend to write, though, I’m backspacing/deleting over things that I don’t mean to say all the time, so when I read a phrase that someone sends, my assumption is that that was what you intended to say. It isn’t something that doesn’t have adherents. If you had written “murder’s not all that bad” or something outlandish like, I would NOT have taken you seriously. But you said something that many many people say and do mean.
Glad to hear you didn’t mean it, and I’m sorry about that. I had only hoped to kind of “give you a lift,” as it were—and anyone else who may be reading the blog as well.
Ah! Tony I was just pulling your leg a little… did you miss my *smiley*…
or just my way of reasoning..
my way of trying to lessen the heat.
No offence ment, none (on my behalf) taken..
The thing with blogs………. people (as we do ouselves), tell possibily more than we should, of our private affairs.. (it is so easy to forget that we are not writing a personal “letter” to a friend),then when a comment apears we are quite taken-a-back to read in response how others think.. I would imagine that is what happened to Karl (could be wrong though) We,I think “know” each other on this blog quite well enough to take the comments of each of us in the spirit that they are intended.. I am sure that no one wanted to impose their views upon him.
But then, he, did lay his “case” before this blog and there are people with very strong views about “their” Faith here, and they do not “beat about the bush” when expressing them…….
On the whole I agree with ARN.. could be the “age” affiliation..
At the end of the day Karl is the one who will have to live with his decision. which ever it will be in the end.Perhaps the annulment is still too fresh and he is just disapointed with the result..which he at the moment “can not fathom”.
I, have over the last 2years,learnt to admire and respect people on this blog,I am not always in accord with their views on all issues, but I have learnt a lot from each of them.
ARN,who is Bai MacFarlane??? and where is the site?..
I’ve been away too long it seems, I’ll have to catch up with the lastest “news”..
Well, yes, I did see the smiley, Sandra. But it’s hard enough understanding people’s words when written out completely, then we’ve taken it writing shorthand phrases that we (internally) understand) but others do not…and now I should have understood that the smiley meant “just kidding”? Oh, boy, I’m lost. Why do I feel like such an old phogey and I’m younger than most of you? I know I’m kind of a throwback.
Oh, come on! Don’t do this to me. There’s no smiley, so I’m going to naively (again) guess that you’re not joking. I’m perplexed. I can’t figure out how to reconcile the two back-to-back sentences that seem contradictory:
“I am sure that no one wanted to impose their views upon him” and then “…there are people with very strong views about “their” Faith here, and they do not “beat about the bush” when expressing them.”
By the way, “no one wanted to impose their views upon him”? You haven’t read the blog from the past couple days, have you? You may want to go back and read the comments. Oh, yes they did what to impose their views upon him.
Tony, stop playing dumb. Pick on me.I can not for the very life of me understand how you and Michelle have the spiritual ability to tell me I am using the wrong tactic.
But, feel free- as you are judging me.
Have fun.
I wonder, did Fulton Sheen use your methods when getting converts into the Church? NO! He wasted NO Time with the patty cake baloney you are promoting.
Well Tony, I paid for my “stamp” by converting, and bringing in another Catholic into the world that I am struggling to teach as the Catholic School we pay dearly for and can not afford, is teaching her CRAP.
Put that in your smug pipe.
I would think, that if I said anything contrary to the CCC someone would have by now told me. The reality is, no one can. Lest they rip pages out of it, or revise it to be more pleasing to the itching ears.
“To choose precisely how and in which circumstances one will discuss Church teaching, and to have this decision informed by how much one knows or does not know about a particular individual and also by what has already been said on the matter by oneself and by others is not the same thing as being embarrassed by anything the Church teaches. ”
And, When should this Magical moment be Michelle?6 months of wooing? 6 years?
Guess what? Many converts do actually appreciate the full unvarnished version. I know I would have been far less confused if only anyone would have spent any time with me. All they cared about was that I was interested.
The “formerly known as NYC Michelle” gave me a real bashing here I will never forget.
But- the key is- I will never forget-
She was very “harsh”
That worked for me.
Don’t assume you have the “best” way to evangelize. That is contrary to FACTS. Read Fulton Sheen’s life, and you will see, he had NO TIME to play patty cake with some.
Many died right after conversion. By your “method” they would have died outside the Church.
So stop berating me.
Start spreading the bible message and quit judging your sister who is NOT OD., but a mere Catholic.
Who is just as worthy as you are.
He laid his case before the blog? No, actually, Sandra, he did not. He made statements/allegations ***about the Church*** which stemmed from his case. ***He said extremely little about his case.*** Go back and read what he actually said about his case.
Other people made a lot of assumptions about his case and made comments based on their assumptions. Things from “don’t be hasty” to “you will realise with time,that life does and must go on” to “wasn’t she (his wife) suffering too?” to “Perhaps the annulment is still too fresh and he is just disapointed with the result.”
Tony,
How can you conveniently forget how he formally cut himself off from the body?
I guess your version of history is a over the top one.
Prey tell, oh wise one- what is the punishment for one who does such a thing?
Can you guide me through the CCC since, after all- you are a lawyer are you not?
Helen, I think we’re speaking past each other. I know we’re only as close as the circumstances allow given that we have never met, we know very little about each other, and we’ve only communicated via a blog, for the past several months. But amazingly, nowadays, that’s actually a closer friendship than many people have with their next-door neighbors after many years. I’m very glad that we’ve gotten to “know” each other, help each other out, etc.
I think it can be healthy to clear the air on your viewpoints (and feelings), but it looks like I’m in a bit
of a predicament here. You’ve done very well on letting go of your feelings and that’s fine with me. But you’ve kind of boxed me in a corner by saying that I’m picking on you, judging you, and being smug. (I don’t know how I was picking on you or judging you, but it’s enough for me that you said it.) But one thing’s for sure, if I try to express my viewpoint from here on out, I’ll definitely be painted as “judging,” “picking,” and “smug.” Were you ever in debate?
Bottom line on the topic from my perspective is this. I only meant to disagree with you on the substantive topic of our discussion (how to best approach people, etc.). I did not wish to say anything to offend you personally in any way and I am very sorry that I did.
What does being a lawyer having to do with guiding someone through the CCC?
Tut tut tut! I see what you’re doing. Goading me into picking on you and being smug, by picking on me and being the anti-smug. I think I debated (and lost) to you before.
Seriously, please stop. This is turning into Josip vs. Sandra. It’s bad enough I lost a brother in those battles, I don’t want to be a part of another one.
Sandra, I can’t remember if you were the one who asked for the site to Bai Macfarlane’s website. Here it is: http://www.marysadvocates.org/
“….If he‚Äôs ‚Äúmoved on,‚Äù he wouldn‚Äôt be going to Catholic web sites and pleading his case against the Catholic Church‚Äî…..” Your words Tony… I,used the words, “laid his case before this blog” same difference??
Just to be sure,I have below coppied Karl’s original comment..
“I formally defected from the Catholic Church last year. ….. I did so BECAUSE the Catholic Church is so accepting and supportive of adultery and bends over backwards to keep people who have utterly devastated their spouses and in most cases their own children, through unjust divorce.” (ok, a year but to him possibly still fresh)
“Look at the case of Bai Macfarlane if any of you read the news. It is heartbreaking. At least she has not had to suffer the humiliation of defending a valid marriage before a Church tribunal, as I did.
“I am not here to argue with you but you all are sadly mistaken if you think the Catholic Church, in practice, means what it says about the ‚ÄúSanctity‚Äù of marriage”.
“If that was the case the Church would investigate marriages, much like it does for nullity,…determine exactly who decided to end the marriage. Then it would formally act to demand that their be a reconciliation those that refused, who were responsible for the decision to divorce, would be formally excommunicated…”
Now, what does he mean here?? Is he refering to his own divorce / annulment, or just commenting on the actions of the Church as a whole on this subject..? OR… He is just interested in the opinions of others on the issue?… Well all three I gather..
Although there is another option, he is bitter,hurt and wants to vent his anger(anonymously on one or more websites),towards the wife,and / or the Church… In any case he got the whole package,opinions on broken marriages,well ment consoling advise,prayers for himself and his family,AND…(in no uncertain words), a rebuttle to his accusations towards the Catholic Church. There is a very true pro-verb, “be carefull of what you wish for,you may get it”
By the way, by writing “move on / moved on / moving on” I ment that in the sense of geting on with the rest of ones life… then, the alternative would not be an option.. That he is “disapointed with the result” (to say the least), is evident in his comment don’t you think?..
As you mention Josip,I see,after reading your comment ” …Josip vs. Sandra”, that he has not commented on this issue?
“it’s bad enough I lost a brother in those battles” ???? Well Tony if that is a reason for loosing a brother then the “brotherhood” could not have been very deep in the first place.. and I certainly would not like to be responsible for such a loss.. This by **NO** means ment ironicaly..
We are ALL in need of *brothers and sisters* to lose one is very sad for both..
We could go on for every *second guessing* Karl’s situation,but I do not think that he really intended to adhere to OUR advice,for I am szre that he has many more intimate friends,family,parish priest who have offered him the best support they could.. It may have just *helped* him to get it off his chest to strangers (without going into detail), who are not biased on the part of either himself nor his wife.. But here I go again, “second guessing”
Ah! and thanks it was I who asked for the Mcfarlane website, thanks, I’ll read it after work..
Have a nice morning all.
Helen–
As Tony says above, “I only meant to disagree with you on the substantive topic of our discussion (how to best approach people, etc.). I did not wish to say anything to offend you personally in any way and I am very sorry that I did.” Please don’t take any of the 3 points I made above as anything more than answers to your own arguments.
In any case, please don’t take this answer to the accusation of berating you as anything more than an answer to the accusation.
Oops– sorry about the brusqueness of that last sentence– meant to follow it with a smiley emoticon. Also, wanted to say that the sun is shining through a shamrock in the window of the room that my little girls share– since this is still called TDVC- Opus Dei blog, thought I’d be a little cryptic. De-code that!
And last comment for this morning, thought you’d all like to see the article our friend Dianne had published in her local paper (she knows I’m posting this) —
http://www.yorkregion.com/News/Newmarket/article/72486
I guess you could file this one under “You may not know what someone’s story really is”
Wow! Thanks for sharing the article, Michelle. Much more importantly, thanks to Dianne for the example of enduring love and patience she’s shown us. I think a lot of parents decide that they need to cut the strings and let the child go at some point, for various reasons: the parents’ own health, the health stability of the rest of the family (other children in the house), or because they (perhaps mistakenly) think that is the only way the “wayward” son will eventually “learn” his way back home (not realizing that it’s an illness and not a choice of behavior). And I’m talking here about parents who are truly well-intentioned, not the ones who just “give up” on the kids, etc.
Sandra,
That was a long comment. You make it hard to know where to begin to answer, or if you even want an answer or if you just want to make a one-sided vent of your opinion and not have an actual discussion. But I do see how you could have interpreted the first comment, above, that way. I’ll try to be clearer.
“….If he’s “moved on,” he wouldn’t be going to Catholic web sites and pleading his case against the Catholic Church—…..” Your words Tony… I,used the words, “laid his case before this blog” same difference??”
The only “case” Karl laid on this blog was his case against the Catholic Church. He only barely mentioned his own “case,”Рhis divorce/annulment, on this blog.
He has also gone to several other blogs to plead his case against the Church. On some of those sites, he has also stated a lot of the facts of his own divorce/annulment situation, i.e., pled his case.
“formally defected” a year ago. “(ok, a year but to him possibly still fresh).”
Gee whiz. He “defected” from the Church a year ago. I’ve been trying to tell all of you that you don’t know the details, with the whole “still fresh”, “don’t be hasty,” time heals all wounds” stuff. (A) it totally misses his argument (which he barely got to make), which is that it isn’t about him. His beef is with what he believes is the Church’s erroneous/lax approach to the granting of annulments, especially in the United States. He’s not alone in this viewpoint, although he has other views that take him outside of the mainstream, and his way of expressing himself is over-the-top. But his point is, for the most part, not about his particular case. I think he’d agree that his case is just a great example of the problem—but it isn’t THE problem.
(B) the divorce and annulment happened over 15 years ago, if I remember correctly. So much for the “still fresh” argument.
Have to run. Check out Bai’s website for other details on the whole thing.
Sun is shining through my shramrock too (allbeit a little weak),at least it has stoped snowing the last few days.. Remember the riddle I left for you all concerning the shamrock (clover) and my one time, last name ?
The name of the German equivalent… Code word = german artist (painter) Paul …. Helen you are (for you, obvious reasons) *disqualified*
Dianne’s article.. yes! she is a remarkable person,woman,mother…and friend.. Proof of that has arrived by post this morning (while I was at work)… How did she know that I was looking for just that?? >> Guide to praying the Rosary. > Take courage.Be faithfull
“(A) it totally misses his argument (which he barely got to make), which is that it isn‚Äôt about him. His beef is with what he believes is the Church‚Äôs erroneous/lax approach to the granting of annulments, especially in the United States.”
So he says, but it’s unlikely he had issues with it before he, at least in his view, got burned by it. And about the annulment process he feels is too lax–I’m with Sandra in thinking all efforts at reconciliation are likely exhausted before the couple breaks up or the unhappy spouse is getting no cooperation from the partner and leaves. The Church through the tribunals are just trying to salvage whatever’s possible to salvage and let people get on with their lives. How can the tribunals be faulted for trying to help people? Even though, yes, not everyone will be happy with the outcome.
It’s possible a few of those marriages can be patched together if the couple were assigned a mediator prior to going ahead with the annulment, but honestly they would unlikely be many.
Here’s a site I came across just now that discusses the MacFarlane mess. Although this is about no fault divorce, it touches on the same issues. Scroll down for a particularly articulate argument against no-fault, (although I don’t agree with her) under the screen name of WICatholic:
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8616
Michelle–I can feel for what that poor woman is going through. That is a hard disease to manage and thank God there is assistance for the family to help them cope. College Boy’s bout with depression can’t hold a candle to the kind of hardship she must be having.
“This is turning into Josip vs. Sandra.”
Mama Bear is distracted from her slaving away in a hot kitchen and frowns. Must she say something this time? Nah, let someone else lay the guilt trip this time.
Mama Bear
I suppose we’re all desperate for another topic which Karl has kindly, if unwittingly, provided us. Oh, if Karl only knew our fascination with the particulars of his case and the possible malfeasance of the Church tribunal. The outcome of Karl vs. Karl though may have been a happy one for Mrs. Karl, of course, and these are the chances we take when we entrust our hearts to others. We become vulnerable, but there is no other way. I know myself how utterly vulnerable I am to my own husband. I’m always hoping he’s still loves me and is proud of me as his is the only opinion that counts in the long run.
Fr Wauck–Are you on the advance team for the Pope’s itinerary here, or have things been getting busy with your side job. lol
Hi, ARN,
Regarding “so he says,” I totally agree that I’m taking the guy’s word for it. He says enough stuff against his own side to make it believable, though. As for why he didn’t have issues with it before his situation, why would he? How many rank-and-file Catholics even know the slightest thing about the Church’s tribunal process?
In the time since his wife left him for another man, he’s been told in the United States that his marriage was invalid, then he argued it to the Roman Rota and TWICE the Rota decided that the marriage was valid—he was right and the US tribunal was wrong. That’s pretty impressive in any event on his part. Whatever disagreements we all have with his views and decision to leave the Church, I truly admire his insistence to take the case to Rome to have Rome declare that his marriage is valid in the eyes of God and His Holy Church, regardless of the eyes of his wife, her lover, and the government (and, for that matter, the local diocese).
“It’s possible a few of those marriages can be patched together if the couple were assigned a mediator prior to going ahead with the annulment, but honestly they would unlikely be many.”
Did you mean to say ‘divorce’ instead of ‘annulment’? If there is a “marriage” to be patched up, then there should not/ can not be an “annulment” given. That’s kind of Karl’s, Bai’s, etc., point—annulments and divorces are not the same, and shouldn’t be confused with each other.
I absolutely know that you, ARN, know this. I’m not telling you anything that you don’t know. I’m just pointing out how easy it is for all of us to slip up in conversation. That’s what leads those who don’t know the distinction to confuse the two…not just in conversation but, I think, creeping into the thoughts of tribunals such as the one which Karl faced.
I agree that neither he nor the Church can force someone to stay together. But it would be good if there was some pressure brought to bear for counseling, rather than just throwing in the towel as soon as someone cries divorce.
“Sandra,
That was a long comment.You make it hard to know where to begin to answer, or if you even want an answer or if you just want to make a one-sided vent of your opinion and not have an actual discussion”.
Well Tony,to be truthfull,I do not know how to make a *two sided* vent of MY opinion… The discussion starts when you, or others vent THEIR opinon..or not?
is called for here.. lol
Gee wizz!! 15years have passed,and he is still mad at the Church, (and to me, obviously at his wife… his call for “excommunication”)but took 14years to decide to “formally defect”..
I did visit the site you gave, but I find there is more secular legal wrangling there than ecclesiastical.
I did not though, find any reference to Karl’s case.Which is, for myself of no concequence,as we have agreed that his case is not,in all detail,known to us,also as his wife has, as far as I know,not posted her account there would be not much point.
I am not familiar with the secular “nullity” laws in the US. But the ecclesiastical, will be the same as in all Catholic countries surely?
Karl must have been aware of this, or not? The tribunal decided (not in his favour),we must believe that this was not a decision taken lightly.. so he as many others before and after,must accept, or as in Karl’s case not accept, and make his / their own decision, with which they must live and eventually answer for.
Any way,apart from that, I did explicitly state that my comment (April 2nd) was NOT in regard to Karl’s issue but more generally to do with broken marriages,the possible reasons and the consequences there of…
The Catholic Church,nor any Church,Religious organization for that matter,can be held responsible if one or both partners decide to leave the union.. least of all “demand reconciliation”,or, more correctly put,they CAN demand, on pain of excommuniation, but they can not,if one or both partners refuse,enforce reconciliation.
Another looooong comment,sorry, the thing is, I could probably express my thoughts in german, more precisely, eloquently and in much shorter comments than in english…. so I beg you to bare with me..and try to stumble through them,as I try to,stumblingly, write them. double
Quite,quite ARN…. Father Wauck!!!! Where forth art thou??? don’t tell us you are “unpacking” AGAIN..
OOPS!!! Sorry Tony and Karl… I did not know that the Rota decided the marriage was “valid”
(just kidding)…
Why did you not say (write) that before I made my last comment?
Now I am confused… (as always you could say)– If the Catholic Church agrees that the Marriage is valid.. why did he “formaly defect” ???? Is there one “rule” in Rome and another in the USA for Catholics???
He can not disregard the secular divorce courts decision, but surely HE in his own mind with the backing and assurence of the Catholic Church in Rome, hold fast, to his decision to still regard himself as a married man.. or am I wrong here too? Whatever his spouse may do or think can therefore be of no concern of his..
For she would be the “guilty” party. (in the eyes of the Church).
Please some one clear this up for me..
I never understood what “Mama Bear” was until now. That’s funny. Don’t worry about us. No need to frown and no guilt trip laying need be done by anyone.
Sandra, there being no “tone” in the message (and emoticon close enough by to help me out), I don’t whether to say “don’t worry” or “mind your own business.”
Either way, I can tell you that Josip and I are absolutely fine. I assure you that there is no way that anything anyone else does will affect our relationship.
Great questions, Sandra. And they say timing is everything.
Hey, did you see I learned how to make those faces, too?
“In the time since his wife left him for another man, he‚Äôs been told in the United States that his marriage was invalid, then he argued it to the Roman Rota and TWICE the Rota decided that the marriage was valid‚Äîhe was right and the US tribunal was wrong.”
Whoa…he sure had it in for his ex to go to that extreme. I mean I’m scratching my head here and wondering if there is anyone who does does this if they haven’t made it their mission in life to destroy someone else’s chances for happiness.
“That‚Äôs pretty impressive in any event on his part.”
Insanely impressive …or impressively insane?
“Whatever disagreements we all have with his views and decision to leave the Church, I truly admire his insistence to take the case to Rome to have Rome declare that his marriage is valid in the eyes of God and His Holy Church, regardless of the eyes of his wife, her lover, and the government (and, for that matter, the local diocese).”
And what does he get? How much has he sacrificed to pursue this course which can only be viewed as obstructionist. Instead of realizing if he stopped before going to Rome that he too could remarry-annulment could work for him too-he wastes all this time better spent looking to his own happiness.
So he gets the satisfaction of throwing it up to his ex that she’s an adulteress in the RCC’s eyes and for this the price is that he himself must remain single. Instead of 2 people making new and potentially happier lives for themselves with another spouse, we have one woman in marital limbo and perhaps unhappy about it and one bitter man. Great work Karl, just great.
“But it would be good if there was some pressure brought to bear for counseling, rather than just throwing in the towel as soon as someone cries divorce.”
You’re right I’m sure. But we don’t know how much they tried to work this out before it got to this impasse. We probably never will. She may have given it her best shot way before she met her new husband. Who knows what went on really? Not us.
Karl seems to be playing Inspector Javert to Mrs. Karl’s Jean Valjean. !5 years?? God heavens, what are their 5 kids making of this?
I do mind my own business Tony…
May I remind you, that YOU mentioned Josip and myself –”Josip vs.Sandra”—, also that you wrote (directly following), ‚Äúit‚Äôs bad enough I lost a brother in those battles‚Äù which I took to mean the “battles” Josip and I have had.. If this was not so, please excuse my hasty response. Although I did stress that I did not mean in any way to be ironic..So I, in turn, do not understand you.
I read into your comment possibly something that you did not mean.. In which case the meaning of your comment is not clear to me.. (and does not affect me at all)
In any case,I at least, would have no reason nor interest, to say,or do anything,to affect your relationship with Josip, nor anyone else for that matter..
Your geting too good for us Tony
We gals will have to tink up some new “code”…..
(and ofcourse Dan Brown)
I can’t get that one you have on your last comment Tony… you going to tell us how you did it??? Please!!
I can do it in e-mails and on IM. but it does not seem to work here…
is there a trick known only to OD insiders?
Yes ARN.. I ask that very same question,what are those kids thinking,and most of all what did they have to endure, they were possibly still very young at the begining, and did not quite understand,by now the youngest must be around 16 or older.. they are perhaps turned-off marriage completely,after witnessing their parents inability to cope… They would not be the first either..
The most priceless vase,when terribly cracked,even when stuck to gether again, does normally “not hold water” well, the same,in most cases,goes for relationships that are irrepairably broken.. no matter how much “glue” is applied..
I agree that to give up with too much ease would be and is wrong.. but if eventually it does not work, it does not work.
I as you, do not understand anyone who given the right to remarry or stay “single”,to take the verdict of both “courts” decide by his own conscience to remain in the eyes of his faith,”married”, but deny his or her partner the same “choice of conscience”. Many divorced / or annuled marriages end amicably with both partners taking responsibility for their children, sparing them at least the terrible torment of losing a loving parent.. But then, who knows “what goes / or went on behind closed doors” we here most definitively not..
I think it is time to leave Karl to his decision,for after such a long period of “thinking things out” (15years) he has seemingly reached a decision which he may or may not uphold, regardless of our comments / views on the decision,or reasons he may or my not have for reaching that….
The only thing left about this whole isue,which is of interest to me personally, has to do with the outcome all this could have on future cases such as Karl’s and the Mcfarlane’s.. I still don’t understand the difference between the Catholic Church’s ruling in the USA on such issues,and that in Rome..
Sandra–I’m reading comments on another blog and apparently the Roman Rota overturns 90% of the cases from the USA granting annulments, so their (Roman) standards seem rigorous in comparison. So perhaps there’s alot of leeway for cultural differences? Why there’s a Roman Rota at all if that’s the case I have no clue.
In any case it seems so irrelevant. If there were no safety valves for ending bad marriages and the church excluded all those divorced w/o serious cause, let alone remarried catholics, the pews would be empty indeed.
About the Roman Rota, rather it’s 90% of the American cases that go there for appeal. I don’t know what % go there, (probably small).
ARN, this is really interesting. You and I see are seeing things very differently, and I’m scratching my head wondering why.
You say that “he gets the satisfaction of throwing it up to his ex that she’s an adulteress in the RCC’s eyes and for this the price is that he himself must remain single. Instead of 2 people making new and potentially happier lives for themselves with another spouse, we have one woman in marital limbo and perhaps unhappy about it and one bitter man.”
The way I see it, though, what else can he do? He wasn’t in favor of her having an affair, leaving him, i.e., committing adultery. If the facts alleged are true, she’s an adulteress in the eyes of the Church. How does he get blamed for the Church finding out about it? Like he somehow “narced her out” to God, and He would not have found out otherwise?
Regarding him having to stay single, again, what’s he supposed to do? The marriage either objectively took place, i.e., was valid at the time they said “I do” or it wasn’t. He KNEW that the reasons being put forth were either not true or were not sufficient to prove that a valid marriage did not exist at the time of the wedding. Therefore, he KNEW they were married. He knew HE was married.
What kind of mental gymnastics/denial would he have to have going on in his head for him to maintain this “potentially happier life” with another spouse, were he to remarry? You don’t think that would eat at him every day? Especially what we know about this particular person’s ability to stay focused on a matter that he holds dear to him—15 years at least. You think he’d let it go pretty easily and just move on like water off a duck’s butt? I don’t.
Sandra, are you turning green with envy?
“So perhaps there’s alot of leeway for cultural differences? Why there’s a Roman Rota at all if that’s the case I have no clue.”
I think you just answered your own question. My question would actually be the opposite one: Why there’s an American tribunal at all? If you’re going to pick one of them to stay and one to go, wouldn’t you really say Rome is the gold standard?
Here’s an article by Monsignor Cormac Burke on the topic. Needless to say, worth reading: http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/657.
Ooooh,Tony!!! you are wicked…
How does he know it “objectively took place”. Perhaps we have a”Rashamon” situation here: His wife’s interpretation of the facts of their marriage differ from his. Who’s is the truth? Does it matter? Since this is after all such a personal situation.
For instance, say she claimed not to have been mature enough as I offered as a hypothetical awhile back, or she felt coerced (shotgun weddings seem likely invalid). How does Karl know that absolutely was not the case in her eyes? In her eyes and the tribunal it would be invalid. No matter how committed Karl may be to the marriage, he is free to remarry even if he doesn’t want the privilege. Holding a torch at that point is ridiculous and self-destructive. I wonder how many people close to him told him the same.
Now instead of leaving well enough alone and accepting that perhaps the wife had a different take on events, he brings the case to the Roman Rota and spreads the misery around. My God, don’t you see here’s something inhuman in his campaign?
“What kind of mental gymnastics/denial would he have to have going on in his head for him to maintain this ‚Äúpotentially happier life‚Äù with another spouse, were he to remarry? You don‚Äôt think that would eat at him every day?”
Why not? The tribunal gave them an annulment; he’s free! No, this is a man who *needs* to be right no matter the collateral damage.
Tony I do have a genuine question, and as Father Wauck is not *present* at the moment, perhaps you would want to give me some clarity on this;-
Now, please understand that it is not a catch question nor an idle quirk from me..
I have been wondering since my last question about the aparent discrepancy in the ruling of the tribunal in the USA and that in Rome..
Let’s just take the Joseph Kennedy case (quite recent) or stick with Karl’s it is roughly the same outcome.
In both cases the US tribunal granted an annulment..(invalid marrage), The Rota in Rome later upheld the validity of both marriages right?
Now, Mr.Kennedy as well as Mrs Karl are assured by the tribunal in US that a re-marriage is according to the Church possible.. so, they re-marry.The Us ruling is then reversed by the Vatican..
This makes both as well as their new spouses “adulterers” and in the eyes of the Church, if they do not return to their former partners ,they are in a state of mortal sin.. is that right so far?
Now my question,if the members of the US tribunl after, one would hope, carefull concideration assure Kenedy and Mrs, Karl that they were free to re-mrry which they then do.. they (menbers of the tribunal) have surely failed both Mr.Kenedy and Mrs Karl.. rendering them in danger of excommunication..
After reading a few sites on the matter and seeing that 75%-90% of annulments are over-ruled by the Vatican, I ask,are then, the members of those US tribunals also held to account in the same way as the “offending party” If not, Why?
Or (as it appears)are they allowed to “carry on business as usual”? Making more unhappy couples..
OK, true disclosure: This, as you can see hits close to home given my sisters’ cases.
Twin guy case (remember, we *like* him!): He cheats with a married ex-girlfriend who lied to him that she was using birth control. Kid Sister is upstairs doing housework, glad that their mutual friend and her husband have company in the basement-she does laundry(no W/D in her home) and he lifts weights. Really, she and I came from a home where adultery was unthinkable, so powerful was my parents’ modeling. GF is the Jerry Springer Show incarnate, BTW. Two years later she sues for child support for the twins everyone assumed, including twin guy, were fathered by her husband. But my God! On closer inspection and after having been at the house many times, they resemble twin guy!
One DNA test later twin guy is slapped with a child support obligation, cutting down on Kid Sister’s support for their own 2. She tries to reconcile herself with this deep humiliation, complaining that twin guy always had an affection for this woman despite marrying another. No good. She tries and can’t bring herself to accept it. She meets a Canadian online (Star Trek Club-go ahead, laugh) who is very compatible. She divorces twin guy and marries the Canadian.
Now, she miserable for a year before the Canadian came into the picture. She complained way before that she was unable to overlook twin guy’s egregious transgression despite her best efforts and did not believe he was willing to let that old relationship go (Yeah, she was naive). She didn’t believe he came into the marriage with an understanding of its obligations concerning fidelity. He was initially stunned that Kid Sister divorced him. He hadn’t a clue of the enormity of his offense, although he later came around and has been a very responsible father to all his children.
Twin guy even used that as grounds for his later annulment. His new marriage is very happy and things worked out for both. Anyway, an anecdote from the real world.
Wow!! ARN he does sound *likable” jk. But then,If they all seem now to be good friends…
).. Just wondering,although, after reading those reports about the *annulment* rate in the US should I ??
But, how on earth did he get an annulment (you don’t need to tell
I,also naive, thought it was in most cases,practically,impossible to achive an annulment.. wrong again!!
I did not even try b/c I thought it useless to even do so..Perhaps I should have moved to the USA.. But then my divorce is over 30years ago.I can not even imagine having,to have stayed married to my frst husband and not being married to Ivao. Most terrible thought.. even frightening.. No! I do not believe that God would want to punish me for a *sin* I commited in my thoughtless youth.. (sox and pregnancy before marriage)however wrong it may have been..I paid dearly enough during that marriage to make up for it.. that, was HELL all 11years out of 12..
Ok– before I put in these two cents, first, a disclaimer: these remarks are referring to ARN’s comments about our friend Karl’s case in *very general terms* (since I don’t know the details and haven’t read anything about it anywhere else), and not anyone else’s anecdotes in any specific way.
Is it not possible that he, in fact, took the more heroic path? Recall Tony’s point–
“Regarding him having to stay single, again, what‚Äôs he supposed to do? The marriage either objectively took place, i.e., was valid at the time they said ‚ÄúI do‚Äù or it wasn‚Äôt. He KNEW that the reasons being put forth were either not true or were not sufficient to prove that a valid marriage did not exist at the time of the wedding. Therefore, he KNEW they were married. He knew HE was married.”
Look, he could have behaved very resentfully instead, and stopped with the local tribunal’s ruling, and said “Fine. Thanks for the annulment — I’m going to go find someone else myself, someone better than you, so there.” If it was me, I know I would be sorely tempted. ARN is arguing that he acted out of some kind of vengefulness by going to the Roman Rota, when you could look at the situation and actually say the opposite, depending on your understanding of Church teaching on marriage. Instead he went to a great deal of trouble, expense, and maybe humiliation….
Obviously we can’t know someone’s heart when we don’t know him, but if you’re going to jump to conclusions about
what motivated him, why not this conclusion instead?
Good after noon Michelle.(and all others)
To be truthfull I do not think we should be concentrating on Karl,or, what ever we (in our minds), think of *his* case.. Instead what worries (interests) me,is how are couples to react to this dilemma,of cross- purposses,between one tribunal vs. the other??It is hard enough for Catholics who are very familiar with the subject, and would possibly know how to go forward in such cases..but, for those who don’t ie’ Mrs. Mcfarlane.. who obviously did not know her rights,nor how to go about geting proper advice / help with her case. Valid or not,is not the issue, but to at least be put in the picture about the REAL facts, and that, “pronto”!
I do not understand, how in this age of “Instant Message”, miss-interpretation of Church Law / ruling, concerning annulment,can not be “niped in the bud”,so to speak.. “comunicato interno” are given by the Vatican regulary so if there be any missunderstanding on part of the US tribunal surely that can be dealt with immediately, via Letter,Fax, or other means.. It is very dificult for me to understand how this “violation” of Church rulling can be ignored for so long.. If such an act of “missconduct”, disregarding the orders of the “boss”, was to hapen in the “private sector”, ie’ a business company, surely “heads would roll”..
Are the *heads* of a Diocese not aware of the proper course of action, if not why, or better still, why,if this is known,are they given authority to pronounce a verdict,?
I can, understand (I see it before my mind’s eye) Tony “scratching his head” in wonder (comment to ARN), at least from his point of view.. But how many others (especially non Catholics), are doing the very same,when hearing this “mix-up”… They may well ask.. “what is going on inside the Catholic Church, that there is no way the Vatican can uphold it’s own “rules, outside of Rome, is this dilema symtomatic / the cause for the reduction in atholics staying inside the Church,?” There is surely enough *contrversy* among Catholics on the subject of *divorce / annulment* this can only “pour watter on the mill”..
Before anyone would want to answer, please,
(a) do not think I don’t know that *false* invalidity verdicts have been over-ruled.. my point is, HOW, did they come about in the first place?? and in SUCH numbers.
(b) I am not (in this instance), pleading a case, for nor contra, Divorce / annulment..
That is a matter for another time..
A strange thought has come to mind… The title of this Post,seems to summ up the state of the US tribunals;-
“Despite not being taught ….” ( *better*, they continue to pronounce invalidity verdicts)
“…he could have behaved very resentfully instead, and stopped with the local tribunal‚Äôs ruling”,
That wouldn’t have been vengeful at all. That would be accepting the situation, perhaps by giving his wife’s take the benefit of the doubt. Can any of us really get into another person’s head?
“…and said ‚ÄúFine. Thanks for the annulment ‚Äî I‚Äôm going to go find someone else myself, someone better than you, so there.‚Äù”
If it were me, I wouldn’t think that. The last thing I’d do is cut off my nose to spite my face.
“Obviously we can‚Äôt know someone‚Äôs heart when we don‚Äôt know him, but if you‚Äôre going to jump to conclusions about
what motivated him, why not this conclusion instead?”
Because of the destructiveness of his actions. Instead of gracefully bowing out with the sad knowledge that his wife will never return, he lets his kids witness this relentless pursuit of revenge. The Roman Rota takes *years* it seems to come to a decision. In the meantime his wife is even more entrenched in the marriage, getting a mortgage, perhaps having children. Just as bad, Karl is *not* getting a life. She then finds out she’s not married to Mr. Right after all. Michelle, I would never come to your more Karl-friendly conclusion. Pitch the hypothetical to your buddies and see what their take is.
>>>>>>> once more
Typo attack… “…reduction in * Catholics * staying inside the Church…”
Me too Sandra. Why the delay in the Roman Rota? I’m imagining the paperwork sitting in someone’s in-box for days while the narcoleptic staff takes endless coffee breaks and siestas (do they have them in Rome?), exhibiting a work ethic that would completely aggravate Germans and North Americans. That alone would seem reason enough never to submit anything to it. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Tony and Michelle-“Regarding him having to stay single, again, what’s he supposed to do? The marriage either objectively took place, i.e., was valid at the time they said “I do” or it wasn’t. He KNEW that the reasons being put forth were either not true or were not sufficient to prove that a valid marriage did not exist at the time of the wedding. Therefore, he KNEW they were married. He knew HE was married.”
Reading over the last post, I can see that maybe we’re talking past each other. My sense is it’s not enough for Karl to think the marriage valid, both must. Mrs. Karl did not. The American tribunal agreed. This released Karl as well, i.e. he need not honor his vows because of *his* perception, which was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a valid marriage.
Sandra, you asked some excellent questions on your earlier post. It’s kind of confusing, isn’t it?
I have a couple guesses, below. I’m only absolutely positive in this one response: “Father, Come quickly!” I’ll try my best until help comes along.
Kennedy case: Contrary to what the media reported, Joe Kennedy did not actually ever receive an annulment.
If a tribunal declares that a marriage is null, the case is automatically sent on appeal to a separate tribunal. The second tribunal has to declare the marriage null for the annulment to be granted. Normally, US cases would be heard by two tribunals both in the US, for obvious reasons. Sheila Kennedy, probably sizing up the rate that annulments are granted in the US, combined with the power of the Kennedy clan, decided to exercise her right to have the Rota be the second tribunal. When the Rota said that the marriage was not null, i.e., was valid, it did not overturn the annulment, as reported. It just meant that no annulment was being given in the first place.
Karl’s case – I don’t know the procedural history, except that he has repeatedly said that the Rota has TWICE declared the marriage was valid. I’m not a canon lawyer but my only guess is that he took it to the Rota as the second tribunal (as Sheila Kennedy did) and the Rota disagreed with the US tribunal and found that the marriage was valid; then his wife appealed the decision to the Rota (which sounds funny but apparently is done and they overturn their own decisions), but here they affirmed the decision that the marriage was valid.
So at least in Kennedy’s case, the answer is No, he should not have gotten married a second time. (He did remarry, by the way, in a civil ceremony.) If I’m right about Karl going to Rome for the second tribunal, then his wife should not have thought she could get married either.
Here’s where my guessing really starts. Let’s assume two tribunals agree and they grant Bob and Sue an annulment. Bob, relying on the annulment, gets married to Marsha in a Church ceremony. Meanwhile, Sue appeals the annulment to Rome and Rome declares that Bob and Sue’s marriage was valid. My guess is that Bob and Marsha’s marriage would be invalid. Bob can’t marry Marsha, at least not yet. Bob is already married to Sue. Canon 1085 says Bob can’t have two wives. Bob and Marsha, would you like to have a word with your local tribunals?
By the way, I’m guessing Sue or someone else would have told Bob that an appeal was going on, right?
“This makes both as well as their new spouses “adulterers” and in the eyes of the Church, if they do not return to their former partners ,they are in a state of mortal sin…” Well, it is objectively grave matter to be sleeping with someone you’re not married to. The person also has to know that it is wrong, i.e., that the first marriage is not null and the second marriage IS null. Assuming they were told that what they were doing was now wrong, then yes—if they continued to do so.
They’re in a state of mortal sin if they don’t return to their former partners? Why would you say that? If they have a serious (compelling, etc., can’t think of the word that’s used) reason, a spouse can leave his or her spouse, and live apart. The “classic” example is a physically abusive spouse. If there is a serious danger of health, etc., the spouse can leave for safety. There’s no sin in that at all.
Finally, I don’t know why it would have to come to excommunication of the couples. There would sure be some ugly sorting out to do. And I agree that the tribunals should be held accountable for the damage left in their wake. But in the end, I can’t see the Church excommunicating one of the involved couples over this. More likely (and equally tragic), some individuals deciding on their own to leave the Church.
“Reading over the last post, I can see that maybe we’re talking past each other. My sense is it’s not enough for Karl to think the marriage valid, both must. Mrs. Karl did not. The American tribunal agreed. This released Karl as well, i.e. he need not honor his vows because of *his* perception, which was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a valid marriage.”
ARN, I think you missed my word ‘objectively’. The marriage either “objectively took place or it didn’t.” That’s my whole point. It doesn’t matter if it’s just Karl or both of them, or the tribunal, who think the marriage is null. I don’t think the spouses’ subjective impressions of whether the marriage is now valid are considered.
Let me know if I misunderstood you (yet again). Sorry in advance.
Oh my goodness, whenever I try to drop by to just say hello, it is way too hard to catch up on what I missed. First there is the fact that some of us our an ocean apart from each other so we have a time delay to deal with and then there are these way too complicated discussions to try and catch up on. I am at least glad to know that even if we cannot figure out these complicated situations at least God can.
I hope everyone is well, I won’t try and make a comment for I am sure I will get the facts wrong and get someone mad at me! I do actually try to keep up with as much as I can by having the RSS feed run across my home page. That way I remember to pray for you all. For some starnge reason even though I do not know any of you other than Michelle I have fond memories of the DaVinci Code days where we bonded. Those were the days! I am glad you all keep coming back though, it’s nice the way Dan Brown brought us all together.
“I think you missed my word ‚Äòobjectively‚Äô. The marriage either ‚Äúobjectively took place or it didn‚Äôt.‚Äù That‚Äôs my whole point. It doesn‚Äôt matter if it‚Äôs just Karl or both of them, or the tribunal, who think the marriage is null. I don‚Äôt think the spouses‚Äô subjective impressions of whether the marriage is now valid are considered.”
I dunno Tony. I can’t imagine why “subjective impressions” would be considered unimportant. Take a shotgun wedding f’rinstance, where the girl really didn’t want to marry but was under duress, being pushed as she was by the parents so as to avoid family disgrace. Her emotional state would seem to be of the utmost importance in the determination of validity, “coercion” being a ground.
Now of course some of the grounds seem cut and dried, like impotence. But others seem very much to depend on subjective impressions at the time the knot’s tied. Sure it makes the determination messy, but too disregard them seems to show a lack of respect for the sacramentality of the marriage. Maybe some ambiguity must be acknowledged here instead of believing it can *really* be known if it “objectively took place or not”
Can’t say this type scenario happened with Karl’s case since we can’t know.
Dianne–Good to hear from you. You should stick around!
Maybe God only knows, like Sandra said, whether a sacramental marriage took place or not. Could be that *all* our marriages in the Church are basically provisional and we just don’t really know, that there’s really no true objective measure to determine such as much as we may flatter ourselves to say there is.
Take the “coercion” and “incompetent to contract a marriage”: come to think of it, those are “loopholes you can drive a truck through” (I believe that’s the exact translation of the original Latin expression). Can’t see how it can be otherwise. The dignity and gravity of sacramental marriage would require that these nebulous factors be taken into account. Just thinking out loud.
Oh, ARN, I’m not saying that you block out reality or anything. Of course you need to look at things like their state of mind—duress, shotgun wedding, etc. Those are definitely subjective. Looking at those things are absolutely necessary parts of the annulment process (assuming those are the claims).
What I mean is that we should NOT look at whether the spouses know think the marriage existed at the time it took place. All that should be looked at is what the state of things were (subjectively and objectively) ***at the time of the ceremony***.
If I remember correctly, Karl knew that the claims made were fraudulent. The tribunal still ruled as it did. Rome took the case and through all of pretty neatly—no exaggeration, and found in favor of the marriage’s validity.
Maybe some ambiguity in other cases, but I don’t think so in this particular case.
Hi Dianne,
Nice to hear from you. Um… you know I was only joshing about those fine Senators, right? Great bunch of guys, etc. No hard feelings, and all that (he says blush-faced)?
Hi Tony,
Now that they did make it into the playoffs we find out you were just joshing!(LOL)
Well they did make it into the playoffs even though the Leafs have bashed them up a bit. We will have to see how they do not. Now I am cheering for Montreal, Ottawa and Calgary but if I was a betting woman I would say this is Montreal’s year. We are off to the baseball games this week. Tuesday and Wednesday we are going to see the Jays play Oakland. Oakland is a favourite team of my guys, though my 12 year old thinks this will be the Jays year. They are amazing he tells me. Our poor Raptors are in a slump right now but hopefully they will make the playoffs.
Wish the Habs better luck this year than the Expos, eh?
I wouldn’t mind seeing the Canadiens winning it either.
In reference to my question and Tony’s very good answer… (One point is to be said here though.. Karl was the one asking (if not demanding) excommunication of the *guilty* partner.. Now that does,in light of your answer Tony,seem to me *vengefull*..)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2005/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20050129_roman-rota_en.html
ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA
Saturday, 29 January 2005
(Just a few citations..):-
2. The ethical question has always been asked very pointedly in any kind of judicial proceedings. In fact, individual or collective interests can induce the parties to resort to various kinds of duplicity and even bribery in order to attain a favourable sentence.
3. The objective juridical and moral gravity of such conduct, which in no way constitutes a pastorally valid solution to the problems posed by matrimonial crises, is obvious.
4. In my annual Addresses to the Roman Rota, I have referred several times to the essential relationship that the process has with the search for *objective* truth. >>>It is primarily the Bishops, by divine law judges ***in their own communities, who must be responsible for this.*** It is on their behalf that the tribunals administer justice. Bishops are therefore called to be personally involved in ensuring the suitability of the members of the tribunals, diocesan or interdiocesan, of which they are the Moderators, and in verifying that the sentences passed conform to right doctrine.>>>>..
Ooops halve of my comment did not make it (they are maybe tooooooooo long
)
Ah well I’ll keep trying…….. one more try :S
here the rest
continuation of Address of JPII.
“Sacred Pastors cannot presume that the activity of their tribunals is merely a “technical” matter from which they can remain detached, entrusting it entirely to their judicial vicars (cf. CIC, cann. 391, 1419, 1423 1).”
Sounds very clear…. even to me… How is it possible that these (detailed) instructions are ,in light of the enormity of *failed* verdicts,seemingly not followed.. in USA (and pos. elsewhere)?
The point which also springs to mind is,if,valid marriages have been declared in-valid,it stand to reason to assume that the opposit also occours in the same high percentage.. or not? What a state of affairs!!
By the way Tony, you are right about Mr.Kennedy.. 8-| I expect that emoticon won’t work..
There have been son many posts that I can’t adequetely respond to all, however, to ARN.
Your position negates that vows are obligatory and can be moved on from. I will not accept your BS, that is what it is. If a valid vow is spoken it is the obligation of the Catholic Church, particularly when its “annulment mills themselves” have been FORCED BY THE FACTS to accept said validity, to ACT to bring the “divorcer(s) to repentance, period. Yes, it is each of their choices. Yes, it is WRONG to FORCE a person’s will against itself. HOWEVER, excommunication IS NOT PUNIOSHMENT. It is the FINAL, MOST MERCIFUL(in what mercy truly means rather than the appeasement mode that the Catholic Church remains in, in the aftermath of the debacles of the Second Vatican Council, whatever it taught) thing that the Church can do. It sets a scenario that clearly indicates that the adjudged behavior is at odds, GRAVELY, with the teachings of the Catholic Church and leaves little or no “spin room”. IT IS NOT WRONG NOR IS IT PUNISHMENT.
If the Catholic Church chooses NOT to do such things even in the defense of a marriage that it has done all it can to destroy and mock, which is exactly what the Catholic Church does in nullity proceedings, but which it has been unable to do COMPLETELY because the FACTS are SO CLEAR AND SO OBVIOUS AS TO ITS VALIDITY THAT EVEN ITS NEARLY COMPLETE CORRUPTION CAN NOT DENY THEM, then it should neither be in the marriage business or the annulment business.
To ANY AND ALL OF YOU WHO THINK, GRAVELY SINFULLY AND SCANDALOUSLY SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM, that a marriage should not be honored, thusly, by the Catholic Church with complete use of all its efforts up to and including EXCOMMUNICATION, you ARE NOT CATHOLIC, PERIOD, AND NEITHER IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
That is SUFFICIENT REASON for me to have formally defected from it.
Either marriages are worth such defense or one must be stupid to get married.
My intent is not to offend anyone but my intent is serious. The Catholic Church is a whore, period. It has instituted a process that encourages divorces in order to have nullity investigated. That is disgusting! It should not bind anyone to a marriage that it will not defend COMPLETELY, since validity is PRESUMED and in our case TWO SEPARATE ROMAN ROTAL PANELS soundly agreed and THRASHED the incompent AMERICAN DECISION.
It is comnpletely possible to design a process to investigate “alleged” nullity, that does not DEMAND DIVORCE FIRST. That IS how it is done in the Philippines!
Vengeance is asking for “a penny more than one is owed”. The Catholic Church teaches that restitution is an obligation in justice and is REQUIRED for true repentance, in so much as restituion is possible. In fact, the Church teaches that if you steal $100 from someone, who loses $1,000,000.00 dollars as a result of your theft, then you owe them $1,000,00.00! Those of you who hold otherwise are sadly and culpably in error. The debt incurred in a wronglyful divorce is incalculable and places the “thief” or “theives” in a debt that they owe for the rest of their natural lives, period! And that debt is owed not simply to an innocent spouse but to their children, to society, to people like you misguided souls whom their example through scandal has led to believe that one should “move on” and to accept the others or either spouses NONEXISTANT “right” to divorce. To a stubborn spouse or spouses who refuse reconciliation, wrongly, the Catholic Church owes, EXCOMMUNICATION, because their souls are in mortal danger of permanent separation from God, as are those in this discussion who think otherwise, because for what ever reason you are WRONG!
Either GOD hates divorce or the Church lies! Dump your stupid, namby pamby, Pillsbury-Dough-God image and understand that God is merciful and just! HE is not the author of YOUR FALSE CHARITY. SATAN IS!
May the God of BOTH mercy and justice, who loves all of us and who wants none of us separated from HIM eternally, open the minds of each of you and HIS pastors to the importance of honoring marriage and using every means at HIS Church’s disposal to bring unrepentant adulterers to repentance and to see HIS WILL that they heal the unions, the VALID SACRAMENTS, that they have and continue to reject, at the peril of their own souls and to the scandal of all the Body of Christ, and especially the innocent children of the valid marriage and the innocent children of adultery.
One(really)last point on Mr.Karl vs. Mrs.Karl,..as his case is but synonymous for so very many..
I seems,to me (but I could be wrong), we are supposing that Karl alone has his qualms of conscience, which he may have, the other side of the coin (there are two),Mrs.Karl had in all probability also such qualms, concerning the *validity* of her marriage.. a marriage which she could not continue to uphold.. ??
She,surely,is also called to follow her conscience, which may explain, her in turn,taking her appeal once again to the Rota..She too,must take her faith very seriously,otherwise she could have just “called it a day” after the first verdict,and gotten on with her life.. is she not also, to be rcommended for “courage” of conviction? Who can see inside anothers head..?? What a mess we humans make of our lives, and those of others.SAD sad sad..
There is no such thing that is acceptable to Catholic teaching as “a dead marriage”.
Please retract that comment! Such a comment does grave harm to marriages and is unjust beyond words. It is true Mortal sin. It is incredibly scandalous.
Speaking now as a mere human, whoever said that is a damn idiot for saying it and if this comment is not acceptable, that should NEVER have been. If any of you who read this do not demand its retraction then you are damn idiots.
This former catholic suggests you read the papal addresses to the Roman Rota that are published on the vatican website. They are worth the slow journey of a prayerful read. Then I suggest you read the website of the retired Rota Judge Cormac Burke. Our Nullity decision is among them. It was the first of the two Rotal decisions, both of which supported validity.
Now some authentic Catholic truth.
As one of you quoted the 2005 Papal address, it is the ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY of each Bishop to see that his
tribunal reflects the jurisprudence of the Roman Rota, which is the Papal Court and serves the Archdiocese of Rome as its own First Instance Tribunal. Why does the Roman Court refuse about 80% of the petitions it puts before a formal hearing while the American Tribunals, almost universally, finds in favor of nullity in between 80-905% The American canonists give many reasons but I have never heard any of them ask for a review of American cases by retired Rotal jusges using Rotal standards. Why?
You are right, Tony, I ache over separation from the Catholic Church.
Helen, yes the Catholic Church is the Church Christ instituted. But I cannot stand with it and that does not mean that I persecute God. His Church persecutes ME.
Sandra said “The point which also springs to mind is,if,valid marriages have been declared in-valid,it stand to reason to assume that the opposit also occours in the same high percentage.. or not? What a state of affairs!!” If by this you mean that invalid marriages have been declared valid in similarly high percentages, that is NOT TRUE! A marriage is PRESUMED VALID until it is proven to have been invalid.
ARN, I want to address you in a more humane way.
You allow yourself to not conform to what the Church teaches. Please read the Papal addresses and take them as if they were being spoken to you, personally.
I am allowing myself to be vulnerable here, as I have for the past almost twenty years of this hell. Do not react to my word in anger. I am just like you in my humanity.
My wife was frustrated when She heard I was appealling to Rome. In a conversation we had after the American decision she admitted to being told that she would get her nullity decision, even before the case was heard. I would tell this to a Catholic Church inquiry. In fact, I did so in writing, long ago. But what does that comment say about this tribunal and its objectivity? And with that in mind, how could my wife not see that any such decision negated its own answer? In truth, I told her that I was appealing to rome in order to get to the heart of the facts and to have a decision with meaning. Of course her reply was that I was doing this to frustrate her marriage in the Church to her lover. I have done all I have done, because it is what is required of any Catholic spouse, who listens to the Church. I wish you could understand the obligation a Father has to his children, when they say to him, “if you and Mommy are not married than I should not exist!”
This was told to me, in tears, by one of our five children.
Emotion has been a large part of all of this, but it has never had a hand in my decision to defend our marriage.
This is how it happened. After I was served with the nullity petition. I was at a loss. I was absolutly surprised and disoriented. I spoke to a couple of close Catholic friends, our childrens God parents, one of whom includes a Catholic priest. Then, I remembered a lady whose brother was a long time Canon lawyer, he was into his sixties/seventies and this was back in 1991. She put me in touch with him and we met. he reminded me that he did not have access to my wife’s side and that I was obliged to give him the best I could of her side as well as mine. This admonishion was not administered to me lightly, if you understand my meaning. Any decision that he made was contingent upon the information I gave him, which had to be equitable and free from bias, as much as possible. I told him all that I could and he sent me home with the answer that he would get back to me in about a week. He did and he advised me to defend the marriage. So I did. he made it clear that truth was the only option. This was not about me or my wife it was about truth.
If you asked our children you would get a variety of opinions but universally they know our marriage was valid. I am in good relationships with all of them. They tolerate their mother but all have serious issues with her, on many levels. They have had ups and downs with me but nothing on the order of the things with their mother.
On my part, this has never been about vengeance, although I cannot say that I was unhappy when Rome ruled as it did. This has always been about control to my wife. This has always been about her knowing more than anyone who tried to get her to see things from another perspective. The witnesses in large part, outside of our parents, my mother and both my wife’s parents, were the Godparents of our children. The fact that all of the Godparents who testified were of the position in favor of validity, should say something to anyone who reads this. When the American decision was published, I gave it to three sets of close friends(friends of BOTH of ours, including the woman who had been my wife’s c;osest friend) universally to a person, they denied the existance of the characters that the American Tribunalists had created of my wife and myself. All found the decidion to be a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of their sworn testimony.
Yet, in my frustration I had decided not to pursue a Roman Appeal. I was advised otherwise but had made my decision.
Then one early evening shortly after I received the decision from Iowa, I was discussing it in the kitchen of my parentss house, with my mother, where I lived and where our children were visiting for part of the summer in 1993 when I told her dejectedly that I had given up, I was not going to appeal the decision because I could not take the battle with the whole Church. Almost immediatly, in the adjoinging romm we both heard muffled cries and I went into the room to see our daughter, Margaret Mary, facedown in a pillow crying with her whole body shaking. That is when she told me with tears in her eyes which were almost swollen shut that she should not exist if we were not married. After collecting my thoughts I promised her that I would defend our marriage till my last breath! I have kept that promise.
Sandra,
Mrs Karl has deadend her conscience, intentionally. Mrs Karl fancies herself the world’s expert an whatever she sets herself upon if it so pleases her. Her own children have repeatedly ponted out her errors, to her, yet she remains resolute- becasue she has found priests who openly disobey the Catholic Church and support adultery and all the crimes it entails. The “courage” of her conviction rests upon her inability to accept her errors. Her consciounce is not certain, it is browbeaten and subjugated. She cannot face what she has done and continues to do. She knows how brutal she is and she cannot face what her self-rightousness would demand of her if she ever conceded her errors to her conscience and allowed herself to treat herself as she has treated me and our children. This judgement she then transfers to me in her mind, as if I would act as she would, brutally, and uses this to mollify her conscience, falsely, so that she cannot act as she should BECAUSE, I would treat her brutally, without mercy, when in reality the, Karl, whose treatment of her, if she ever admitted her culpability, would be so vicious, is in reality HERSELF, AND the inhumanity of the treatment is so terrifying to her that she chooses this fantasy as has so often repeated this fantasy to herself that she has taught herself that it is true, when it is all her fabrication!
Quite a mess indeed and it will remain so unless some good priest/bishop listens to me, our children and the Godparents and understands the damage that bad priests and bishops have done by, though their enabling my wife in her bad decisions, and sits her down and her lover down separately and informs them of the realities of what has happened and offers help but requires the end of the fantasy and the relationship and a commitment to undoing all that has been done as is possible to be done.
If that is vengeance to any of you, then you are sad folks, indeed, and you are in need of counseling, yourselves, if you can find a competant orthodox Catholic to help you, because you are nuts, BIG TIME!
God be with you.
Karl,although I wrote that I would not address your *case* again, I feel I must at least do so ONE more time,for,as you have taken the time and trouble to address, our / my comments, I deem it only right and decent to at least in return offer you my sympathies,It is most desasterous for your whole family,this I do understand.. What I do not understand is,why,*after*,and not *before* the Rota in Rome,upheld the validity of your marriage you decided to leave the Catholic Church..Or do I missunderstand the timing of the whole issue?
I am now “scratching MY head”
While the calling of names, “damn idiots” etc. may, help you to vent your frustrations, to you, some here might even seem as such, perhaps we are, never the less, it does not, will not ,help your case..
Throughout the *discussion* regarding your issue,I have tried NOT to judge,one way or the other,and will continue in that mode.. I have made a few hypothesis(as have others),they were ment to be just that and no more… I have not the authority nor the knowledge to *judge* ..
You,on the other hand, HAVE full knowledge, of the far reaching consequences, to yourself and your family, the decision to leave the Catholic Church will have.. Your children have (as you state), been devastated by the decision your wife / their mother made, now you, confront them with another, just as bad.. Is this fair… I do not know… I hope you do..
With this I will end my participation on this *specific* subject,wishing you, all that you wish for yourself.
Life is not fun and games much of the time. Ideas have real consequences and the idea I addressed with the damn idiot retort, deserves that retort and actually deserves a lecture by the Opus Dei priest , whom I think started this post. That being said, the decision I made was appropriate in view of the tremendous, unrepented evil that the Catholic Church is actively about in reagrds to marriage. My wifes decisons are far more damaging to our children then mine and the reason that is is because they see my actions are faithful to my promises to them and each of them has no doubt at all of my deep love for the Catholic Church.
Just as their ARE TIMES when separating from ones spouse is an act of MERCY to bring attention to that spouses
injury to a marriage, so is my leaving the Catholic Church an act of MERCY to bring the Church to repentance, which I know will not happen and that makes it why I HAD TO ACT AS I DID. Because, I know the Catholic Church is beyond caring about what its actions are doing, I am forbidden to be part of that. I tried for 16 or 17 years to work inside the Church but to no good end.
Whomeever it was that mentioned that perhaps I had hoped the tribunal decision would give pause to reflect, which someone said something similar about in this thread, hit the nail on the head. Since a Rotal decision is a Papal decision I hoped priests would heed it and advise my wife to work to repair our relationship but quite the opposite they(every priest she has contacted from the parishes in which she and her lover have participated) have counseled her to remain with her lover because the decision of two separate groups of the best, most competent, most experience Canon lawyers in the Catholic Church, acting in union with the Pope and following his specific instructions for their decisions, ARE WRONG!
That leaves nothing else to say. It means that nothing matters at all in the Church, if these heretical priests cannot be brought to justice. I have tried and it has gotten nowhere, so I cannot remain in this whore of a Catholic Church. I cannot be an enabler of such blatent disregard for marriage, truth and everything that the Church teaches. I hope that God forgives me, but my decision is not for evil but for good.
tou are free to believe what you want. I have no ill will toward you or anyone here. But you are part of it and therefore helping the Church that holds me prisoner and assists my wife in her persecution of my family, by allowing her refuge in it to maintain the strength of her attacks, rather than openly and publicly, though excommunication, calling her and her lover to repentance. The Church cannot say that it is not evil because of Jesus. It is evil because of its chosen actions. It cannot stand behind the image of Jesus to avoid accountability.
God be with you, Sandra. Do pray for me.
Never say never, that is what my wife did and to say never, insults God.
Dear Karl,
I am happy you are back now, and pray with fervor to Mary you will, if not reply to me, at least read my words to you now.
You say that you are not persecuting, but are the persecuted.
Karl. all of us in this very large Community in the Church Millitant are suffering from the Church, in one way or another, willingly or not.
Many many a time, I have reminded myself of this since coming here to Father’s blog. Father gave me insights I never had before, opened doors for me that I don’t know would have ever been opened.. if left to my own devices, without helps along the way, I would wonder what would have happened..
Lets say this, my life would have been very different, and I cringe to think of what could have been.
At least, you did not get upset with me (at least openly) for bringing up judgment. For that, I know you are still desireous of coming home- as truth does not offend you.
Nor should it.
I see you have pain, a deep pain that no one here can fathom. I wish to again, as I did not misread that part- remind you I am here to help you carry that Cross, as I love it as much as Simon ended up loving it. Not willing initially, but then after God’s Grace light a path, I now feel that it only right I also offer any such aid to any hurting deeply.
From the last time I was here, I have prayed the Divine Mercy and kept Holy Hour for your intentions Karl.
I also will be going to weekly daily Mass again, when my child is recouped from cold symptoms. My child says the Our Father and the Hail Mary in the shower each day, and I asked her to add your name to all we pray for in our personal prayer at the end. You have 2 of us praying for you Karl. We are not much, but he hears her at least.
I confessed my sins to all here, and if anything I said was hurtful to you Karl, yesterday. I do not know if I did sin against you, but I felt I should tell the Lord I wish not to harm you, or anyone else.
I come in peace.
I mentioned Holy Hour Karl, I did so for a reason- take it with a grain of salt as you should. I am not an expert, and it sounds as if you have certainly put much heart soul and consideration into this.
However, I will not retract one single line I said.
Your persecution- is an honor. Until you see it that way- you will be in endless pain.
They may not understand or even mock the sanctity of marriage- you however have no excuse- to divorce the Bride of Christ, as She is NOT doing this to you Karl.
As you heal, you will see that this is merely a splinter of the Cross, you are blessed to have.
PS Father, I read the Trib last night. I saw your comment, and I took it to Kinko’s (name of a copy place, nothing socxual about it) and had it laminated and safe in my scrapbook. I will not let them do to you what they did to Sheen.
One PS to Karl, (note I metion one…)
I do not have any interest in the purient details, unless you want me to be.
My only concern Karl, is for your soul. As should be yours also, I am sure you will have no objection to my concern.
Pray for me also Karl, if you find it in your heart to do so, as I need it as much, or more than you.
So, okay, we’re talking! That’s great.
Hi Karl. Glad you’re back. As you can see, we’ve been thinking about (and praying for) you and your family these past few days. You can all count on many more prayers ahead as well.
As I’ve said before, I truly believe that you seek more than just to vent. I’m no psychoanalyst – (in fact, I don’t even know if that’s the profession who would do this anyway), but from your comments that I’ve read here and in other places, I hope you don’t mind if I, in a sincere sense of charity, offer my thoughts as to what’s motivating you.
(I need to make a quick preface. I don’t mean to be presumptuous but given that we never know how long we’ll be communicating to each other in the blogosphere environment, I’m breaking boundaries of civility and protocol a little bit here. I hope you understand. In “real life,” I’d much rather get together for a coffee or beer and chat this out rather than such blunt messages. I guess we can blame Al Gore for inventing this Internet thing, huh?)
The first goal is obvious enough—to make public what you see as systemic problems in the Church’s annulment process, specifically at the local (non-Rotal) level, and to encourage others to “join the bandwagon”/admonish them for what you see as their errors.
There also seems to be a second reason, though not as visible. You mention that your decision to continue the case forward to Rome after the US tribunal gave its decision of nullity, was borne of the love and tenderness you felt compelled to show your Margaret Mary back in 1993. You’ve disclosed recently on a different site that “your youngest daughter is very troubled” by your defection from the Catholic Faith, and that “her heartbreak hurts” you deeply.
Karl, I‚Äôve read the decision of the Rota. I‚Äôve read the testimony of your father-in-law regarding you: ‚Äúhe’s a very good father‚Äù and ‚ÄúHe did spend a lot of time playing with the kids and seemed really very fond of the kids.” A mutual friend of yours and your wife said about you: ‚ÄúHis spare time was always spent with the children… I don’t believe [he] was less able to be a good husband and father than my own husband.”
I think any father would (and should) be proud to have such proof of his love for his children. I’m pretty awestruck by it all, quite frankly. I don’t know how often your prayers are in the form of thanksgiving these days (as opposed to petition or intercession, etc.), but you actually have a lot to be thankful for in your children and in the true sense of fatherhood that God has given you.
I don’t know if Margaret Mary is your youngest, i.e., the one you mentioned being troubled by you leaving the Faith. If she is, you have (at least) one amazing daughter in your corner—without knowing it, she “led” you to Rome back in 1993 and again now she is showing you that Rome is where you need to stay. (If it isn’t Margaret Mary this time, then you are in big trouble, for you have at least 2 of your daughters at different times showing you the way. You’ve obviously prayed for their souls over the years and God cannot be outdone in charity- especially towards His little ones.)
Tony, my comment about you being a lawyer and reading the CCC, its not a joke. My child’s godfather- his wife- she says “it’s too hard to navigate” so I bought her a compendium for Christmas.
It has not helped her according to her thank you card, and she graduated from very good Catholic Schools.
She is currently attending protestant services during the week. I am a bit leary of those who assume its very simple.
to you, and even to me- its clear as daylight.
Not all Tony.
Margaret Mary,
A great name. My Aunt Margaret, who I shyly asked if I could list in the names in the book in Church on All Saints Day my first year being a Catholic. My Husband told me not to, as she was not a Catholic.
I cried for hours after that, when he did not notice it. I loved her so dearly.
Father’s quote is so very simillar to Sheen’s, and allthough Father was speaking of the visit to America that Holy Father will be taking here, (I feel especially blessed, that I will be celebrating his being here at the same time I will be thanking the Lord for my birth, which led to my child being here, through the many prayers to Mary)
Sunday Trib
By Margaret Ramirez and Christine Spolar
Tribune Reports
(front page- 3 years in, pontiff blazing own path)
Cont to page 18
First column, under bold: Pastoral role emerges:
(Cardial George is mentioned…..
then, go to Father Wauck-
Para 5-
“The reason it’s important to Benedict is that the Liturgy goes to the heart of Catholic identity. There is the saying, ‘You are what you eat.’ Well, in Catholicism, ‘You are what you pray,’ Wauck said.
“Maybe America is the next place for him to make a statement,” he added.
(sorry I must log off, there is a preface I did not type, and more yet. )
The Church is big enough for you both Karl. If its big enough for Alexandar, its big enough for you both.
If its big enough for Judas to have been in it, its big enough for you both to be in it.
Never was there a time there was not someone in it, who would not have scandalized you.
Sandra,
First 8-|
Then followed by :S ? 
Keep thinking
Helen,
It’s wonderful to see your posts this evening.
I have similar discussions with relatives and friends, such as the “too difficult to navigate” comment you heard. I just think it’ a matter of perspective and openness to what is being taught. As you know, if someone wants to find out what the Church says on a certain topic, it really is very well organized. Not hard to get through the Table of Contents, Subject Index in the back, etc.
Besides, wouldn‚Äôt one expect something called ‚ÄúThe Catechism of the Catholic Church‚Äù to be kind of dense? After all, it does contain a lot of information. I‚Äôve often thought of snapping back with ‚ÄúYeah, it would be a lot easier to get through it if they took about 45% of the stuff out of there‚Äù — just to see the looks on their faces. Kind of proves the silliness of their argument.
The other alternative would be to make it into a much less dense and easier-to-navigate 10-volume set – complete with more pictures and pie charts. That would surely accomplish one of the main objectives of a catechism, which is to maximize availability and that it is actually used. Can you imagine 10-volume sets lining the walls of huts in some remote village?
Dear Sandra,
I am reading now St Paulus, 17 acts
He made only 2 converts there. It was a failure. Not even a church established by him here., except for 2.
“when 2 or more …”
Dionysiua and Damaris.
You know why he failed?
He never mentioned the name of Christ, or His Crucifixion.
Later in Corinth, he decided to say:
I am resolved amoung you to know nothing but Christ and Him Crucified.”
He was humble enough, to admit he did not know how to deal with all peoples at their points of life.
Pray for us St. Paul
Should read:
Dionysius!
You know what I meant, right? (hiding in the safe comfort of the basement to toss in another load)
Tony, I am glad we are at peace now (at least I pray we are)
Let me stay in this illusion, if that is what it is.
You say you are still Josip’s brother (I am only starting to worry about him, and pray he is well, and either on to better things, or just laughing at us now!)
I do hope he comes back.
I need his help to find the best way to say, I love you to a Priest who has served 50 years, coming up very soon, who I also dearly love, and was instrumental to my being a RCIA candidate. I can assure you, had it not been for that Irish man, with those compassionate eyes, I would be EO now.
What Father remined me of in his interview with the good people that printed his words on the paper I read yesterday..
Was this: As Paul puts it:”We are transfigured into His likeness, from splendor to splendor.”
We become like that which we gaze upon. Looking into a sunset, the face takes on a golden glow. Looking at the Eucharistic Lord for on hour transforms the heart in a mysterious way as the face of Moses was transformed after his companionship with God on the Mountian…..
Sheen
a man not honored in his own country, like Christ!
Also, to note-
On Labor Day, 1955, he became the first Latin Rite Bishop in history to offer a Solemn Byzantine Rite Mass in English.
How many even know how to do this now? And thanks to Sheen, it was at very least brought to the forefront.
Prior to me even knowing the difference.
He was a man who will never achive what his due is.
Just Like Christ.
All the more, I pray for his “official cannonization” knowing all the while, he is with the Lady in Blue.
Praying for the Church, Praying for Karl
lifting up that finger in the hospital, while dying- and offering hope
with a fingertip
…
(cont. from my last post Karl)
Sheen is praying for you also, I just believe it, I know it in my heart, and I do hope you will think of others sufferings in this time, and join with us all in the Church Millitant, in our sorrows, in our tears, our cries to God, in the Psalms-
Be with us now, in your very heart
Think about the scars on Jesus.
Will you have any? Will he recognize you on that day?
Did you follow him always?
Only you know this Karl.
Only you.
IN the meantime, the body is wondering what happened to that essential limb., that cut itself off.
From the body of Christ Himself Karl.
It must pain Him? No?
If he knows the number of hairs on your head, how much so more, he knows what you did Karl?
He asked:
Do you Love me?
If Peter himself, could be crucifyed upside down, could you not for one moment, one breath-
Think of how many times even Peter Denied Him?
Will you also?
Read the Gospel of John again, please. See how it is where and when Judas betrays. First, he steals.
Look at the scriptures, and repent
It is the Eucharist you are in a dillemma with?
Helen, of course we’re at peace (and just in the phony “absence of war” way—genuine peace…of heart).
Okay, Helen, for you, I will give it my best shot at getting Josip to respond. Keep in mind that he may just be busy, vacation, etc., so I wouldn’t read into it. (Keep in mind that Father hasn’t been on for just as long but I’m pretty sure that he’ll be back. Um…Father?)
This is the Easter Season so if this doesn’t elicit a response, I’m confident he’s not checking his messages, for I trust that he would not read this and not respond.
Josip, Sretan Uskrs.
Kraljica neba, raduj se! Aleluja!
Thank you both, Helen and Tony.
Are you Byzantine(s,if sodo you have connections in the Byzantine Catholic Church of any significance.
This is becasue the Priest who currently comforts and her adulterous lover is a Byzantine Rite Pastor in the Passaic Eparchy, under the New Eparch/Bishop.
My pray life is very, although not completely, neglected and I KNOW that persecution is a CLOSER WALK with Jesus. But I have met too many people on the internet who are broken by their spouses and the real persecution of the Catholic Church, as it ministers, in appeasement mode only, to their persecutors and as it abandones the true victims, the kids of the first/valid marriages and the abandoned spouses. It is CRIMINAL and the Bishops of the world should see to it that the perps, incuding the last two Popes, are expelled from the priesthood, the case for JPII sainthood should be PUBLICALLY STOPPED and they should insist on insertion of Canons to explicitly deal with unjust divorce and the handling of wounded marriages in a very different manner.
It can be done. This Pope would resign, with moral certainty, if a case was made to him, from the things we respondents would testify to if we were ever given the opportunity to in an official inquiry. I believe he has that much resopect for his fellow Bishops, but nothing less would do it and it should be done.
A conservative of some type of Spanish/African hertitage should then be named the next Pope and the house cleaning begin with marriage and respect for it, with enforced Canon Law. There would be schisms, for sure and a much smaller catholic Church but a real Catholic Church. The lawsuits would fly and the attornies, sorry Tony, would be thrilled.
Such is my fantasy.
tTe care and God be with you.
karl
BTW, the Catechism,although not as fully orthodox as it should be regarding marriage, is the book I always ask Catholic and non-Catholics who ask about Catholicsm, to get and to read, cover to cover.
Thank you both for your prayer and I will try to remember you both as well.
I am at work will very little time. The troubled daughter is, of all names like Augtines mother, Monica.
Today I am sending some oldies CD’s to my daughter Margaret Mary, via her sister Mary, who is driving down to
visit the majority of my family who live in the Raleigh, NC area, where their mother and her lover finally settled. Mary is to be the Godmother of our fourth grandchild, who is Mrgaret’s daughter.
QUick comment on the CCC– (discussion above between Helen and Tony) I’ve always found it wonderfully elegant, and my highschool kids have had no trouble using it as a reference for Religion essays– I’ve even noticed them reading sections of it just on their own from time to time. Between it, and Fr. John Hardon’s catechism, along with The Faith Explained, I feel we’ve got a good group of sources in the house that are accessible.
Prayers for Monica, Karl.
Karl,
Congratulations on your new granddaughter.
In answer to your question, I am Roman rite (my whole life). I suspect, however, that the rite of your wife’s priest wouldn’t have anything to do with his attitudes, actions, etc. If he’s Catholic, his beliefs are the same as Roman rite. (I suspect you knew that but just to be sure.)
Monica’s her name, huh? Well, even though theirs is a similar precedent for it, let’s not make the young lady pray 40 years for her DAD to come (back) to the Faith, okay?
Tony
“A conservative of some type of Spanish/African hertitage should then be named the next Pope and the house cleaning begin with marriage and respect for it, with enforced Canon Law.”
Spanish/African heritage? That seems a little specific direction to give the Holy Spirit, doesn’t it? How did you come up with that? Do you have someone in mind whose name you want to whisper in the Holy Spirit’s “ear” or do you know that people of that ethnicity/culture will always do a fine job on marital issues?
I’m obviously being tongue-in-cheek above, to break the ice here. But to this point, I at least understood your basis for what you were saying. But this one seems to have come out of left field.
Now if you had said he should be Croatian, that would make sense, but Spanish/African…? (Inside joke, Karl. A couple of us here are Croatian. Another attempt at a joke.)
“The lawsuits would fly and the attornies, sorry Tony, would be thrilled.”
He he he. Seriously, Karl, there’s really no need to apologize. Honest. In fact, you know what? I think I’m starting to see a Pope of Spanish/African heritage making a lot of sense right about now. (Alright, I’ll stop now. Back to work.)
The Spanish/African is because of the general conservative style of their Catholicism. Others would be welcome provided they are more conservative than those we have had in my lifetime, which began During the reign of Pius XII.
SOME, not all, Buzantines hold positions regarding marriage that are NOT LATIN. They lean towrds the adultery OKing position of the Grrek Orthodox, who allow second and third marriages.
I am very sensitive to this as I have heard this said about their “tolerance” for those living in aduterous relationships by some who know their theological orientations from personal knowledge. Also, my wife was counseled into divorce by a Catholic priest who converted from Anglicanism, who was quite liberal and who told me that I did not understand what the Catholic Church taught regarding marriage/divorce/annulment just before he hung up on mewhile telling me I should start my own Church.
I was also advised of the Byzantines by a Greek Orthodox priest who, long before my wife and her lover ever attended any Byzantine Church, when he heard of the circumstances I described, told me she and he would likely gravitate their because of the “desire” for reunification among these communions, the greater autonomy granted to the extra Latin Rites in the Catholic Church under JPII, and the vain hope that Rome would allow such freedom regarding marriage. This priest told me he found Rome’s position regarding marriage more akin to his taste but he was Orthodox to the core. His guestimation was right on. I had never heard of the Byzantine Catholic Rite until he told me of it. Now I have very mixed feeling for the Pope having restored such traditions and would likely favor their repression even if it meant many left the Catholic Church. In my opinion the danger and temptation to heresy and to marriage have been proven to me. I am living its fruit.
Tony, I do not want to remain outside the Catholic Church but it must see its errors or I have no choice as I see it. If I return, then that would mean I have accepted the fact that I, myself, could live in adultery and it would be acceptable to God, because it is acceptable to the Church, with a “wink and a nod”.
Believe me, I do not like being alone. If I crossed paths with the right woman the temptation would be significant. I do not allow myself to go there. BTW, I am now more convinced than ever of the rationality of a celibate priesthood. If that changed I would leave the Church over that as well, now. It is like plating with a live grenade!
karl
Just a short reply here, Karl. I think the term “Byzantine” doesn’t always mean the same thing. It is often just an umbrella term for “Eastern.” There may be a church historian out here who can help out but I didn’t think their traditions were “restored” by any recent Pope. There were many rites in existence most of the other rites became defunct along the way, but the Byzantine rite has survived for centuries.
If I have this wrong, please let me know. That was what I thought I remember being taught.
“If I return, then that would mean I have accepted the fact that I, myself, could live in adultery and it would be acceptable to God, because it is acceptable to the Church, with a “wink and a nod”.”
Karl, I’ll have to get back to you on that one when I have a couple more minutes. But real quickly: you and I both know that of course you could not come back and take another wife.
“Believe me, I do not like being alone. If I crossed paths with the right woman the temptation would be significant.”
Temptation comes to those who live with their spouses, too, Karl. BTW, that temptation would be of the flesh. It would not make her “the right woman.”
Temptation comes to the celibate priest, too. Hey, let’s stick with one reason for leaving the Church at a time. You haven’t even come back yet and you’re already talking about the next reason to leave. You’re killing us here. (Just kidding.)
So much for short replies. Hey, when did I let on that I was an attorney? Or are you just going off the length of my posts?
…and bad jokes?
Duh, Helen and me on the CCC/attorney angle, of course. Well, clearly not an investigator.
Hi! Tony, I think it is the “dab-hand” you have developed with those emoticons that gives you away..
Long posts and “bad jokes”, that would make ME then your colleague..
Does anyone know IF Father Wauck is traveling to the USA with Pope Benedickt?? If so I am looking forward to reading his ‘report’ when he gets back..
(of course, not soooo soon, as we all wish our present one to be around for a long time yet)
By the way Tony, What about a Scotsman for Pope
“that would make ME then your colleague.. ”
Ouch. Now who’s being wicked.
Friends,
I just now received word that a colleague of mine was killed yesterday in a mortar attack in Iraq. He’s been back and forth on a couple different tours, and had just recently gone back there. Leaves behind a wife and three children, I believe.
Please pray for Stu and his family.
MOST terrible news Tony. I am so very sorry to hear that…I will keep them in my thoughts and prayers when praying for my daughter this evening… You may know that my father was in the british armed forces we were always in fear of hearing such news of him.. I really am so sad to hear of young men being killed…so far from home..
I am very sorry to hear of another tragedy.
Prayers for Stu and family today.
I had some problems with logging, so I tried with new e-mail and password.
test
Josip
Tony, I cannot say a greeting to you for Easter, as you said me in your last post, partially written in Croatian, because you lost a friend and colleague. Queen of Heaven (Kraljice Neba) pray for him and his family!
In relations of two Catholics and Croatians nothing bad can happen, nor was happen. As well as Tradition is necessary to understand Scriptures, knowing of Croatian (our “private” – public correspondence) is necessary to understand our conversation (posts) in English.
Helen, I am always in One, True Faith. Your prayers I always appreciate, because they come from innocent and pure heart.
Thanks everyone for the prayers. Josip, I’m very glad to hear from you.
I’m not the type to go around “canonizing” everyone who dies, etc. It can certainly be harmful to the soul of the departed when we take on the air of presuming a good person has gone to Heaven, that we tend to neglect to pray for his soul. That is not my intention here at all. Rather, I think Stu did some interesting things that are worth sharing, and I think it’s also helpful (when commending his soul and his family to your prayers) to know a little bit about the situation.
Stu was a major in the Army Reserves, serving as a logistics officer, on his second tour in Iraq since 2004. The first tour was for 16 months from August, 2004 to November, 2005. He leaves behind his wife and three daughters, ages 5, 3, and 1. He was in Iraq when his second daughter was born. When he was called up for his most recent tour, he asked for a delay because his wife was pregnant again. After she had their third child, he returned to Iraq in January, 2008 what was to be a one-year tour.
He was also a volunteer of the Boy Scouts International Association in Baghdad, stating that he wanted to help develop the natural virtues in the children of Iraq.
Tony he sounds like a very good person.. I feel so very much for his wife and children,also all his other relations.. I hope they find the strenth to get through the very emotianaly hard time ahead..
I live here amongst families of the british forces,the men are mostly alternatively doing service in either Iraq or Afganistan.. I have some friends among those wifes.. some have suffered loss of their husbands, some husbands have been very badly injured.. We hear every day that so many brave men lose life and limb, though the whole tragic *hits home* when one knows the person personally. I will keep him and his family in my daily prayers..
Happy Karl and Josip are back, sad to hear about Stu and his little angels, and wife.
Tony, one can “go around cannonizing” some if one has Moral Certainty that they are in the book of Life. Of course, as you rightly point out, there are “drawbacks” to it, however I personally do not see it so black and white. I see quite a bit of grey the color I think crayola ought to name mercy., as it so very nicely fills in all the blanks.
I have given much of what you said over into prayer since reading your comments last time here Karl, and I will say I did feel even more pain reading some comments that I just saw now. I tell you this, not to make you feel guilty for being honest about how you are doing through all this, but because I am letting you know that I am not glossing over your posts, but reading each word carefully, as I am ashamed I did not at the very start, again I do apologize for that.
I will for now, not mention the words that really hurt reading, but I do want to ask you about this one:
Tony, I do not want to remain outside the Catholic Church but
BUT
As my father called it, the magic word. The type of magic, that would make a belt appear suddenly and be rapidly applied to my rear end with a good degree of force behind it. To this very day, I think about the word BUT and cant help but think of the other one with just one more letter. Its a good thing, back in those days, he did not end up in jail or be required to take a sensitivity or parenting course over it. It was not the worst thing really, in fact it may have been exactly what I needed. Today, I get that punishment verbally as you have seen here. LOL (just kidding)
My father could not stand that word, as it was always used by me in preface to a “reason” (read: excuse) as to why something was not done, done poorly, or done in direct defiance to a iron clad rule. In all cases, his anger was justifyed.
If I can again- without provoking anyone- bring up another controversial topic in way of a story that of course, is in the Sheen Autobiography (where else?) It just jumped out at me for this occasion- know I mean well as I tell you this one.
On page 100 Sheen notes listening to a preacher discussing Revelation (the churches mentioned)
and the preacher said:
“It seems to me that many people are going to Hell on their ‘buts.’”
Well, here there is a “but”, such as lost love, a cold church, or allowing false prophets to teach. The only 2 churches that were approved without any criticism were the churches that suffered…
(I take the direct approach Karl, I do so knowing that long corridors are NOT ALWAYS necesarry as entrances to a palace room! )
Karl, it is hard for you to kick against the goad. It is just as true for you as it was to the man that comment was directed to in the Holy Scriptures.
And, I am sorry, I do not know anyone of influence in the Byzantine rite, however- I agree with Tony on his observation that it would not or should not make a large difference in his pastoral reccomendations to those in this situation.
I am delighted for you about your grandchild! There is absolutely nothing better than the smell of a newborn. I can just smell that child now. Heavenly. Certainly I will be thinking of the blessings God has given you Karl, and I know you do also.
I will try to sneak back in a bit.
God love you all
Oh, and Tony- as I am married to a lawyer- I can suss them out miles away.
Also, my wife was counseled into divorce by a Catholic priest who converted from Anglicanism, who was quite liberal and who told me that I did not understand what the Catholic Church taught regarding marriage/divorce/annulment just before he hung up on mewhile telling me I should start my own Church.
Start your own Church? What a ridiculous and insulting thing to say.
Some humor for you about Anglicans, since I thought I read a good joke about one recently. Ah, yes- Sheen!
page 300-
On a train trip from New York to Boston, I sat next to an Episcopalian clergyman. We began a friendly discussion on the validity of Anglican Orders. He contended he was a priest as much as I was, the he could offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and that he could forgive sins. He was well versed in history and in theology and our discussion proved to be so interesting that many passengers gathered around us to listen to the friendly debate. He got of the train at Providence. He advanced several steps, then turned around and, facing the audience we both enjoyed, thought he would give me the last telling challenge by saying: “Remember Bishop Sheen, I can do anything you can do.” I just had time to answer:”No you can’t. I can kiss your wife, but you can’t kiss mine.”
LOL
We are never allowed to do evil with hopes good will come of it. Never.
OOPS! I remember getting into doo doo for a prior anglican joke in the past. I wish I could say I was sorry for this, but if a Bishop can make jokes…
Also, angels can fly becauze they can take themselves lightly. This life is not the one to be serious about, after all.
Dear me! I used a Z instead of an s. I blame Webkinz.
Loved the quote from +Sheen. As a cradle Catholic who left to become Episcopalian, and is now thinking hard (maybe too hard) about coming home, I’m finding this particular place in the blogosphere an interesting one indeed. Almost as much fun as Tim Horton’s … perhaps even more.
There’s a Tim’s in Ann Arbor?
Wow Is there a Tim’s in Ann Arbor? Great joke Helen. I love Bishop Sheen’s stories.
Tony, I will pray for Stu and his family.
Looks like it’s Abp. Sheen Appreciation Time. Here’s my favorite one. It’s from memory so I hope I have it close.
A reporter from the secular press asked the Archbishop if the story of Jonah being in the whale’s belly for 3 days is to be taken literally or just symbolically—since everyone knows that no one can survive in the belly of a whale for 3 days! Archbishop Sheen replied, “I don’t know. When I die, God willing I go to Heaven, I’ll ask Jonah.” The reporter, thinking he was smart, shot back, “What if Jonah didn’t make it to Heaven?”
Archbishop Sheen replied, “Well then you ask him.”
You are good Tony! Right on the money from memory. There are so many funny lines in his book, too many to post! (but, you know I will anyway…)
Hello and welcome Jerry.
Jerry,
Sheen is a real riot. Here is one you may like:
In the early days when I was on national radio, a man came into St. Patrick’s Cathedral one Monday morning and, not recognizing me, said: “Father, I want to go to Confession. I commute from Westchester every day. I had three friends with me-all Protestants. I became very angry and spoke most disparigingly and bitterly of that young priest that is on the radio, Dr. Fulton Sheen. I just cannot stand him. He drives me crazy. I am afraid that I probably scandalized those men by the way I talked about a priest. So, will you hear my confession?” I said: “My good man, I don’t think you committed a serious sin. There are moments in my life when I share exactly the same opinion about Dr. Sheen that you do. Go to Communion and reserve your confession for another day.”
He left very happily, saying:” It certainly is wonderful to meet a priest like you.”
Sheen
Sheen-
A good retort is always enjoyed by an audience. One of the brilliant ones that I recall was that of the great Methodist preacher John Wesley. In the sermon he quoted a word of Greek and then the Hebrew to explain a text.
Someone in the audience shouted: “God does not need your learning.” To which Wesley retorted” “He does not need your ignorance either.”
LOL
I like that one also! Good on him.
Another mother wrote that her son was under her feet in the kitchen and she said to him:”Go into the parlor, turn on the television, listen to Bishop Sheen. He’s smart. You will learn something.” He did as he was told and the moment I appeared on television, I was writing the word “s*x” on the blackboard. He ran out to his mother and said: “He is not so smart. He doesn’t know how to spell six.”
Sheen
(for you socks fans)
Tony, am I going to get in trouble for copyright laws quoting all this?
One Sunday, preaching in a parish church in Ohio, a mother in the front seat got up with a crying child and quickly made her exit down the middle isle. I stopped the sermon and said: “Madame, do not worry, the child is not disturbing me.” She said: “No, but you’re disturbing the child.”
Sheen
They haven’t gone after Uncle Miltie yet, and he didn’t even give credit for the jokes he ripped off. Seems to me you’re doing fine.
(This message is not to be construed as legal advice nor does it in any way establish an attorney-client relationship.)
Fulton Sheen, may you pray for us to remember to laugh at the small things. And, pay attention to the big things.
There is a vertical and horizontal beam of the Cross.
Lets think about that.
So right again Tony. Sheen never minded about that. In fact, he thanks him for crediting him for “funnies” he never said.
He knocked Frank Sinatra out of the ball park on air.
He was good. He was able to knock out a “wiseguy”.
You wont take me as a client?
Well, I always have Josip to take me as a mental case.
I always look for lemonade where I get lemons.
“I gave many lectures in Philadelphia and each year for a number of years, one was given at the Town Hall. One evening I lost my way ans I asked for a few boys for directions. They told me where it was and then they asked: “What are you going to do there?” I said: “I’m going to give a lecture.”
“On what?” they asked. I did not tell them the title of the lecture but simplified it by saying: “Boys, I’m going to talk on Heaven and how to get there. Would you like to come find out?”
They said:” You don’t even know how to get to the way to the Town Hall.”
Sheen
God love him
Forgive the obvious typos. (another way to look for a loophole on my part for the quotes)
For Tony,
On the occasion of the Emmy Awards every recipient thanked producers, directors, friends, colleagues and assistants. When my name was called out for an award, I was momentarily lost for words and then it struck me: since everyone was thanking others, I should say a word of thanks too.
“I wish to thank my writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”
By the way, my other fave priest got a local Emmy for his coverage of the installation of Bernadin. Archbishop of Chicago.
God bless him also, (and he is just as funny, trust me on that)
Helen,allthough life IS not a “bag of fun and games”..Humor IS a gift,we should remeber that more often…. It can prevent us from becoming bitter.. “a laugh,or smile a day,helps keep the doctor at bay”
(slight allteration to that well known poverb about apples)..
Thanks, one and all, for the Sheen-ucopia. Made this grey wanting-to-be-spring day here in Michigan a bit more bearable.
Michelle, Diane: yes, despite the fact that it’s what many call “The Peoples’ Republic of Ann Arbor” and just recently celebrated the annual Hash Bash on the University Diag, Ann Arbor has it’s very own Tim’s. As does Livonia, near Schoolcraft College where I used to teach before foolishly resuming doctoral studies in my fifth decade. As does the benighted burg of Farmington Hills, less than a mile from the Presbyterian Church that presently employs me.
And all of them have better coffee than the ubiquitous Starbuccos just around the corner from most of them.
A quick bit of coffee humour: one of the competing chains in Michigan used to be called “Beaners.” I got to know them because they offered cheap refills for students at the Student Union at Michigan State, where I did my last round of studies. Recently they migrated to Ann Arbor, but changed their name; apparently someone told them that “beaner” is a term of some substantial disrespect for illegal immigrants in the Southwest.
Now to what matters more: is anyone aware of an OD priest in my area? I really **am** serious about wanting to talk with someone about finding my way home. Prayers, please…and help?
Jerry, my friend, hear me out, please. I was all set to write you off! There you were, bragging about all the “liberal” access you have to timbits in your neck of the woods, whilst we here in Minnesota just wait and wait. Kandahar has a location before Minnesota (True!). Go figure.
But then…you “redeemed” yourself. (That was NOT a theological reference to redemption, so no one start with me on that.
)
It just so happens that I had dinner this past Monday evening who is from…Ann Arbor! I kid you not. He goes to Opus Dei formation in Ann Arbor. I know another person who lives in Ann Arbor who is Opus Dei. Short answer is that we can absolutely put someone in contact with you. How can they reach you?
I don’t think you’ll want to put out your personal info on the blog and it looks like Father may be working on something that’s kept him away. If anyone has a suggestion, please chime in.
In the meantime, you can be sure of many many prayers from all of us, Jerry. I hope you know I was kidding, above. But if we ever meet, it’ll have to be at a Tim Horton’s, okay?
Tony
I’m in lurking mode… Work has been kind of hectic as I had a lot of adjustments to make.
Anyway, in my part of the world, the big issue is still the matter of artificial contraception with a lot of “cafeteria Catholics” thinking that there’s nothing wrong with it since unlike abortion, nobody gets killed. Some of these people are actually active in charismatic groups or parish based organizations as well… people are pious but there is still a lot of doctrinal apostolate to be done here.
Tony, that’s truly awesome news! Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Please have them email me at voicesraised@gmail.com … that much I’m willing to put out here. I can always put spam filtering on anything I don’t want to contend with. And yes, of course I know you were kidding. I’ll buy the first round of coffee when you come to visit… three creams and (sadly) one sugar in my large, please.
Jerry
And thanks, most of all, for your prayers. The fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, eh?
Jerry
Okay, one more while the rest of you are away: for what it’s worth, I didn’t intend to brag about the plenitude of Tims in my neck of the woods (it hardly redeems some of the other drawbacks of living in a town best known for being home to a professional football team with a university attached, for instance).
But as Bernanos’ character says at the end of the book, “Grace is everywhere…” Yes, Virginia: even in Ann Arbor. And now to work, planning handbell and chancel choir rehearsals, and then actually conducting them. I look forward to hearing from one and all.
Jerry
Got your message, Jerry. I‚Äôll pass it on. You’ll hopefully hear from someone within a few days.
Helen,allthough life IS not a “bag of fun and games”..Humor IS a gift,we should remeber that more often…. It can prevent us from becoming bitter.. “a laugh,or smile a day,helps keep the doctor at bay”
(slight allteration to that well known poverb about apples)..
Sandra, I kid you not, I had 3 apples today. , and there are no doctors in sight at the moment.
Tony,and all others,firstly,may I say that I do not in any way consider your comment’s regarding “Tim’s” as being *flipant*,nor are mine ment to be seen as *begrudging*..ok?
While reading the comments, straight away came to my mind,the tragic death of your friend. (and many, too many,more friends and loved ones).
The thought was,and still is, while I most certainly believe that those brave men deserve,the comfort (while away from home) of having to be able to enjoy the “pleasure” of obtaining their “Tim’s”, .. I ask simply,would it be too presumptious to hope, that the “Company” at least donate a substantial procent of profits from their sales, to obtaining more, and or better, “BODY ARMOUR” for just those troops(both in Iraq an Afganistan)?….which the Gouvernments of both the USA and UK. seem not to be able (due to lack of *funds*)to provide. Or are they giving the coffee and other products free of ANY charge? If this is so, then, I appologise to “Tim’s” (allthough the positive *marketing* effect is quite “profitable” both at home for now,in the future in Iraq )
This of course applies to many more “entrprises”, currenty operating in many countries..
Tim Horton‚Äôs is more than likely greatly apreciated, but how much more would the nescesary protective equipent which, would help save “life and limb”, be wellcomed..
The term “carpet baggers” comes to mind.. We may recall the quote– “never can “opertunists” make more money than,directly before,during and after a WAR”!!
Sorry to be so “down to earth,spoil sport” on this, but those are my thoughts..BTW.. most on this blog know of my rejection to war in any “cause”– which,does not mean,I do not respect the people, who give up their health and in lots of cases their lives,while doing their duty..
On another subject, Jerry,you never disclosed (which you are ofcourse not compelled to) any reason for your leaving the Catholic Church to join another… Karl had (for himself) reasons,which resulted in his leaving,allthough he did, explicitly, state he would not “join another”.. You do not have to answer..
I was just , “thinking out loud”.. no offence ment..
Forgot to write;- “concerning Tim’s in Kandahar (Afghanistan)” sorry..
Helen… you just keep those *Apples* coming
Tony, thanks much. I look forward to hearing from your A2 friends. Meanwhile, please keep the prayers coming.
Helen, you’re right . I didn’t, did I? Thanks for the assurance I don’t have to; non-coercive self-disclosure is always more comfortable for me. The reasons, as I put them down objectively (or at least concretely) strike me as juvenile to a large extent, and I’m really not at all interested in the details of my past unhappiness taking center stage (pace Karl) here.
Still, out of courtesy (who IS this new guy, anyway?) here’s a short response: the mother of my children divorced me a year after I got sober (17 years sober, 16 divorced); shortly thereafter, the ecumenical intentional Christian community to which I’d made a life-long commitment (and which until that time had never had a divorce) “asked” me to leave, and shunned me for a time thereafter. Those who live in the Ann Arbor area or are familiar with the history of the Catholic charismatic renewal will know enough to connect the appropriate dots. When I visited the parish that was connected to that community, a “personal parish” in the Diocese of Lansing, I felt ashamed and unwelcome. I walked away, and haven’t been back since.
For some time after that I was spiritually adrift, and made a bunch of what charitably might be underestimated as awesomely stupid decisions. Among them, perhaps, was finding a church home that was (as it seemed to me at the time) sacramental, liturgical, connected to some degree of living tradition. Now, many years later, I’m not as sure that the via media Anglicana is where God wants me to be. I love their language, and frankly shudder at the thought of exchanging the Common Prayer Book for the blandness of the ICEL translations … but aesthetics ain’t a good reason for staying away, I know.
There are others, more shameful, more substantial and of a nature that a skillful confessor’s services are required. Hence my post. For the record (and hopefully without intending to sound defensive), I’m aware of the questionable status of Anglican orders. No need to send me links to all that; Fr. John Hardon, with whom I worked in Ann Arbor, was a thorough tutor for me in that regard, as was Fr. George Rutler.
At any rate, Helen, that’s the short answer. Aren’t you glad you didn’t get the longer disquisition? Off to teach a voice student, and then to work to prep and conduct some more rehearsals.
Jerry
Ack! Helen, many apologies: twasn’t you who asked the question!
Gentle readers, please substitute “Sandra” for “Helen” in the post supra, and all manner of thing will be well.
Jerry
Jerry I did not intend to *interrogate* you in any way at all. Allthough I must admit to feeling glad that you did *disclose* your reasons… Why? beacause I (divorcee and re-married), was,and to a certain extent still am in a similar situation.. I did not join another Church,I was too angry,upset to put my trust in any other..
I thought “I can be just as good a Chistian,on my own, I don’t need those ‘holier than thou’ people”. untill I came to this blog… Here I have found,caring,honest friends, who are helping me to realise that I was wrong..
I hope you make the same discovery.. We are,after all…. “in this together”…
No substitutions allowed, Jerry. Jerry’s answer must go to Helen, not to Sandra.
Just to be fair, then, Sandra, you, in turn, must eat Helen’s apples. It’s only right.
I’m practicing for a run for Judge. What do you all think?
Solomon himself could not have been fairer…
Now Tony… I detest apples… but as a penance, for all my *typos* I will accept your “judgement”…
As long as Jerry,in turn keeps his promise to you…( “I‚Äôll buy the first round of coffee when you come to visit” )plus, throw in a cream bun too boot,as penance for his mistaking my comment for Helen’s ‚Ķ Fair??
I have just realized…. POOR Helen,to be mistaken for ME!!!! she must be devastated
“To a stubborn spouse or spouses who refuse reconciliation, wrongly, the Catholic Church owes, EXCOMMUNICATION”
“…the importance of honoring marriage and using every means at HIS Church‚Äôs disposal to bring unrepentant adulterers to repentance and to see HIS WILL that they heal the unions,”
Karl–We’re back to my original question. How does one *force* someone back into a situation that they, for whatever reason, find intolerable? (I don’t know if this is the case for you) I’ve seen my sisters’ sexual alienation from their 1st husbands: They couldn’t stand to be with them another day and bolted. “Reconciliation” was inconceivable. Even if forbidden to remarry they would still have left.
In a Muslim or some 3rd world countries, they would have been forced to stay but would have been miserable. It’s important to note that this does not apply to men, and women could be brutalized physically if they failed to toe the line. We don’t live in that world thank God. I’ve been reading Cormac Burke’s site and his thoughts on marriage and annulment as well as those on the meaning of the “marital act” and the love shown therein reinforcing the sacrament. But all those wonderful things go out the window if there is no love. In this culture it can’t be otherwise. Burke wrote a lot on troubled marriages, but he never addressed this situation.
“…[the RCC] should neither be in the marriage business or the annulment business.”
Maybe we can agree on this. Reading Burke’s site it looks like the Church has painted itself in a corner and at times strains credulity in granting some annulments to get unworkable marriages out form under its strict burden on its permanence and obligations. It’s forcing practice to be in agreement with theory. Maybe it’s time for a change. At least it’ll be more honest.
“Either marriages are worth such defense or one must be stupid to get married.”
Yes, maybe the Church is burdening the institution with too much weight for feckless 20 somethings to fully understand and honor. I really don’t know the solution, but it’s notable that in many Catholic European countries, some who would have married a generation ago don’t do so until their first or second child is born, if then. I always wondered why. Maybe there they do understand what marriage entails and consequently find it too intimidating.
I’m trying to be honest here and am not pulling any punches. It’s regrettable your children have been hurt but perhaps if you had let the American tribunal’s decision stand and not spoken another word about it, they would have been less upset.
One word about the plight of people in second non-approved marriages: They used to be told-don’t know if this is still the case-that it’s OK to receive the sacraments if they live as “brother and sister”. I found that a ridiculous fiction. Who’d do that except the elderly? Even to speak of it was terribly reductive and even demeaning to the institution.
Karl, I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I do know that excommunication isn’t it. We’d have a world of unhappy people in the limbo of dead marriages trying their best to ignore each other and priests helpless to try to assist the miserable.
“To a stubborn spouse or spouses who refuse reconciliation, wrongly, the Catholic Church owes, EXCOMMUNICATION”
“…the importance of honoring marriage and using every means at HIS Church‚Äôs disposal to bring unrepentant adulterers to repentance and to see HIS WILL that they heal the unions,”
Karl–We’re back to my original question. How does one *force* someone back into a situation that they, for whatever reason, find intolerable? (I don’t know if this is the case for you) I’ve seen my sisters’ s*xual alienation from their 1st husbands: They couldn’t stand to be with them another day and bolted. “Reconciliation” was inconceivable. Even if forbidden to remarry they would still have left.
In a Muslim or some 3rd world countries, they would have been forced to stay but would have been miserable. It’s important to note that this does not apply to men, and women could be brutalized physically if they failed to toe the line. We don’t live in that world thank God. I’ve been reading Cormac Burke’s site and his thoughts on marriage and annulment as well as those on the meaning of the “marital act” and the love shown therein reinforcing the sacrament. But all those wonderful things go out the window if there is no love. In this culture it can’t be otherwise. Burke wrote a lot on troubled marriages, but he never addressed this situation.
“…[the RCC] should neither be in the marriage business or the annulment business.”
Maybe we can agree on this. Reading Burke’s site it looks like the Church has painted itself in a corner and at times strains credulity in granting some annulments to get unworkable marriages out form under its strict burden on its permanence and obligations. It’s forcing practice to be in agreement with theory. Maybe it’s time for a change. At least it’ll be more honest.
“Either marriages are worth such defense or one must be stupid to get married.”
Yes, maybe the Church is burdening the institution with too much weight for feckless 20 somethings to fully understand and honor. I really don’t know the solution, but it’s notable that in many Catholic European countries, some who would have married a generation ago don’t do so until their first or second child is born, if then. I always wondered why. Maybe there they do understand what marriage entails and consequently find it too intimidating.
I’m trying to be honest here and am not pulling any punches. It’s regrettable your children have been hurt but perhaps if you had let the American tribunal’s decision stand and not spoken another word about it, they would have been less upset.
One word about the plight of people in second non-approved marriages: They used to be told-don’t know if this is still the case-that it’s OK to receive the sacraments if they live as “brother and sister”. I found that a ridiculous fiction. Who’d do that except the elderly? Even to speak of it was terribly reductive and even demeaning to the institution.
Karl, I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I do know that excommunication isn’t it. We’d have a world of unhappy people in the limbo of dead marriages trying their best to ignore each other and priests helpless to try to assist the miserable.
Fr Wauck–If your still out there, please delete duplicate comment.
I’m terreble sorry about your friend, the father to 3 small kids, killed in the Mideast. We were in Washington DC during Gen. Petraeus’ hearing when protestors were shouting “Bring them Home!” I couldn’t agree more.
Tony, Tony, Tony … does righteousness have to trump mercy, even when the ‘poor, miserable offender’ (=me) recasts his post post-haste? =>
Sandra/Helen: from what I’ve read while lurking, being confused with one another is more an honour than might at first blush appear. I, on the other hand, am routinely mistaken for Richard Dreyfuss, simply because I’m a conductor who’s a composer in his spare time.
On the other hand, it’s marginally better than the question one student threw my way recently when I was doing a workshop on Long Island, “How can you be a composer if you’re not dead?”
All that ran through my mind — which of course was unfitting for third-graders’ ears — was Monty Pythonese: “I’m not dead yet!” But I held back. Clearly a working of grace. Or at least good manners.
Jerry
On the other hand, Tony, I will be glad to help in your run for judicial office. How many votes did you say you needed?
(/end_attempted_joke)
Jerry
And I will of course buy a cream bun, strictly for penance’s sake. But shouldn’t it go to the aggrieved party: Helen? Or is it Sandra? Or both Helen **and** Sandra? In which case, is one bun sufficient, if rent (Solomonically) in twain? Is there a twain approaching in the tunnel, or is it just a light from the other side?
Clearly, I need a nap before my next round of rehearsals. Or a bigger brain. Or both.
Jerry
A post-haste post? Well, why didn’t you say so?
First, the Tim Hortons reference, then you slipped in the ‘eh’ and proper use of the word ‘ubiquitous,’ and now you misspelled ‘honor’ so that it only looks right to Michelle M and Dianne. I knew it! You’re a ferner, aren’t you?
Almost had me fooled with the ‘awesome’ twist, but then you came back around with ‘plenitude.’ Twain indeed.
Nah, Tony: Sorry to disappoint, but I’m jjust an overeducated native (born in Bal’m'r, as they say in Merrylun, raised in New Jersey, resident of A2 since 1979) who likes words that look as rich as they sound (yeah, sysnesthesics R us). I suspect it’s just the proximity to Canadia that makes me tawk funny.
For the record, the spell checker got plenitude fixed. I favoured ‘plentitude,’ which is clearly wrong, eh dude? Et tu, dudus? So when are you coming to collect your coffee and misbegotten cream bun? And what, good jurist-to-be, is your ruling on who *should* get the bun, anyway?
Off to rehearse.
Jerry
Hi! ARN nice to see you back..
“I‚Äôve seen my sisters‚Äô s*xual alienation from their 1st husbands: They couldn‚Äôt stand to be with them another day and bolted. ‚ÄúReconciliation‚Äù was inconceivable. **Even if forbidden to remarry they would still have left”**.
Well, very,very many still do, and will!!
*** “that it‚Äôs OK to receive the sacraments if they live as ‚Äúbrother and sister‚Äù “***.
Celebacy is a matter of conscience or choice,it should / can not be forced.. To expect young woman or men to spend the rest of their lives together as “brother and sister” is, possibly, ok for some, but the numbers of Catholics leaving the Catholic Church ‘for just that’, is proof, that “it just don’t work”..
I was nearly 28 when I was divorced.. and 33. when I met Ivano (my 2nd Husband) he and his whole family are Catholic they have from the first day accepted me ‘despite’ my being *a divorced woman* ..
I’m with ARN on this one..
Dear ARN,
Thanks for the reply.
Simply put, Truth. Nor do I have all the answers. But I do know, what the Church has been doing for all of my adult life, 18 in 1972, has been dysfunctional regarding marriage etc….
So…one of the purposes of the gospel was to proclaim …”repent, turn away from your sins and be forgiven”, as I think I was taught. I have always wondered where the boundary was where “force” ended and “persuasion” began. Or, where the will was still free or not free. Interestingly enough, for this discussion as well as nullity, this, boundary is where “everything matters”!
What I was taught, regarding Excommunicartion is that it is NOT PUNISHMENT. It is the final call of the Catholic Church to repentance when all else has failed. Perhaps a better description is what I copied from the St Louis Diocesan website, where Archbishop Burke knows more about it than I likely ever will so this is a pretty good source, I think.
Q. What does it mean to be excommunicated?
A. Excommunication is knowingly and willingly placing oneself outside the full communion of the Catholic Church. A person excommunicates himself/herself. When the archbishop declares an excommunication, its purpose is meant to be healing, and a call for the person to reconsider the action and reconcile with the Catholic Church.
Q. Were they given any warning by the archbishop, and, if so, what kind of warning?
A. The archbishop wrote each party asking them to refrain from the attempted female ordination, and invited each three times to meet with him to be reconciled.
This is exactly what I have wanted from the Catholic Church regarding an unjust divorce, imposed by one spouse on another together with a stubborn refusal to repent, make restitution and work towards reconciliation. It is fruitless and vain to argue over silliness like, someone will never repent. I don’t care what one will do. What should be done to bring them to what they should do is what matters to me. If one accepts “No”, then there is not even a point for the gospel, period. Yes, No is one choice they can make and usually do, but that DOES NOT MEAN the formal decision to have the Church, officially Excommunicate should not be done. To fail to do so, in the face of obstinate refusal of repentance, by a spouses, does harm to the marriage, to the innocent abandoned spouse and is scandalous to the faithful, particulaly to any children of the valid marriage! In my opinion the refusal of the Catholic Church to act as I have requested, makes it guilty of apostacy, and is at the core of why I have formally defected from the Church.
I have not proposed anything sinful or scandalous.
It is very simple. Christ said one must forgive seven times seventy in the face of real repentance. Either this is so because He is God or it is not so. If one claims to be Catholic this must be accepted and embraced by one. It is scandalous to even refer to another acceptable position. There is no other acceptable position.
So refusal to repent was always an option that Jesus knew well, yet it did not hinder him from his staement.
That is the end of the story, period.
I don’t desire to go point by point with you, but you cannot accept some of the arguments you make and really call yourself Catholic ARN. That seems obvious to me.
Here is one thing I would like the others in here and the dear Father to comment on, thoughtfully and which I wish was the object of serious philosophical and theological examination.
If living as “brother and sister”, with a person who has been your adulterous partner and now has ceased having intercourse with you but is a true partner in all other things(asif they were a spouse in all but sex) is acceptable when there is a living spouse who does not “accept it” and wants their valid spouse to restore their conjugal life and marital union, then does this not simply reduce marriage to the sexual act, alone, since it is “acceptable to the Church as being morally OK but completely denies the “personalist elements” of the marriage that are promised to each of the valid spouses at the time of the vows/marriage?
I see a complete disconnect and contradiction here with the established Canon Law that, for now more than thirty years, has found marriage to me “NON EXISTANT” where these “personalist elements” have either been partially or wholely denied. I do not see a reconciliation of these two positions at all.
Either the “personalist elements” are essential or they are not. If they are not, how can their absence render a marriage null? I do not see how.
The “brother and sister” thing completely denies a valid spouse what seems to be essential to a marriage if Canon Law is valid.
Do any of you see why this troubles me so and why it needs serious contemplation by the Catholic Church? Or am I just the dumbest man on the face of the Earth and missing the obvious.
I cannot return to the Church unless this is resolved logically and justly, particularly to the innocent spouse and children of the valid marriage. Stll another point separating me and the Church.
karl
Any comments that are USEFUL AND THOUGHTFUL are welcome. I do NOT WANT STUPID AND SILLY COMMENTS nor do I want to insule anyone. But I want to understand how this makes sense because it does not to me at all!
If what you say Sandra is, that you were validly married and then divorced and have taken up with another man, who claims to be Catholic, and have not been proven to be “unmarried” via a null decison, validly and truthfully made, then you are a living scandal and shoud, yesterday, separate from your lover, who IS NOT YOUR SPOUSE!
If I have misunderstood what you said then please clarify it. Do not try to JUSTIFY IT, if my understanding is correct. That will simply further insult our valid marriage and betray our children of our valid marriage and you will be publically committing grave sin and scandal.
I hope, sincerely, that my understanding is completely in error.
Karl
Karl, I have,ABSOLUTELY, NO intention to “try to justify” anything,either to you nor anyone else.
I have >>>>>*justified*
“…you are a living scandal and shoud, yesterday, separate from your lover,”
Karl, what you recommend is nothing short of inhuman. Do you know the circumstances of Sandra’s first marriage?
Sorry I pressed the “submit” too soon.
— I have >>>>>*justified*
What is wrong I just can not get the rest of my comment out ????
I’ll try again
New try..
>>>> I have justified my actions to myself,but most importantly to GOD,in whose understanding,love and forgivenes I trust… as should you.. Please note my comment was not in reference to your case,on which I have no more to add..
One cannot justify adultery and the harm it does, continuously, because of a marriage that was broken by either or both spouses.
I don’t have a need to know circumstances but a second marriage without nullity in the first, that is justified, is adultery, period and leads to death. And leads others to the same sins, by example.
Such a relationship makes a mockery of the gospel.
Rapists, murderers, and those who have and do abortions justify their sins to God and themselves but we hope they publically repent or they may lose their salvation through presumption of the mercy of God when it is thier vanity they are worhipping.
If I do not witness to the wrong you have said to me, which you have not denied and I have not intentionally misstated, then I am guilty of the same adultery as you. Sorry, I won’t join you in it through silent approval.
Nor will I punish you about it, so I have said my piece.
One cannot justify adultery and the harm it does, continuously, because of a marriage that was broken by either or both spouses.
I don’t have a need to know circumstances but a second marriage without nullity in the first, that is justified, is adultery, period and leads to death. And leads others to the same sins, by example.
Such a relationship makes a mockery of the gospel.
Rapists, murderers, and those who have and do abortions justify their sins to God and themselves but we hope they publically repent or they may lose their salvation through presumption of the mercy of God when it is their own vanity they are worhipping.
If I do not witness to the wrong you have said to me, which you have not denied and I have not intentionally misstated, then I am guilty of the same adultery as you. Sorry, I won’t join you in it through silent approval.
Nor will I punish you about it, so I have said my piece.
One VERY last word to you Karl…
And what,pray.. in the Gospel.. is said about leaving the Catholic Church,(which is in fact rejecting Christ) with regard to “Salvation” ??
I suggest you look to yours..
And now I have said MY piece.. good night to all have a pleasent one..
Post rehearsal meanderings…
… meant to say “synesthetics,” i.e. one afflicted by / blessed with synesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia), not “sysnesthesics,” which truly isn’t a word. Mea culpa.
… for the luckily uninitiated, “Bal‚Äôm’r” is more or less how the natives pronounce “Baltimore,” which is a city in “Merrylun,” better known to the rest of the civilized world as “Maryland.”
Rehearsal went well. We’re making good progress on the Faure Requiem, although getting my good solid Michigan Presbyterians to like Latin, much less sing it correctly, is a challenge. But they’re good hearted folks all the same.
Home to A2 in the rain. Ah well: any weather I don’t have to scrape or shovel is good weather.
Jerry
Jerry while switching off the comp. I caught a glimpse of your name ..and thought to read one more comment..
“mea culpa” We could all say that, with regards to misspellings,typos,and other “wrong wording”.
But as looking up the Thesaurus. every time we write a comment would be very tiresome… I expect it will be something we must live with.. Glad your rehearsal went well..
Latin is quite a chalenge for me too.. despite having chosen Latin as a subject in school,many many decades ago, a choice which, after about 3 lessons, and the despair of my tutor,I had regreted.
Now REALLY good night..
By the way in case you are wondering about MY bad Orthography. English is not the language in which I norally write.. that is German… (at least it’s my excuse)..
Sandra,
Gruess Gott! Deutsch ist einfach. Lateinisch, etwas schwieriger. Englisch, aber, ist am schwierigsten! Ganz illogisch, nicht wahr? So glaub’ ich.
Servus,
Jerry
Yes, yes, ‘synesthetics.’ We ALL saw the egregious typo but looked away and politely pretended not to notice (though some also murmured).
Faure! Now there’s a composer your workshop kids would approve of, eh?
…he pandered…
Gr?º?ü Dich Jerry… (and all others)
I personally find German very difficult.. since the last Rechtschreibreform.. 2004-2008.
Although,most Newspapers and Magazines have, after adopting it for a while, now had changed back to the old method..But NOW it is amtlich.. (offical) so no more *cheating* allowed..For us who are a little *long in the tooth* most inconvenient to say the least..
All school textbooks have been rewriten..
Jerry PLEASE do not take my next words as *critic*.. The thing is,I have *admonished* some others,for commenting in a language,most others can not (or not very well) understand. I appreciate your good will towards myself by writing in german.. and thank you for it.. I do at times,out of necessity (can not find the right words in english) resort to German,but try my best to *translate* into simple english.. not allways with the desired result I may ad
By the way “unlogisch” = “illogical”, would be the right word.. (I presume you ment that?)
I am off to work…. ’till later
“sysnesthesics”– that’s the Canadian spelling, right?
Well it seems I need to make some apple pie today! Certainly Sandra, you must like some version of it? Possibly apple butter? It’s not butter nor does it seem like much apple anything. Or the classic green gunk that smuckers makes-”apple jelly” I hear its used in coctail meatball sauce recipies, but dont care to try it.
Jerry, I am having fun reading your posts and am glad you are here.
Karl, have you considered what I have said?
“But grandmamma / grandpapa, what big *words* you use”, says little (red riding-hood) sandra..*turning green with ENVY*…
“ah! all the better to baffle you with my dear!!”
Sandra is duly impressed..all-the-while still turning green
Michelle, is there a great difference between American *English* and Canadian *English* ?
I know there is between “The Oxford English” and American..
English Thesaurus..
“No results found for synesthetics”. English Thesaurus..
Sujested alternatives..
“synthetics”
(of a language) characterized by a relatively widespread use of affixes, rather than separate words, to express syntactic relationships: Latin is a synthetic language, while English is analytic.
“synesthesia”
Many people with synesthesia use their experiences to aid in their creative process, and many non-synesthetes have attempted to create works of art that may capture what it is like to experience synesthesia.
So.. we are creating “a work of art” here..how nice..
Just pulling your leg..
Well Helen,I would love to try your “apple pie” , alas, I get indigestion from any kind of apples or citrus fruit… so, that sadly, does not allow me to have a *delicious*.. Vodka-lemon.. instead I must stick to wine and the odd Fernet Branca… Just as nice though!!!
DEAL??
I absolutely LOVED “Apple-crumble” as a child.. but with *age* (horrid word),I can not eat it any more..
Tell you what! have a piece of pie for me.. and I, will make the coffee (with a dash of Fernet
“we are creating “a work of art” here..” Pollock probably had the same thought.
P.S. I saw you were joking, Sandra.
Dear Helen,
I don’t recall what you proposed/said and I think I have already bee here too long, but I wanted to give you the courtesy of a reply. Thank you, dear.
Karl, quick note. Hang on for a bit longer if you don’t mind. Not meaning to sound like I have something worth hearing but I had an opinion on the exchange between ARN, Sandra, and you, from yesterday (Thursday in US). I’d like to at least get it off my chest, to you included, and I’d appreciate your insights as well.
I should have been clear on this: I do NOT mean it be some purely philosophical discussion, when I said to get your “insights.” I truly appreciate the absolute reality of the situation that you are in. I am not being Ivory Tower about this AT ALL. In fact, as others have already heard (probably too much), I take as my personal motto Tertullian’s words: “Caro Cardo Salutis” Flesh is the hinge of salvation. So trust me, I’m not in this just for discussion purposes.
Let me know if you can stick around, please. And thank you. Tony
P.S. By “a bit longer,” I’m hoping you can give me until this weekend. I’m swamped at work right now (just happen to be checking in now) and have a commitment tonight. Thought I’d let you know, to be fair.)
Tony… But you missed the “Sujested” (suggested) it was ment to be *su-jest-ed* as in ‘jest’…. but for my “itchy finger” (and of course, my,with wine;coffee and other ‘un-mentionables’ gued up keyboard), I would be perfect… lol. Glad you saw,despite that TINY misshap,my truely INOCENT intention….
Wow!!! If that is not eating humble pie, I dunno wat is… At least for me…
Let’s hope Father Wauck is not around… or I will get a “telling off”… for being naughty..
Well we certainly have made the most of his absence… serves him right for leaving us to our own de-vices…
Now, I’ll go and hide my face in shame…taking a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon with me.. “Dutch courage”..
Tony–I’m interested in what you have to say. I’ve been getting an education browsing around on Cormac Burke’s site and am shocked at his narrow interpretation of the grounds for nullity. All the annulments I heard of like my sister’s and sister-in-law’s interpreted the “incapability to contract marriage” grounds very broadly but correctly IMO.
His ideas on “the good of the spouses” were sort of counterintuitive.
“I’m interested in what you have to say. I’ve been getting an education browsing around on Cormac Burke’s site and am shocked at his narrow interpretation of the grounds for nullity.” (ARN, above).
Hi ARN,
If you don’t mind me saying, you really should be more interested in what Monsignor Burke has to say. He is the one who is the expert. I am fairly confident you won’t find one word of his that is more restrictive of the grounds of nullity, than what is written in either Canon law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or papal addresses, etc.
I fully admit, on the other hand — and Karl would, too, I believe, that it is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile what Msgr. Burke writes (and therefore Canon Law, CCC, papal addresses) with the anecdotal experiences which you and many, many others are familiar with.
And there’s the rub, isn’t it?
I have to get to another appointment now. One quick thing. maybe I’m wrong but it sounds like maybe you either don’t agree with the Church’s teaching that you need to look at the “state of the world” at the time of the ceremony – NOT how things “fell apart” afterwards during the marriage. Just look at the phrase itself: “Inability to contract marriage” means exactly that. One or both of the parties lacked a necessary element required to make a valid, binding “contract.” Think about outside of the marriage context. You sign a contract to go into buy a car. Five months later, you find out that the car isn’t to your liking or there is some minor damage to it. (Let’s assume, because I have to get going right now—LOL, we can argue it later, that it isn’t a lemon.) You want to give it back, i.e., VOID the contract. You CAN’T. The court is going to ask: “were you of age to contract, were you under duress, were you drunk, were you defrauded, etc.” If the answers are “No,” then you can’t void the contract. You can sue for breach of contract, though. That gets you out of a VALID contract. In the marriage context, that’s called divorce. That is NOT an annulment.
I’m sorry if this is more brusque than usual. It’s only because I have to hurry, but wanted to get back to you, ARN. I’ll check back as time permits.
Tony I have just one point I would like to state at present..
A Marriage is NOT between “a car salesman and his client” .. (I know you were using an Hypothesis)..
The “contract is between two humans,who CAN missjudge their partners and fail to see their faults.. especially when well disguised.. or hidden.. Where as,in the case of buying a car one CAN ask for a mechanic to come and look for hidden flaws.. If a car is later found to be not what it seemed,then it is HARD luck.. but NOT the end of the world.. as one is NOT oblidged to keep it untill it “dies”or you do!!
No REAL,everlasting,heartbreak or suffering to ones self or ones children results through such a contract. Divorce is forbidden by the Catholic Curch (according to the Anglican Church, one can, also, not re-marry), Annulment seems the only choice for persons who can not live out the rest of their lives in celebacy.. So that course will be taken whether one likes it or not..
I also read Msgr. Burke’ analysis on *valid* annulment reasons… far as I could see THERE ARE NONE!!
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/466 (section 3 is most interesting)
So why hold the “carrot infront of the donkey’s nose”?.. just say, NO WAY OUT—- BASTA.. well, maybe because there would be,even less.Church weddings,and even more,people leaving the Church.. I see no way out of this dilemma except for couples (and their children) to continue in a very.very unhappy enviornment “untill death do they release”
You (and others) will certainly have many many reasons to dissagree..
Now I will be off to bed, and wish you all a very good night..
PS. hope your “appointment went well..Tony.
“No REAL,everlasting,heartbreak or suffering to ones self or ones children results through such a contract.”
Yes, nothing to fear but a hit on your credit rating and the repo man.
Buying a car and pledging oneself to another is comparing apples to oranges. Note that one may do the first w/o much thought but would never do the other so casually; We see this a lot in young Europeans.
But Sandra, Tony’s been kind enough to give me with an answer on the fly that he may see himself as not up to snuff. Let’s give him a break.
Regarding Mons Burke–He *does* recognize valid grounds. Read further on his very extensive website.
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/466
I am Maxx. My wife is Daria.
The first decision in the US was a complete fabrication and is not published anywhere.
The final decision in Rome is not published antwhere to my knowledge.
I learned of this publication when I googled Monsignor Cormak Burke and came upon it. When I reqad it first, our names had not been changed. I wrote to Msgr about it and he was shocked and had it changed within hours.
Hello again Karl, I just logged on again here at 9:35ish my time. I have not read Monsignor Cormak Burke’s site, and I will try to view your link now.
You have not been here too long. I believe you are welcome here and hope you do stay.
I hope to see you here tomorrow okay? I will take my time reading this and then I will try to let it all sink in.
Reading another case on that site, something caught my eye. I hope I read it wrong. I thought in all cases where one of the spouses excludes the possibility of children (or as the site refers to them as- “offspring”) that the petitioner in such a marriage would be ASAP granted an annulment. I must have read it wrong. How could that be? That flys in the face of everything I have ever been taught.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041105.html
I bet that Bishop was mightily relieved that Holy Father would not be stopping by his area on this trip.
Dear Helen,
The exclusion of children, yes, invalidates a marriage. The granting of an annulment is something of a misnomer. When the righteous investigation into the validity of a particular marriage concludes, in two separate and coincidental(concurrent) decisions, that a finding of nullity is warranted they are merely
confirming that the marriage was never valid, and if between two baptized Christians, there was never a Sacrament.
Your understanding was/is correct.
I have never intimated that there are no invalid marriages. Shot gun marriages are invalid and to most people this conclusion is intuitive. My problems with these investigations are too numerous to list in a post, but I do not disagree, at all, that there is no such thing as a null marriage.
I interview people for a living. Lies, some material, some immaterial are presented as fact frequently. I have little reason to believe that many, perhaps even most people who have given up on a marriage, for whatever their particular reason may be are willing to lie to obtain a finding of nullity. In doing so I cannot even imagine why, as if one could fool God. The simple arrogance is astounding to me. Does any one of these people who lie really think that deception of the judges, which results in an errant decision, is valid before God? So, to what end is this deception? For the approval of men? My personal experience and belief is that lies are ubiquitous in divorce and in nullity proceedings, thus I think it is nearly complete folly that the Catholic Church would even remotely expect people, with an already vested interest in the abandonment of a relationship and/or a similarly in a new liason would be truthful.
Personally, I was disgusted(and remain so to put it mildly) that the Church even allowed my wife to submit a petition for nullity much less read it and/or (gasp) accept it.
The Church is not interested in the opinions of respondents who have seen all kinds of deceit but it certainly, everywhere I have read about in magazines and newspapers or online, is deeply engaged in endorsing the idea that a finding of nullity is “healing” as is the process itself, regardless of the outcome.
It has been disheartening and scandalous to me and ultimately has resulted in my defection from the Church.
What I find particularly scandalous and troublesome, since my trainging is in science and in a limited way, certain law, although I am not an attorney, is that for a limited set of information, there can be such disparity of conclusion and that this is acceptable to say that a valid marriage never existed. This seems patently absurd to me that a finding of such spurious reproducibility, based upon testimonies that are likely teeming with deceit, can have such permanent and fundamental application as to make a marriage, disappear.
The consequences of nullity are staggering and this conclusion is based upon mostly unreliable information.
I really do not see how marriage as an institution can survive such an easily dismissed existance.
I would not have consented to marriage had I known what could happen, with the blessings of the Catholic Church. I would never have made myself so vulnerable. I certainly would never have been open to children if a scenario like ours would have ever been conceivable to me, even as a remote possibility.
As a consequence, I once asked to speak as part of the parish marriage preparation course but I was refused because I was told, no one would continue with their marriage after I informed them how easily, and likely, injustices that I continue to face, and will so for the rest of my life, could befall either spouse but more likely the male. I believe the intentional withholding of such information as I would have, truthfully, presented is unethical as well as immoral.
God be with you, Helen.
Morning Helen..
I just read your link..
( “Catholic Charities CYO’s Loaves and Fishes Award is given to those who show genuine concern for and effective action in improving the lives of those in need in our community.”)
I must admit,that I too, am a little “baffled” to say the least.. Looks like it is not only the *awarding* of *Annulments*, that comes easy, to some,in the Catholic Church hierarchy. (in the US).
Dissregarding MY stance on this matter,what about the;-
Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops:Giovanni Battista Re, Cardinal,Prefect Francesco Monterisi, Secretary?
Surely they know of the “Award-giving”, and most importantly Why… I did not find the grounds for awarding such a “prize” to Mr. George M. Marcus. The decision to do so, most certainly, was not reached over night..OR?
There was once a Movie I watched,with Robert De’Nero (he played a Catholic priest), in which, “the Catholic Lay Person of the Year” *prize* was to be awarded.. allthough *fiction*, it came to mind while reading your link..
“Catholic Charities CYO’s Loaves and Fishes Award is given to those who show genuine concern for and effective action in improving the lives of those in need in our community.”
What were / are the,-*concerns* /*actions* of said recipiant.. I am not familiar with the circumstances surounding this case.. Are you, and could you inform me?
I may bring-to-mind my comment on (NOT!) >>Accepting donations (finacial and / or, in any other form), coming from “dubious” sources
ARN,good afternoon to you (and all others),
Regarding ” *valid* grounds for annulment, sure there are those which the Rota recognizes,only,they are *mini-minimal* unless it can be proven *without a sliver of a doubt* that a persons did not notice his / her partner was (at the time of marriage) *insane* or that he / she decived (fraud) or had a very grave fault, which constitutes a valid inpediment(s) then.. THEY it seems, are *charged* with being *guilty untill THEY can prove otherwise*.. It is seems that it ia a case of “your word against mine”
>> “shot-gun-weddings”
Sorry seems like my very long comment did not go through (again)
I will have to re-write it but it will take time,so please in the meantime do not JUST ascess my meaning purely the first part …
Plus… shopuld read “impediment(s)”
Just lurking for the meantime… had been busy with work… might drop a comment in the next post.
>> “shot-gun-weddings” >> Cormac Burke
Again it did not go through..
but this time I coppied it HA!!
I have tried again but have been informed that “I have already said that”
so maybe it is being *scrutenized* for *naughty* wording..
So,you will all have to stay in *overwhelming* suspense
If, one or both partners, were held at “gun-point” then the priest conducting the ceremony would be equally guilty, if not more so,than those holding the weapon… ego;- rendering the marriage *invalid* agreed?
BUT!! what if,one or both were subject to the more *subtle* art of pressure,ie’ physical and or mental duress,by their parents,societiy and or the community in which they lived??
Do we for one moment immagine that,those persons,if still living and able to,would stand before a very impressive, Catholic Rota.. to admit to that.. Even if some were found willing, after being accused of impartiality,or even *down-right telling lies*…I suspect they would decline to partake..
Some people can assume the air of *innocense* / truthfullnes, better than others,some, are more over-whelmed, by the apearance of “sublime authority*, than others,causing them to be less adamant in their statements..
The rejection to “procuration of children”..
If,a person is accused of this,he she must prove the opposite without the *sliver of a doubt* Quite easy one would immagine.. just stand up and claim I AWAYS wanted children,but through no fault of my own, *IT* just did not hapen..
OK! After extensive medical examinations,there is no physical impediment found.OR, if so.. it is not thought WHITOUT a doubt,to have been aparent *to the person BEFORE marriage*.. This,due to lack of evidence to the contrary..(did he / she know).. is NOT a valid ground for annulment,as no deceit was intended nor committed. still big ??? here we must take his / her word for this..
Do we know what goes on behind closed (bedroom) doors? only what we are told.. is that the truth??
What if, while publicly claiming to want children.. one (or both) of the partners are practising “un-ethical b*rth c*ntrol” But neither one or both is willing to admit to such?? ergo; no *absolute evidence*… NO valid annulment verdict…
After all,they could,as have so many,adopt a child (or more ),if the absence of children was an issue in their marriage problems..
In the link I gave >>> Cormac Burke
Cormac Burke—
in section “Facts” (12.) he gave his thoughts on the reliability of medical and psychological *expert opinion* you can make yours..
The rest I will post later. (as now I have worked out what went wrong)
“BUT!! what if,one or both were subject to the more *subtle* art of pressure,ie‚Äô physical and or mental duress,by their parents,societiy and or the community in which they lived??”
I never literally meant at gunpoint,–it’s just an expression–but where one or both partners are pressured. Happens a lot, and I suppose when priests officiate at them they hope for the best, even while knowing they are laying the grounds for a possible future annulment. My guess is most such marriages work out but when it doesn’t, they have a good nullity case.
“Do we for one moment imagine that,those persons,if still living and able to,would stand before a very impressive, Catholic Rota.. to admit to that.”
Why not? It’s a common situation and certainly less nebulous and complex than the “incapacity” cases. E.g. It’s not at all hard to believe one or both spouses were under duress.
“The rejection to ‚Äúprocuration of children‚Äù..
If,a person is accused of this,he she must prove the opposite without the *sliver of a doubt* Quite easy one would immagine.. just stand up and claim I AWAYS wanted children,but through no fault of my own, *IT* just did not hapen..”
The person came into the marriage not *wanting* any children–not that they have fertility problems. And I doubt the burden of proof is so insurmountable–”Beyond a shadow of a doubt”. The Rota can’t be so unreasonable as not to accept that sometimes you just have to take people’s word for it when there’s no “proof”. (Anecdote–forgot where I read it, maybe Burke’s site?–The wife wants no kids and deceived her husband, telling him that she wasn’t using bc pills. But since they don’t always work she got pregnant. She tells the husband and then gets an abortion. That’s pretty solid proof she wanted no kids, prob one of the better.)
ONE case!! And I doubt “representable”..
“And I doubt the burden of proof is so insurmountable‚Äì‚ÄùBeyond a shadow of a doubt‚Äù. The Rota can‚Äôt be so unreasonable as not to accept that sometimes you just have to take people‚Äôs word for it when there‚Äôs no ‚Äúproof‚Äù.”
Well I would like to believe that they would, but that’s not the way it works..
The “Abortion” could be grounds enough ARN..BUT, using bc pills (secretly or not) would be seen of proof that she decived her husband at the time of marriage…By not admiting to having no desire to have children OR NOT?..AS for if she had told him there would be no reason to take “the p*ll* secretly,or would there??
Medical examination can *prove* the abortion.. but not the if he,or he she she lied!!! ie decived HIM.. maybe he knew.. that is where the burdon of proof comes into the picture..IMHO. DIFFICULT!! The Rota,as far as I gather demands “absolute” proof..
Any way ARN I would like to wait and see what our lawyer friend Tony has to say .. He seems to be busy at the moment..
A different subject: What do you make of the hapenings in Simbabwe?? Terrible conditions, the poor people..
I can not understand how the world can look on.. It it so criminal what is hapening there.. I pray for them all.. How inhuman must that man be.. devoid from all feeling of passion… What a monster!! Our possible Pain,and suffering seems so minimal in comparision.. to watch your child die of starvation must be the worst thing imaginable..
I can’t post long comments. Somethings wrong with the server I think. will this go thru?
About Zimbabwe– A basket case where the currency has zero value. Something will be done once South Africa has a huge refugee crisis on its hands. The electrified fence and the dangerous lion infested “national park” deliberately placed right up against the border (I kid you not) may not be enough anymore to keep Zimbabweans out, and the S. Africans will be forced to pay attention. You have no idea of my disgust for governments there that don’t give a damn about feeding their own people, leaving that to others and NGO’s(non-governmental organizations) while the politicians are getting on with more interesting chores like lining their pockets.
Here’s what I cut n pasted from a website explaining the process. I couldn’t get the comment to go thru with the hyperlink which i believe is the culprit:
Quality of Consent. Let’s take that first question and look at the quality of marital consent, which is far more exacting than ordinary decisions. Consent to marry is the most weighty decision the person ever will make. Its effects endure beyond the here-and-now; it is a lifelong choice. Obviously an individual must know to what he or she is agreeing.
Consent must be free and discerning. External or internal pressure, which significantly reduces freedom or undermines critical judgment, could impair consent to such degree that commonsense requirements for such a binding decision as marriage are not fulfilled.
For centuries, theologians have recognized that strong emotion and external pressure could weaken free choice and diminish responsibility as far as sin was concerned. The Church has been more cautious in applying these principles to marital consent. Modern psychology’s study of decision-making shows more sharply how unconscious motives and situational pressures can get in the way of freedom and judgment. Such findings greatly help Church tribunals assess the adequacy of marital consent.
The shotgun marriage is an outdated joke. Yet more subtle pressures may interfere with freedom and discernment just as effectively. Take, for example, the couple who have been intimate and now the woman is pregnant. She rightly refuses abortion. She does not want to give up the baby for adoption. The father feels trapped. He may have fine intentions, feeling honor-bound to do “the right thing.” One or both may see marriage as the only way out. Is this decision a free, mature choice of a lifetime partner, or is it a pressured solution to a problem?
What about the consent of the teenager, overwhelmed by infatuation with the only person ever dated, in love more with love than the person he or she consents to marry? Or the youngster with no critical appraisal of the character of the intended partner, and with meager appreciation of the financial responsibilities of marriage or the burdens of parenthood? Add to the picture, perhaps, the desperate need to escape an unhappy home life, marred by alcoholism or quarrels.
How would we assess the widower, still grieving for his deceased wife? He has a demanding job and is anxious for his young children. So he hastily remarries. Is he giving prudent, thoughtful consent or enlisting a housekeeper and stepmother for his children?
What sort of consent is given by a person with lukewarm, nominal faith, who has absorbed the divorce mentality which pervades U.S. culture, and the philosophy of casual sex which is daily TV fare?
There is no automatic answer about the quality of consent in these examples. Surely the average disinterested adult would question the wisdom of such marriages, and have qualms about the freedom or discretion of the immature or agonized person taking marriage vows. A thorough investigation by the tribunal of the premarital situation may support the conclusion that one or both of the partners could not freely and maturely choose to marry at that time.
Here’s what I cut n pasted from a website explaining the process. I couldn’t get the comment to go thru with the hyperlink which i believe is the culprit:
Quality of Consent. Let’s take that first question and look at the quality of marital consent, which is far more exacting than ordinary decisions. Consent to marry is the most weighty decision the person ever will make. Its effects endure beyond the here-and-now; it is a lifelong choice. Obviously an individual must know to what he or she is agreeing.
Consent must be free and discerning. External or internal pressure, which significantly reduces freedom or undermines critical judgment, could impair consent to such degree that commonsense requirements for such a binding decision as marriage are not fulfilled.
For centuries, theologians have recognized that strong emotion and external pressure could weaken free choice and diminish responsibility as far as sin was concerned. The Church has been more cautious in applying these principles to marital consent. Modern psychology’s study of decision-making shows more sharply how unconscious motives and situational pressures can get in the way of freedom and judgment. Such findings greatly help Church tribunals assess the adequacy of marital consent.
The shotgun marriage is an outdated joke. Yet more subtle pressures may interfere with freedom and discernment just as effectively. Take, for example, the couple who have been intimate and now the woman is pregnant. She rightly refuses abortion. She does not want to give up the baby for adoption. The father feels trapped. He may have fine intentions, feeling honor-bound to do “the right thing.” One or both may see marriage as the only way out. Is this decision a free, mature choice of a lifetime partner, or is it a pressured solution to a problem?
What about the consent of the teenager, overwhelmed by infatuation with the only person ever dated, in love more with love than the person he or she consents to marry? Or the youngster with no critical appraisal of the character of the intended partner, and with meager appreciation of the financial responsibilities of marriage or the burdens of parenthood? Add to the picture, perhaps, the desperate need to escape an unhappy home life, marred by alcoholism or quarrels.
How would we assess the widower, still grieving for his deceased wife? He has a demanding job and is anxious for his young children. So he hastily remarries. Is he giving prudent, thoughtful consent or enlisting a housekeeper and stepmother for his children?
What sort of consent is given by a person with lukewarm, nominal faith, who has absorbed the divorce mentality which pervades U.S. culture, and the philosophy of casual s*x which is daily TV fare?
There is no automatic answer about the quality of consent in these examples. Surely the average disinterested adult would question the wisdom of such marriages, and have qualms about the freedom or discretion of the immature or agonized person taking marriage vows. A thorough investigation by the tribunal of the premarital situation may support the conclusion that one or both of the partners could not freely and maturely choose to marry at that time.
ARN,Thankyou for puting it so eloquently…
But to NO avail!!!
Wow– lots going on here– but I’ve been working and not much time to even skim through things. Then when I log on, I get interrupted lots!!
An analogy occurred to me back when I was reading Tony’s car purchase analogy that I thought might be a good illustration. Please do bear in mind that I haven’t read completely thoroughly through everything lately said. Also, please take this as a general remark and not an observation about any of the anecdotes lately shared here.
Could we not think of a validly contracted marriage more, say, organically? It is something that has its own life, its own existence (as Chesterton said, “I tell you, an ordinary honest man is part of his wife even when he wishes he wasn‚Äôt. An ordinary good woman is part of her husband even when she wishes him at the bottom of the sea. “).
When one makes the argument that a person just didn’t realize what they were getting into in marriage and that then could be grounds for annulment, it made me think of another situation where this could be a complaint that people make that wears kind of thin. Think about raising children. Lots of us could say, “We didn’t know what we were getting into– we couldn’t possibly have foreseen how difficult it could be, sometimes I look at my kids and can’t stand to be in the same room with them, I was only 20 when we started our family, I didn’t realize I’d have to sacrifice so much, society romanticizes childrearing so much, how could I possibly have understood how thankless it can be, I wasn’t expecting a handicapped child so how could I have consented to raise one…..” Now, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, society would frown on a parent who simply abandons their children and carries on as though they don’t exist. Dianne’s article above comes to mind here.
I realize this analogy has its limits, but maybe it could be food for thought.
Greetings, all. Snow in Michigan this morning, calendar notwithstanding. Tornadoes just to our north on Friday, but I was in Ohio doing a workshop for student conductors, and missed them all. Made the drive back a bit dicey, but that’s where saying the Rosary comes in: at least for **this** driver, it reduces road rage by a factor of 10.
I truly wish I had wisdom to add to this discussion. I don’t. My area of expertise lies entirely elsewhere, and I’ve still got enough tangles of my own to un-weave (or perhaps cut through). But I did want to say hi, and assure you all of my prayers.
Yes, Tony: Faure’s dead enough for my third-grade friends to consider him a real composer. But in a very real sense, when we sing his music (or Bach’s, or Byrd’s, or Palestrina’s, or Lili Boulanger’s), something of him comes to life in our midst all the same, I think.
Pax,
Jerry
Michelle,your analogy is spot on!!
Who can claim to foresee,the future…?
And what IF we could, would it make us any happier? I doubt it..for while concentrating too much on the bad things that will hapen,we miss (over-look) all the good ones..
Life is not a *Shoping Mall*,where we can browse in, look around, buy what we like,reject what we don’t, and happily walk on.. We must take the good times, we wish for.. but also be prepared to take the hard times..
Forest Gump;- “Life is like a box of chocolates ……..” it is made up of,*soft* and hard centers* I quite liked that phrase..
Perhaps, we should stop thinking toooo much about the “hard centers”, instead,concentrate more,on the things in life that make it worth living… our families and friends.. Our Chldren and grandchildren who don’t allways seem like “little Angels”, never-the-less, we would not swop them for any other… (allthough, at times…….?)
Have a nice day all.. Check your e-mails!!!
And another::: “swap”…. NOT “swop”…
HE IS BACK!!!
A NEW TOPIC:::: HURRA!!!
Good evening Father Wauck..
Sandra-Yhx for the compliment, but that was a long quote from a site the software hear (rather arbitrarily) decided I couldn’t post.
Michelle–But a spouse isn’t helpless and is presumably a more-or-less competent adult, unlike a child. You’re *totally* responsible for a child, unlike another adult who can make his way w/o you.
I wasn’t comparing a spouse to a child– rather I was thinking of a marriage as something requiring nurturing and care, like a child does, and parenting as an undertaking that doesn’t always turn out like we thought or hoped it would, the way a marriage can sometimes turn out to be different than what we expected. This is the precise analogy I had in mind when I posted the above comment.
Thanks, ARN. The article you excerpted laid out your views very well. Looking at the list of “subtle pressures,” it’s hard to imagine a marriage that can live up to scrutiny and be found valid, if someone really wanted out.
It’s interesting that the analogy of the contract to buy a car got a reaction. Both you and Sandra totally disregarded the main point of the post—that Monsignor Burke’s interpretation of valid grounds for a nullity seem “narrow” compared to the “very broad” interpretations of all the annulments you’ve heard of, like your relatives’. I made the point that Msgr. Burke’s interpretation is in line with Canon Law, CCC, and papal addresses. Obviously, there’s a disconnect somewhere between that and your understanding of valid grounds.
So?
We can, for the moment anyway, disregard my analogy. (The analogy wasn’t meant to be THE point.) I’m okay going back to it later, if you’d like. Analogies, by definition, aren’t going to be identical to your situation—otherwise, they aren’t “analogies.” Of course, marriage is meant to be more permanent than your car, etc. The point was only to distinguish between finding that a binding, enforceable, contract never existed versus finding that such a contract does in fact exist, but there are reasons to excuse one party from it. The distinction is determined by looking at the facts, whether a marriage or a car purchase, at the time of the formation of the agreement, e.g., marriage vows or signing for the vehicle.
“…[the RCC] should neither be in the marriage business or the annulment business.” (ARN, above).
Actually, I think the Church is in the souls business, and the Sacraments business is a necessary off-shoot. But it wasn’t like the Church decided to institute ANY of the sacraments on Her own. For all the disagreements that you and Karl have on the annulments issue, you seem to take the perspective of the Church’s actions as based in this world.
In my opinion, there is a common attitude that each of our opinions are just as valid and worthy of being accepted as the Church’s teaching. As I used to tell my nephews (and soon will be telling my children), the Holy Father probably doesn’t say “Good morning” each morning until he’s prayed fervently more than you will pray cumulatively in one month. Add to that the multitude of people throughout the world praying for him, the experts on the various subjects who assist him. AndРshould be added, the presence of the Holy Spirit, which is guiding the Church not only in matters of infallibility, of course.
And somehow we think we can tell the Church, “Naw, you got it wrong. I’ve been thinking about this all day. Here’s what the Church has to do…”
As Pope Paul VI said, “the Church needs more witnesses.” The authority of Heaven was granted to the Church. We can’t go wrong by following Her teaching.
Karl, I’ve been saying all along that I can appreciate the problems you have had to endure, and the cross you must still carry. I truly do. The problems you’ve encountered with certain people in the Church are with those individuals. In a Church of 1 billion Catholics, you cannot presume to know what the Holy Father is doing (a) behind the scenes on certain matters, (b) what other issues he is dealing with that, I’m sorry to be so blunt, make your situation pale in comparison. Think globally here, Karl, as in the actual globe—he’s not just responsible for Catholics; he’s the representative of Christ on Earth. You really need to treat him in a way befitting his office of Jesus’ representative. It’s indicative of how you would treat Jesus. Your situation gives you an unbelievable ability to be an authentic witness to the faithful adherence to Christian marriage. You know you are married and you act accordingly—in a set of difficult circumstances. That’s heroic.
ARN, I came across this quote that I think lays out the other side (from your article). I haven’t verified the citations.
“The indissolubility of marriage is the physical symbol of the spiritual reality of God’s fidelity to His chosen people. The violation of this covenant is a destruction of the most powerful symbol of the love of God for us, Christ for the Church. “This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church …” (Eph 5:15-33, Rev 21:2). The Bible also says: “For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel.” (Mt 2:13-17). “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife … A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:10, 11, 39).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 1649) teaches “Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation.””
The tribunals in the US try to honor the dogma by a relaxed interpretation of conditions at the front end. Maybe they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. Maybe they can be accused of being disingenuous. But hey, they’re trying to help folks stuck in *miserable* relationships (and I mean it–all those high flown words in the CCC don’t seem to take into account the reality in the trenches). They are trying to minimize the number of alienated and disgusted Catholics who perhaps feel the Church doesn’t recognize an untenable situation when it’s put in its face.
Could it be that the tribunals humbly recognize that perhaps it’s difficult to determine if God actually *did* put these two together? But if the marriage later runs into serious trouble, that may be the best sign that He did not?
Here’s another factor: Annulments rarely were granted in the past because it was understood the wife was to be quite subservient to her husband notwithstanding all the talk about equal dignity. Subservient to a point that would never fly now in the West. In the past if she was insufficiently deferential she could be physically forced to be. That was assumed to be the male prerogative. It was good to be King.
Back in the day too, spouses didn’t expect so much from each other. Or more accurately, the wife didn’t expect much from her husband. All this has changed for the better. The bar is higher, which leads to more failed marriages, and annulments. The Church concept of marriage is out of date and the tribunals are trying to make it work through relaxed interpretations of grounds like in the quote I cited. That’s my take. If that makes me a bad Catholic, so be it.
This is America. Think of the situation, Tony, if the hard line were to prevail. Really.
==“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife … A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:10, 11, 39).==
This from Paul, whose ringing endorsement of marriage was that it was better to marry than to burn. Note too that the admonition to remain single after separation is directed at the wife.
So how do those Sola Scriptura Protestants who permit remarriage and divorce get around this? Maybe they interpreted it in light of Paul’s rather low regard for marriage and decide he could be ignored on marriage issues. But I don’t really know. Maybe someone should ask them.
Here’s something else to think about concerning the Church’s global reach: Different standards prevail in different cultures. In Africa there are polygamous Catholics where the husband *has not* been told to repudiate his extra wives if expects to be accepted in the Church. It would be socially disastrous to do so. If something so at odds with Western culture as polygamy can be tolerated by the Church why can’t American annulment standards.
ARN,I expect (at least to me it seems so) Tony is debating the point that we all have to recognise, that all marriages deserve our, utmost desire and effort, to make them *work*… which, I think I can speak for you too here, is quite true(for Catholic couples as for non Catholic) plus in everyones interest..
Divorce/Annulment can nor should be sought,nor granted “willy nilly”.I think we are ALL in agreement on this..
What I ment are,those which were in some way, not wholly of “free will”, and or entered into, under
“deceitfull” curcumstances.. where, one /or both expressed (promised) feelings / actions which they had no intention of honoring in the future.. This is very,hard in restrospect to “prove”..
Did he / she honestly promise intend to be a faithfull,dutifull spouse..
Did she / he act under duress.
Was his / her intention to have children REALLY spoken through ( in private,between both partners) BEFORE marriage.. Did BOTH agree on the subject.. and then change their mind?
Did he / she,as so often,assume,they could, in time,despite knowing of his / her (true) intentions,.. CHANGE.. TURN their partner around to their own view on this? (immature,wishfull thinking)..
How can anyone,PROVE this. ???
Ok! we can still say;- Well hard luck! YOU entered into this *contract*, YOU, “made your bed,now YOU have to lay in it”….. forever!! Now,I ask,is THIS, a marriage “made in heaven”?? a *UNION* that GOD would approve?
I do not mention all the many violent relationships,in which mental and / or physical abuse,is a daily occurence.. rendering the *guilty* partner to be so obnoxious to the other,that a continuation of the marriage is unthinkable.. out of the question, at least in our day and age..That is another topic…
We are discussing here, the VAILD grounds for annulment,recognised by the CCC.. which, have to be PROVEN, without a doubt!! Or am I wrong?
“But hey, they’re (the US tribunals) ***trying to help*** folks stuck in *miserable* relationships.”
“They are ***trying to minimize the number of alienated and disgusted Catholics*** who perhaps feel the Church doesn’t recognize an untenable situation when it’s put in its face.”
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that were true, ARN, it just ISN’T their job. I’d suggest they quit the tribunal and begin careers as lobbyists or letter-writers. I’m serious (well, serious about quitting the tribunal and fighting their cause in a different way, at least).
If what you’re saying is true, they are, in fact, we have activist marriage tribunals running amok our country. Couple problems with this. For one, they are usurping their authority. Their role is defined by canon law, not by their own individual (and disparate) philosophies of what should be the teaching of the Church. Second, it’s not working very well. Their decisions are reversed in astronomical proportions when going to Rome, compared to decisions coming out of other countries. Granted, most of them love the decision and so keep their mouths closes, as you wished Karl had done. But for those that do go to Rome, the US decisions are seen as silliness. Then there is the spiritual harm that it done to those people who stick their heads in the sand and delude themselves into thinking that, because they found someone to say that the marriage is null, they can get remarried—even when many of the ***couples*** (not just one spouse) know in their hearts that the marriage was valid and it is the annulment that is the sham. They coulda found someone on the street corner for a lot less paperwork to tell them “yeah, go ahead, you ain’t married.”
Someone (Archbishop Sheen?) once said that if the whole world believes a truth to be false, it is still true, and if the whole world believes a falsity to be true, it is still a falsity.
“Could it be that the tribunals humbly recognize that perhaps it’s difficult to determine if God actually *did* put these two together? But if the marriage later runs into serious trouble, that may be the best sign that He did not?”
I don’t see how. A valid marriage can run into serious trouble, can’t it? Or are you saying that anytime a marriage experiences serious trouble, that may be taken as a sign that God did not intend for that marriage to exist? Would you like to have that hanging over your head every time you were in a bad mood and got into a fight with your husband? “If I yell at him, the tribunal may CORRECTLY find that God did not intend for us to be married.” That’s dubious, at the very least.
Tell me a marriage that lasted more than 5 years that didn’t run into serious trouble. (For that matter, almost by definition, if it did NOT last 5 years, it DID run into serious trouble, right?)
Besides, Canon 1060 states “Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” So, if “it’s difficult to determine if God actually *did* put these two together,” the presumption is that He did, not that He did not. Serious trouble does not equate to the required “proof” to the contrary.
I know, I know. Men are cavemen, women now free. Good to be King. Times now different.
One time, I said to a priest that “I’m struggling with…” He looked with a drawn straight face and said, “Could it really be that you are NOT really struggling…” Meaning that I wasn’t putting up any real fight against my temptation, just kind of giving in then later feeling bad about it, then calling it “struggling.” He was dead on. So I don’t buy the “doesn’t take into account the reality in the trenches” argument. When we’re looking at “serious trouble” in a marriage as a sign that God didn’t intend for the two to be married, it begins to look like we’re running from the trenches and not really fighting enough in them. The problem isn’t with the “high flown words in the CCC.”
“How can anyone,PROVE this. ???”
Well that’s just it. You can’t. Not the sort of thing notarized and witnessed.
“Ok! we can still say;- Well hard luck! YOU entered into this *contract*, YOU, ‚Äúmade your bed,now YOU have to lay in it‚Äù‚Ķ.. forever!! Now,I ask,is THIS, a marriage ‚Äúmade in heaven‚Äù?? a *UNION* that GOD would approve?”
I can’t imagine it would be so. Can you reconcile all those noble words about the “self-donation” that happens during the “marital act” in a case where one of the parties can’t stand the other, or when the feeling is mutual?
“We are discussing here, the VAILD grounds for annulment,recognised by the CCC.. which, have to be PROVEN, without a doubt!! Or am I wrong?”
I think so. Does even the Roman Rota go by such a demanding and impossible standard? I doubt it. Tony, do you know?
“This is America. Think of the situation, Tony, if the hard line were to prevail. Really.”
I’m serious I don’t know what that means. I had a couple guesses on “This is America.” but I’m serious, I don’t think I’m guessing correctly. Please explain.
“Please explain.”
Fewer but better Catholics. *A lot* fewer.
I don’t know how Sola Scriptura folks get around a lot of things. I can’t speak for them.
Don’t know anything about the polygamy situation in Africa, so this is right off the top of my head (just thinking out loud here). If you’re saying that the Church allows polygamy in Africa but it doesn’t allow free-wheeling American annulments, maybe (again, I’m saying maybe—this is just a guess so don’t jump like the car analogy thing which I’m still smarting over)—it’s because polygamy is a cultural phenomenon which predates the Church coming to the continent and it is the Church that is integrating Herself into that culture. Whereas in the case of the United States, there is no centuries-old heritage of lax marital bonds and remarriage in the eyes of the Church (or outside the Church) in the country. It is a fairly recent situation. Much more to the point, it is an affirmative attempt to be not in compliance with the standards put forth from Rome (using your words of “American annulment standards.”)
Even if you think that the American standards are right here, this WOULD explain the difference between the two examples, I think. The African polygamists didn’t start polygamy in open opposition to Catholic teaching, but the American standards would be (again, if there were American annulment standards, as you said.)
“I know, I know. Men are cavemen, women now free. Good to be King. Times now different.”
Now Tony, you’re not taking this seriously. Women have a voice in a marriage they didn’t in the past, whether or not the Church pretends otherwise.
“A valid marriage can run into serious trouble, can‚Äôt it? Or are you saying that anytime a marriage experiences serious trouble, that may be taken as a sign that God did not intend for that marriage to exist? Would you like to have that hanging over your head every time you were in a bad mood and got into a fight with your husband? ‚ÄúIf I yell at him, the tribunal may CORRECTLY find that God did not intend for us to be married.‚Äù That‚Äôs dubious, at the very least.”
Having an argument isn’t serious trouble. I’m talking *long-term* trouble that resists resolution and one or both cannot tolerate the lack of same. Maybe one of the parties isn’t making a good faith effort. The more flexible partner is trying to meet the other halfway but all it gets him/her is halfway. Or something, I dunno. Tony we’ve all seen these situations in people we know and think privately that this was by no means a marriage “made in heaven”, whether or not the parties involved, the ones whose opinions count, agree. But few get to the impasse of separation w/o trying to resolve the problems unless they’re very immature. And maybe that’s a grounds for annulment, American style!
Tony–I didn’t mean to jump on you with the car analogy. I apologize if you took offense. We were prematurely picking it apart w/o giving you a chance.
No, I don’t know the standard of doubt. Sorry. I doubt it is “without a doubt” if that makes sense. It’s unlikely that it would be required to show with 100% absolute certainty. If that’s what you really mean, Sandra, I don’t think that is correct.
“Fewer but better Catholics. *A lot* fewer.”
Thanks, I’ll go back and re-read it after work and get back to you on it. But first, you say “a lot fewer.” Um…sounds really spooky and creepy.
The ones that remain. Will they be “a lot better” Catholics, whatever that means? Or will it just affect the number (negatively) but it won’t affect the quality ***as much***?
Oh, no doubt it’s grounds for annulment American style, ARN. That’s the whole point of the discussion, I think.
No worries at all on the car thing. I’m just kidding around.
I’m off. Take care.
Karl??
Nothing more to say, Tony.
Okay, Karl. You and your family are in my prayers. Please stop back from time to time if you can, share your thoughts on things.
Peace!
Tony
Thank you and the same to you.
Karl
Hope everyone is well. Just poping in again to say hello. How is the Congress going Father Waulk? Maybe you could do a post on it. I wish I was there.