Is Pope Francis inspiring Catholics to give more this Christmas?

pope-francisThe following comes from a Dec. 23 story on TakePart.com.

Alba Ramiro couldn’t help crying as she watched a flood of charitable work pour into her diocesan volunteering office last month.

As the volunteer coordinator of the Catholic Charities of Orange County, Ramiro has been in charge of managing volunteer work for years. While people have always turned to the charity to help those less fortunate, she says she’s seen a sizable uptick in giving this Christmas season, something she attributes to “the Pope Francis effect.”

“The fact is that they have been inspired,” she said. “It’s a beautiful blessing.”

Pope Francis, the former archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, has changed the tone of the papacy since his election on March 13. The world’s first pope—then known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio—from the Global South clued the world in to his compassionate and austere Vatican leadership when he took the name Francis, after St. Francis of Assisi, who championed the poor.

In less than a year, he has moved the Roman Catholic Church away from the pomp and circumstance for which it is known and refocused it on humility, concern for the poor, and acceptance of people from all backgrounds and faiths.

People are increasingly citing the pope’s message of helping the poor and leading a simple life as their reason for cutting checks for charity and participating in events like the Catholic Charities of Orange County’s adopt-a-family program, Ramiro says—donations for 2013 were up by 18 percent as of Dec. 10.

“A lady called and said, ‘We bought everything for this family, and we wrapped their gifts. I have never seen my grown-up, adult children so excited about Christmas,’ ” Ramiro said. “She started crying, and I started crying. It’s pretty powerful.”

The Catholic Charities of Orange County isn’t alone. Many Catholic charities and churches throughout California and the world are finding Francis’ actions a catalyst for bolstered faith and increased charity.

The boost comes as the popularity of the People’s Pope reaches its peak: This month, Time magazine named Pope Francis its Person of the Year for “committing the world’s largest church to confronting its deepest needs” and “balancing judgment with mercy.”

Last month marked the pontiff’s first apostolic exhortation, which focused on caring for the poor and criticized the “idolatry of money.”

Under the auspices of Francis’ leadership, says Fr. Rodel Balagtas of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church in Los Angeles, a sizable dent can be made in global poverty—an issue the pontiff has been outspoken about since his election in March, when he called for a church for the poor.

“Poverty in the world is a scandal,” the pope said, addressing a group of Italian Jesuit students in June. “In a world where there is so much wealth, so many resources to feed everyone, it is unfathomable that there are so many hungry children, that there are so many children without an education, so many poor persons.”

The estimated 1,500 parishioners at Balagtas’ church took such messages to heart. When Typhoon Haiyan devastated the Philippines, churchgoers sent aid and held a prayer rally for those affected by the damage. In the end, they raised $25,000 to send overseas.

“It’s not just because of generous people, but there’s something about this pope,” he said. “He leads by example. He leads by action.…”

“The pope called for a prayer wave, and I had 17 people come pray at the pope’s request, during finals,” said Seyer, a pastor at the University of Southern California’s Caruso Catholic Center. “In the past, I would have been lucky to have a few….”

To read the entire story, click here.

 

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. The deepest need of the Catholic Church is to SAVE SOULS.

    • Thank you ANDY and Thank you Abeca for the beautiful quotes!

      The day Mother Teresa told me, “Your poverty is greater than ours”
      TheCypressTimes.com | 07/05/2010 | Dan Wooding
      Posted on July 5, 2010 at 6:34:59 AM PDT by Patriot1259

      ..”.As a young reporter, I immediately warmed to this gentle woman who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize, for she had seen more poverty than anyone I had ever met. Speaking in the founding, festering slum where she made her simple home, I was surprised to hear her express pity for the “poverty-stricken West.”

      “The spiritual poverty of the Western World is much greater than the physical poverty of our people,” she told me, as the fan whirred above us, trying to alleviate the unbearable heat of that Indian city.”

      Emptiness

      “You, in the West, have millions of people who suffer such terrible loneliness and emptiness. They feel unloved and unwanted. These people are not hungry in the physical sense, but they are in another way. They know they need something more than money, yet they don’t know what it is.”

      “What they are missing, really, is a living relationship with God.” …

    • Anonymous says:

      This article comes from a pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights social action online magazine. It is not concerned with salvation. However, Pope Francis is. We have all been told by him to spread the Gospel, (which is the good news of salvation), and particularly to take the Gospel to the poor. He wrote a long apostolic exhortation about exactly that. It is called Evangelii Gaudium and can be found on the Vatican’s website.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Thanks Anony, I didn’t know…why is this website using it then? Let this be a lesson to most…don’t just react to what is written on articles, remember to be charitable to our Pope and stop thinking the worst of him just because of some articles… judge where the source is coming from and continue to pray for our Pope. God bless our Pope!

    • Amen to that!

  2. Abeca Christian says:

    “My director, Jesus, does not teach me to count my acts, but to do everything for love, to refuse Him nothing, to be pleased when He gives me a chance to prove to Him that I love Him – but all this in peace – in abandonment.”
    –St. Therese of Lisieux in a letter to Celine, July 6, 1893

  3. Abeca Christian says:

    “Love is the most necessary of all virtues. Love in the person who preaches the word of God is like fire in a musket. If a person were to throw a bullet with his hands, he would hardly make a dent in anything; but if the person takes the same bullet and ignites some gunpowder behind it, it can kill. It is much the same with the word of God. If it is spoken by someone who is filled with the fire of charity- the fire of love of God and neighbor- it will work wonders.” ~St. Anthony Mary Claret (from his autobiography).

  4. How about giving us the Mass of All Times back to the faithfull???

    • Abeca Christian says:

      Janek it has not been taken away….how can we take something away that still exists. But you are a child of God and He hears your concern…it is still noble of you, it shows clearly how much you love The Mass. Write to the Pope.

      They say that love can move mountains….put your love in writing and write to the Holy Father. But never look back if you don’t get a quick response….but instead add Him daily to your prayers as well, watch how much more virtuous a one’s soul can grow. After all in this life, we are to practice virtue…it is how we can grow more virtuous. I lack in many virtues and I have a long way to go, So I make myself practice more and more…

  5. Are you refering to the Tridentine mass. If so, it’s available throughout California. CCD highlights churches which offer it all the time.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      C&H we must be sensitive and charitable. If she is mentioning perhaps it is not available near her area…..but extending a care for what she is requesting, since it is a noble request, then we must pray with her.

      I always believe in encouraging one another in all good. I do applaud you for at least mentioning what you mentioned….it’s good to help one look at the bright side and work from there…..the rest can be handled a what I suggested to her before. I’m sure she already knows that. I don’t want to insult her intelligence either…..she obviously is seeking a deeper spirituality.

  6. Abeca Christian says:

    When shall it be that we shall taste the sweetness of the Divine Will in all that happens to us, considering in everything only His good pleasure, by whom it is certain that adversity is sent with as much love as prosperity, and as much for our good? When shall we cast ourselves undeservedly into the arms of our most loving Father in Heaven, leaving to Him the care of ourselves and of our affairs, and reserving only the desire of pleasing Him, and of serving Him well in all that we can? — St. Jane Frances de Chantal

  7. Abeca Christian says:

    We must wake up in the morning and start off with a prayer….connecting our being with our Lord day and night. Our Lord is the most important “ONE” in our lives….who can save us from our own selves…therefore we must pray for our Pope and our church often, so in case we lose ourselves, it would be then for the right reasons in which are most pleasing to our Lord.

    Here is a good quote to reflect on:

    He who walking on the sea could calm the bitter waves, who gives life to the dying seeds of the earth; he who was able to loose the mortal chains of death, and after three days’ darkness could bring again to the upper world the brother for his sister Martha: he, I believe, will make Damasus rise again from the dust. — St. Damasus (from an epitaph written for himself)

  8. Abeca Christian says:

    Celebrate the feast of Christmas every day, even every moment in the interior temple of your spirit, remaining like a baby in the bosom of the heavenly Father, where you will be reborn each moment in the Divine Word, Jesus Christ. — St. Paul of the Cross

  9. Father Karl says:

    Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said that the poor will always be around. No matter what the Catholic Church does, or how many government agencies are operating, some people will always be poor. Instead of emphasizing the material poverty, Our Holy Father should have spoke about spiritual poverty which most of the world seems to be suffering. Mother Theresa and the saints have written and spoken about this. Speaking from both oral and written tradition, as Andy and Catherine wrote, , the PRIMARY mission of the Catholic Church is to save souls. When the Church looses track of what her main purpose is, then we have trouble, meaning a huge identity crisis for the Church. People will then be flocking to heretical churches, because the Bride of Christ is no longer following Her Divine Master. As a result,there will only be a remnant left of the Mystical Body of Christ.

    • Ann Malley says:

      This fascination with Francis as the new, improved, wow is worrisome to me, Father Karl. Worrisome in that much like a woman who has purchased a new dress to gain the attention of her husband and friends, draws compliments on the dress rather than on her own character and inherent beauty that has ALWAYS been there.

      And the saying goes, “What a beautiful dress! I love the cut of ‘that dress.’ ‘That dress’ is really bold. Where did you get ‘that dress?’ ” Nothing about the woman herself. Nothing. IOW: The focus is on the dress, not the person. So when the new dress is gone or not quite new anymore, then what?

      And here we seem to have the focus on the person of the Pope instead of Christ who he is supposed to represent. Christ, the contradiction, who is always with us in addition to the poor and downtrodden who lend one and all the opportunity to practice virtue in every generation. They are a TREASURE. That said, in Truth, we are all poor.

      But the new ideology would have that treasure of suffrage and angelic virtues disappear. Be checked off as a problem solved. And the Pope (at least the way he is represented in the Press and, sadly, by our own Church leadership) will be noted as the problem solver. The fixer. The man who upped the numbers for the corporation. The ultimate ‘new dress.’

      Thanks for posting here, Father, and for following the grace of your vocation!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Father Karl: Jesus never said that since there will always be the poor we can simply ignore their needs. You are hardly the first CCD commenters quote that “the poor will always be around” as an excuse to ignore Pope Francis’ exortations. Surely, you understand that to use this paraphrase of Jesus encounter with the sinful woman as a dodge for a preferential option for the poor horribly extracts Jesus’ words from its context.

      The context has Jesus being honored by a woman who was forshadowing his suffering and death and rise to glory. It was the lowest among them, a woman, a scandalous sinful woman, the lowliest among them who first recognized that the passion was coming. His point was that everyone gets on her case for whatever reason they want…her past actions, her present actions. But he honored her because she was the first to recognize that he must leave the company of friends and do the will of the Father.

      To use this passage as an attempt to dodge the command to feed the poor is one of the grossest usages of scripture I have ever witnessed.

      • Ann Malley says:

        Witnessing you attempting to catechize a faithful priest is one of the grossest displays of self-absorbed pride you’ve posted to date, YFC.

        That said, you’re one to talk about twisted, grotesque dodges. You use whatever you can of Francis in an attempt to pervert Truth. Good grief, you never fail to amaze in your blazing rainbow of indignation. If your scandalizing potential readers wasn’t so serious – and it is – I’d be laughing my head off.

      • YFC – you are attacking someone again.
        No one said we should not help those truly in need (not the hundreds of thousands on the government dole due to laziness).
        Cell phones, tv sets, cars, etc – are not the possessions of the truly poor.

        2 THESS 3:6-10.

        In the USA with the exception of a small percentage of the population, there are no truly poor. And those who are simply must make themselves available to receive government hand outs.

        • Jesus did not say that any organization (or Church or Synagogue) should help the poor.
          Helping those truly in need is the responsibility of us as individuals, but in the USA the government wants to do the job.

          • JOE, thank you for pointing this out. The only way for the “government” to provide for the poor is first, for lawmakers to decide what, on paper, constitutes poverty, secondly for lawmakers to decided who, on paper, meets the criteria for poverty then thirdly, for lawmakers to decide who, on paper, meets the criteria for having more than he/she needs. Finally, they set up an agency in which they pay citizens to perform the task of collecting money from those who have “more than they need” to give to those who “have less than they need”. Anyone, willing to give this system even a few minutes of thought would quickly come to the conclusion that this was never the system preached by God in the Old Testament, nor by Jesus in the New Testament.

          • Anonymous says:

            The Church is not an organization. It is a communion. With Jesus. Remember?

      • YFC writes, “To use this passage as an attempt to dodge the command to feed the poor is one of the grossest usages of scripture I have ever witnessed.”

        YFC, Stop dodging the Truth! You are the only one grossly misquoting, misusing and misinterpreting Scripture passages. Where is the woman called a “scandalous sinner” in that passage? You are perhaps confusing her with the woman caught in adultery when Jesus told the woman to “Go, and sin no more!’ You also referred to this woman as an “IT”. That is considered a major blunder to your feminist comrades. YFC, Selective compassion does not become you either. You tripped yourself up again because you attempted to falsely hijack the purity of good intentions of a faithful priest. Father Karl was carrying the alabaster box containing the balm of precious Truth and like a thief Judas also spoke up about the poor before tending to Christ’s Truths first as Father Karl did. The faithful realize that many heresies and errors that will land souls in hell have been falsely ushered in being protected, hidden and disguised under the shiny waving banner of social justice but inside it is thievery to the rotten core. There are many driving the big shiny social justice bus that claims to only care about the poor. The common advertisement on the bus says “Feed the poor and homeless” but the bus is full of people who despise authentic Church teaching. Like Judas, they also give lip service but they are in reality thieves as they plot to betray Jesus while pretending to care about the poor.

        Reminder:
        #1. Not a good idea to refer to women as an “IT” = Exposes a lack of sincerity.

        #2 If you are going to try to appear compassionate you at least must be consistent.

        #3. If you are going to undermine a faithful priest you will be setting up your own trap, in which you are ultimately caught. You only hurt yourself. Your posts have clearly demonstrated that.

        continued…..

        • YFC, You had absolutely no compassion when it came to feeding, housing, caring or providing safety for this family being viciously persecuted in Germany because they are Christians. = Selective Compassion

          Example: YFC’s Selective Social Injustice meets with Leftist Intersectionality

          Your Fellow Catholic says:
          November 27, 2013 at 7:51 am

          “OK before we go off on the Administration again for its supposed sins, it might be wise to remember that no one has a right to live here in the U.S. If there is a human right for homeschooling, which is something I’ve never heard before, the correction is to change German law. If Germany fails, then it is hardly the job of Americans to give them refuge. All of the finger wagging at Archbishop Gomez, when juxtapositioned against this post, merely shows how convoluted our thinking is on immigration. Readers of CCD would sooner have the innocent children of Mexican immigrants, who are already here and know no other country as home, deported.”

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Catherine, please calm down. It is people like you who subvert the truth by allowing people to ignore entire parts of scripture. And notice the usage of the word “it” in the prior sentence. To use a pronoun like “She is people like you” wouldn’t have made very much sense, would it?

            Father lifted one small phrase out of a sentence and threw the rest of the sentence and the rest of the context right out the window. So why don’t you just address your comments to that fact?

            Please see John 12:3 in which the woman is identified as Mary sister of Martha, but more importantly Luke 7:36-50 in which she is identified as a sinful woman. Now get off my back Catherine.

          • I find it very interesting, Catherine, that some would say:

            “…Father lifted one small phrase out of a sentence and threw the rest of the sentence and the rest of the context right out the window. So why don’t you just address your comments to that fact?” when deriding Father Karl’s use of scripture.

            Especially when the very same person does the exact same thing “that is lifting out one phrase and throwing away the rest of the context,” to disregard what Fr. Karl has to say in order to undermine and thereby avoid addressing the valid points that were made in Father’s post.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            YFC I hate hypocrisy! How dare you say that it is people like Catherine. No it is you YFC who does the bad will interpretation. Now with your comments here, you speak as if you are a person of authority and clearly you are not. Say what you will but what discredits you the most is your prideful conveyance, conveying that you know better than Catherine, when clearly she is consistent in her Catholic faith.

            Yes I am a lady suffering with anemia or else, I would love to correct your errors with more of the theology handed down to me on Catholic truths and biblical truths but I have no energy nor the gift to convey like I use to. There were a few here who use to post so well on those truths and did it well, they corrected the many errors many have embraced. They were also faithful to church teachings so that made them the real authority when sharing the real truths. What good is it YFC that you may hold some of those truths, if it still does not move you to turn away from sin. You are wasting those precious pearls in which our Lord has handed down to us all….when will you learn and apply.

          • Abeca Christian, Thank you sweet Abeca for all of the loving posts that you beautifully convey. : ) You lovingly reminded YFC that he is wasting those precious pearls that Our Lord handed down to us. You even asked, YFC, “when will you learn.” Abeca, Many will only learn and apply those precious pearls of Truth when they first stop worshipping their false idol god known as homosexuality. Today many professional dissenters who ignore Church teaching on homosexual issues think that if you sound caring because you talk about feeding the poor or work in a soup kitchen, then it somehow becomes unnecessary or unimportant to obey Church teaching or remain chaste. People love to say, ” Oh, but I am different, God’s laws don’t apply to me because I am in a committed relationship so now we have a license given to us by ourselves to commit mortal sin because we talk about helping the poor all of the time and we served 40 bowls of soup today.” They play a dangerous game of dodgeball with God’s Revealed Truth and they only end up hurting themselves. They also have many cheerleaders encouraging them but that is still no excuse. I am sure St. Augustine had his cheerleaders in his day too but his mother’s heartfelt and faithful prayers were more than answered.

            Better to have really loved Our Lord late in our thoughts, words and deeds than face an unprovided death claiming to have loved Him while having serially offended Him night and day with our thoughts, words and deeds.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            So again, instead of attacking me personally Abeca Christian and Ann Malley and Catherine, how about you show us why Father’s interpretation of scripture is the more correct one. Try it: just for once, try an argument based upon real facts and logic instead of personal attack. Try it, I dare you!

          • Ann Malley,

            In response to your December 31, 2013 at 10:53 am post. I totally agree Ann. Also, I am sure that you have noticed the very rattled spirits that always come out of the woodwork and darkness whenever a faithful priest or alter Christus leads with Truth. Even in darkness the power of Christ compels them to expose their fear.

            Jesus Heals Two Men with Demons

            Matthew 8: 28 When Jesus came to the territory of Gadara on the other side of the lake, he was met by two men who came out of the burial caves there. These men had demons in them and were so fierce that no one dared travel on that road. 29 At once they screamed, “What do you want with us, you Son of God? Have you come to punish us before the right time?” 30 Not far away there was a large herd of pigs feeding. 31 So the demons begged Jesus, “If you are going to drive us out, send us into that herd of pigs.” 32 “Go,” Jesus told them; so they left and went off into the pigs. The whole herd rushed down the side of the cliff into the lake and was drowned. 33 The men who had been taking care of the pigs ran away and went into the town, where they told the whole story and what had happened to the men with the demons. 34 So everyone from the town went out to meet Jesus; and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their territory. – Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Oh Dear Dear Catherine: I was proud of you for once for not injecting homosexuality into this discussion. You danced close to it but then you backed away. But here you are, (Catherine at 3:41 on the eve of New Year’s and the Feast of Mary Mother of Jesus.), proving once again that you just can’t let go of your obsession with the topic of homosexuality, that every single topic must, for you, revolve around homosexuality.

            And please see my invitation today at 3:42 to actually stick to the topic at hand, and use facts and logic to show why Father is more correct in his interpretation than I was when it came to the woman who anointed Jesus feet with oil and the poor that we shall always have with us. The invitation is still open, if you can clear your mind of personal attacks and your obsession with my sexuality to actually think logically. If you can’t well, perhaps you can make a New Year’s resolution to try and keep your mind off homosexuality for a few hours.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Thank you for the challenge, YFC. That said, you are one to talk about personal attacks. Instead of asking Fr. Karl for clarification, you immediately slammed him, twisting his words and their meaning to imply he is trying to ignore Pope Francis with the following:

            “…Father Karl: Jesus never said that since there will always be the poor we can simply ignore their needs.”

            Father was merely outlining the truth as stated by Our Lord that we will always have the poor with us, poor that require our tending and care. And Catholics have ALWAYS responded to this call. But even in light of this paramount need, the needs of the spirit, that is the salvation of souls is and has always been the main duty/function of the Church.

            It is no sin to be poor – albeit it is a GREAT suffrage at times. It is a sin, however, and highly dangerous to the well-being of one’s eternal soul, to be morally corrupt. That is spiritually starving. Devoid of Truth and hope.

            And since the Catholic Church is the only one entrusted with that FOOD, it is paramount that Holy Mother Church never loose sight of that, her highest calling. Feeding the flock so as to save souls.

            That said, I’ve tried using logic with you many a time, so please don’t over exaggerate with the ‘just for once’ ‘I dare you’ distractions. They only get in the way. And they’re just not true.

          • Catherine says:

            YFC,

            I kindly asked you to do something months ago. Have you purchased a Miraculous Medal to wear yet? Please purchase one for yourself and your friend and have the Medals blessed. Read where a Baron once dared a Jewish man named Alphonse Ratisbonne to wear a Miraculous Medal. YFC, Where Mary the Mother of God IS invited and welcomed the father of lies flees. She will crush the head of the serpent.

            YFC, There is a particular saying, “A drunk tongue speaks a sober mind.” So in the case of an alcoholic his particular attachment is a desiring of booze first before a desiring of being pleasing to God. Now in your case, your particular attachment is to serve homosexuality first. You definitely spoke your sober mind while intoxicated with homosexuality when you chose to enter this faithful Catholic website to first introduce yourself not as a faithful Catholic interested in defending, upholding or instructing others with the authentic Magisterial teachings, but as a homosexual living in a committed homosexual relationship. When loving family members and AA sponsors tell a falling down drunk or alcoholic that they must stop drinking the booze the alcoholic also accuses everyone of attacking them personally. It is part of the addiction. The alcoholic or drug addict will also tell loving family members, AA sponsors and drug rehab professionals to get off of their backs. That is also expected. It is difficult to let go of addictions but it is possible with God and a cooperation with His grace. You dare others to have a conversation with you about morality while you are still driving your car intoxicated to the gills in serving that false god of homosexuality first. Conversations are good but when someone is habitually intoxicated they often have black outs and don’t remember anything but the desiring of the drug that they have become addicted to. You are being offered assistance. Please read the following story and take one day at a time. I look forward to many conversations when you are not quite as plastered in enamoration for serving the false god that you have become addicted to serving first.

            The Miraculous Conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne
            memoraremiracle.com/the_miraculous_conversion.html‎

          • Catherine says:

            YFC, Please purchase the Medals and ask the Mother of God to help you to not ignore her Son by denying certain Revealed Truths. God allowed His Mother to instantaneously help a Jewish man miraculously convert to accept the Fullness of Truth. Our Blessed Mother will also help you if you ask. If these words feel like an attack, then hold on tighter to your good guardian angel and brush that little devil off of your shoulder who has been habitually whispering into your ear.

            “This is how Ratisbonne related his experience in the church that cold day in January of 1842. “All I can say is that the moment when the Blessed Virgin made a sign with her hand, the veil fell from my eyes; not one veil only, but all the veils which were wrapped around me disappeared, just as snow melts beneath the rays of the sun. I am asked how I attained a knowledge of these truths, since it is well known that I never opened a religious book, had never read a page of the Bible, and that the dogma of original sin, which is either denied or utterly forgotten by the modern Jews, had never for a single moment occupied my thoughts, indeed, I doubt whether I had ever heard the words which express it. How, then, did I arrive at a knowledge of it? I know not. All that I know is that when I entered that church I was profoundly ignorant of everything, and that when I came out I saw everything clearly and distinctly.”

          • YFC, Please do follow Catherine’s loving and charitable advice. Our Blessed Mother is the most gentle and charitable of God’s creatures. She has abundant blessings at her disposal for you, if you but only give her a try.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Catherine, my faith is in Christ Jesus, who died for us and crushed death forever. My faith is not in some magical metal. Thanks for trying.

            Now, I have asked you many many times to seek treatment for your obsessions. Will you please do that, not for me, but for yourself?

          • Catherine says:

            The Medal of the Immaculate Conception, popularly known as the Miraculous Medal, is unique among all medals. It was given by the Blessed Virgin Mary herself! No wonder, then, that it wins such extraordinary graces for those who wear it and pray for Mary’s intercession and help. Our Lady manifested the Medal to St. Catherine Laboure on November 27, 1830 in the motherhouse of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul and St. Louise de Marillac, in Paris. Catherine saw Our Lady standing on a globe, with dazzling rays of light streaming from her outstretched hands. Framing the figure was an inscription: “O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.” Then Mary spoke to Catherine: “Have a medal struck upon this model. Those who wear it will receive great graces, especially if they wear it around the neck.”

            The vision then seemed to turn to show the reverse of the Medal: the letter M surmounted by a cross with a bar at its base; below this monogram, the Sacred Heart of Jesus crowned with thorns, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary pierced with a sword.

            With approval of the Catholic Church, the first medals were made in 1832 and were distributed in Paris. Almost immediately the blessings that Mary had promised began to shower down on those who wore her medal, and soon all of France was clamoring for what the people referred to as the “Miraculous Medal.” Use of the Medal spread from country to country and now blankets the world. Everywhere, the Medal is still drawing down from God blessings for body and soul.

          • Ann Malley says:

            “…my faith is in Christ Jesus, who died for us and crushed death forever. My faith is not in some magical metal. Thanks for trying.”

            You still sound like you’re a Protestant, YFC. That said, Christ offered atonement for our sins on the Cross, but one still has to turn from sin to apply the remedy. Especially the sin in one’s heart.

            That said, Catherine’s ‘obsession’ as you call it is with saving your soul. That and countering the misguided encouragement you give others regarding how one can be Catholic and still embrace sodomy and all that goes with it.

            Too bad you’re too blind (and you likely are) as there is no treatment other than Faith…. something the Miraculous Medal represents despite your mean spirited comments. Do you have the same sentiments regarding the holy Rosary?

          • YFC, a Miraculous Medal is not a luck charm! Your calling the Miraculous Medal “magical”, shows your great ignorance and profound disrespect for our Catholic faith.

            (I suppose that you do not know that the Miraculous Medal is formally called the medal of the Immaculate Conception. It became commonly known as “miraculous” after numerous exceptional miracles where obtained from its devout use)

            I also conclude by your other statement, that you do not believe in an eternal Hell, even though Jesus repeatedly warned us that there is one and that people will go there. Why would you or any of us, for that matter, therefore need conversion if Heaven was a guarantee? I guess you do, however, endorse psychiatry, even though Jesus never mentioned it.

          • O Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee. And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee Especially The Enemies Of The Church.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            If “Miraculous Medals” and such sacramentals increase your faith, by all means use them. But belief in them is not required for any Catholic, as it is not part of the deposit of faith passed down and safeguarded by the Church. I am not at all afraid to tell you that I do not believe in the Miraculous Medal or any magical metal. I’m just being honest with you.

          • Anonymous says:

            There is no one who does not have recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            I agree with you Catherine….I wish people would get rid of their idols first…until that happens, we hope to see some real conversions when the idols are gone. God bless you Catherine and all….Happy New Year.

          • Catherine says:

            YFC writes, “But belief in them is not required for any Catholic, as it is not part of the deposit of faith passed down and safeguarded by the Church. I am not at all afraid to tell you that I do not believe in the Miraculous Medal or any magical metal. I’m just being honest with you.”

            YFC, This post is not just for you. This post is for any readers who might be confused when reading your many lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations of the deposit of faith. Faith is a tremendous gift and our Catholic Church history includes the richest tradition and treasury of many miracles and blessings associated with the many different sacramentals and devotions. Many of these beautiful devotions and traditions have been deliberately ignored and discarded by those who are repulsed by their reminding value. Yes, it must be extremely difficult to gaze upon an image of the Mother of God and sin at the same time, hence the discarding. No mystery there. Also, it is not simply the blessed object that brings graces it is the great FAITH and great TRUST attached that brings incredible blessings. While it is true that belief in the Miraculous Medal is not required other readers besides you may certainly benefit from knowing about the many beautiful graces given and the many miracles that have occurred. YFC, Not only does your chosen moniker insult and mock God you are also NOT being honest at all when you claim to care about *safeguarding the deposit of faith*.

        • Catherine, the iconography of Mary Magladene includes that vessel of perfume. Luke directly describes the annoiting woman (not necessarily Mary) as having “led a sinful life”. Even without Luke’s description, there would be the reasonable assumption that women in the trade would be disporportionaly represented among women owning so much expensive perfume. Her use of it to annoit Christ – as opposed to saving it for later – is therefore also cited as proof of a changed life.

          The use of the third-person, singular from as in “It was the lowest among them who….” is quite proper English usage. You correctly identify any disfavor as feminist affectations, although with the rising gender confusion fads, the nueter form may make a comeback.

          As for consistency and compassion, inconsistency constantly walks with, and trips compassion as it accompanies and trips all our efforts. Look to your own escapes to legalisms when discussing Mexican immigration.

        • YFC, I am with you with regards to your feelings about “magical metals”. Neither do I believe in “crystals”. Both are superstitious items condemned by the Church.

          While it is true that the Church does not oblige you to accept the “miraculous” medal as means to your salvation, you still need to realize that it is an approved sacramental of the Church and as such should not be treated with the callous disrespect that you are treating it by calling it a “magical metal”.

          O Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee. And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee, Especially The Enemies Of The Church.

        • Ann Malley says:

          I’d be interested to know what you consider to be, “….part of the deposit of faith passed down and safeguarded by the Church,” YFC.

          Miraculous Medals are not mentioned in the Bible or in Church dogma it is true, but the change that you seemingly hope will be forthcoming would be a definitive negation of that which has been passed down and safeguarded by the Church. That is marriage between one man and one woman. And the requisite consignment of sexual activity acceptable only in that state of life.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley – Certainly the faithful have always held to things like the Dormition, known here in the West as the Assumption. The Immaculate Conception is probably in the same league, and certainly the 1950 promulgation of the dogma is based on that thought. The idea of marriage – far from being a part of the doctrines handed down from the beginning, was actually discouraged entirely by Saint Paul. So if anything, celibacy is the “lifestyle” most encouraged by Scripture. But as we all know, that would have forced the end times much much sooner! The idea of sacramental marriage only appears centuries after the Apostles, and for that reason people like Luther objected to calling it a sacrament at all, and the evidence that Christ instituted it is pretty sparse to say the least.

            What I have asked for in this discussion is civil marriage licenses for same sex couples, for at least to protect the children who are part of those families. There are other reasons, sure, but the kids are the most innocent ones in this conversation, and the most deserving of protection. I think if we are truly pro-life, pro-family, and pro-kids, we will come to understand that there is not only no historical teeth to the idea that civil marriage should be prohibited to all couples, but in fact, requires that civil marriage licenses be granted. I believe it is Saint Paul who says: it is better to marry than to burn.

          • YFC, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was pronounced on December 8, 1854, not in 1950 as you suggest.

            YFC, since you insist on being accepted here as a fellow Catholic in the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches Sacramental Marriage as Dogma as opposed to being Lutheran in the Lutheran (Protestant) denomination, which denies Sacramental Marriage, I can’t understand your OBSESSION with “CIVIL” same sex couple unions anyway. As a professing Catholic you realize that there are many “CIVIL” laws which you can never engage in nor support, such as abortion and contraception. Since the Church condemns sodomy, to what benefit would it be if “CIVIL” law said that it were legal?

            I have more respect for the Protestants during the Period of Reformation, because, at least they chose to cut ties with the Catholic Church due to their disagreements with her. Today’s Protestants, such as yourself, think they have a RIGHT to stay in the Catholic Church and force HER to accept THEIR protestant views.

            O Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Those Who Have Recourse To Thee. And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee Especially The Enemies Of The Church.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Go ahead and say that you’re all for SSM for the ‘children’ all you’d like, YFC. It’s very similar to those who pushed for abortion for the sake of the poor rape victim, and no parental notification on behalf of the poor incest victim. While it sounds very heartfelt, what you suggest breaks down the basis of what should be. That which should be built up. Marriage and family.

            As for using St. Paul to justify your gross agenda, gross in how misleading it is as to the benefit to society and children, you never cease to amuse. Long term, YFC. This is not Brave New World. It’s the real world with consequences that reach toward that which is eternal.

            So yes, it is better to marry than to burn, that is marry for that which marriage is intended, not to bind oneself by law/contract to that which will cause you to burn now and in the hereafter. That is men toward men and women toward women. St. Paul spoke out against that as well as you know.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Tracy thanks for the correction about the date.

            As to your question, “Since the Church condemns sodomy, to what benefit would it be if “CIVIL” law said that it were legal?”, I answer your question with a question: Did you actually read my comment at 9:03 PM? I gave you a perfectly good answer in that post. Let me give you another, additional answer. Civil marriage honors and begins a lifetime of love and commitment and mutual protection between two people. There is no doctrine of the Catholic Church that says that two people cannot commit to a lifetime of love and commitment and mutual protection. In fact, if the Church does what it claims to do, proclaim Jesus insurmountable love, it would celebrate these commitments.

          • Anonymous says:

            YFC, some of the Oriental Churches have preserved prayers and liturgies from the first century from weddings some of which even refer to it as a sacrament. In the Western Church, it is the 3rd century before this word appears connected to marriage but is has always been a sacrament. It is mentioned by St. Paul as being a sign of Christ and His Church.

          • Catherine says:

            “Go ahead and say that you’re all for SSM for the ‘children’ all you’d like, YFC. It’s very similar to those who pushed for abortion for the sake of the poor rape victim, and no parental notification on behalf of the poor incest victim. ” = You nailed it Ann Malley! That is exactly what it is! Thank you for brilliantly exposing these deceptive attempts in promoting the continuing success of the culture of death, especially through the many manipulations of smoke and mirrors.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            In case you didn’t notice, gay people are going to have relations with people of the same sex regardless of whether marriage exists or not. Marriage doesn’t incentivize this, sexual orientation and human nature does. Keeping marriage between people of opposite sexes alone doesn’t incentivize gay people to suddenly become straight. It just makes it harder for gay people to establish life long loving bonds with each other.

          • Ann Maley, thank you for more of your “uncommon” sense!
            Uncommon — Not common; rare. Wonderful; remarkable.

            Why is it that more people can’t comprehend what is obvious to both you and I, that Queer activist like YFC are aiming toward queering marriage: nothing more and nothing less!
            Queer (verb) slang: — To ruin or thwart.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Tracy, it’s not that folks don’t get the truth. Society (to increasingly include poorly catechized Catholics) doesn’t want the truth/reality. We want Burger King. We want life/religion/and God OUR way. For Heaven’s sake, look at how unreal supposed reality shows are on television.

            And if they (heterosexual couples) are having it their way (no holds barred sodomy, divorce – I mean – annulment, contraception), why not the cute, chic homosexual couple? IOW: The mainstream Catholic ‘faithful’ have been queering marriage (and minds) for decades while our pastors, despite the efforts of the faithful few, have swayed to the music and worked for social justice.

            But where is the Social Justice in supposedly being a believing Catholic who does not take the Gospel, all of it, to the streets. That is give folks the food – or rather the opportunity to have the fullness of the Truth…. in Charity! Not, oh- the poor sub class humans who cannot understand or hold to truth need to have some other system that gives them their ‘sin’ so that their poor children will be protected. They treat human beings like sick dogs.

            What schlock.

            For all the ‘talk’ of Social Justice and equality, it seems to me that these activists are more aristocrats as they believe there is a certain ‘class’ of people who are not only incapable of keeping God’s laws, but of such a base nature that they don’t even deserve having the same chance at grace. It’s truly disgusting.

            For all of the professed Catholicism and cleaving to the admonitions of the Holy Father (which we must do at our own ‘peril’), certain individuals quote St. Paul to promote sodomidical marriage, dismiss the Sacramental aspects of marriage in the next post, tout Martin Luther, and then agitate for what amounts to a full scale assault on what God instituted.

            But what’s new! (Sorry for the lament. It’s been a long day already.)

          • Ann Malley says:

            Defending the true nature of marriage has nothing to do with an attempt to incentivize the homosexually inclined to marry someone of the opposite sex. Much like identifying ‘what is a dog’. Saying a dog is a dog is not a slight against cats.

            Marriage is not a welfare program or a special club or some youth group exercise invented by man to – hmm – mold society. Not that marriage hasn’t been used to mold society. It as been. But then those who are seeking to remold society understand this VERY WELL. That’s why they are so adamant to redefine it.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Smoke and mirrors is the word, Catherine. I think it’s high time we all left the carnival. The cotton candy is making me sick!

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Good comments Ann Malley, you excelled well in conveying here.

          • YFC, yes I read your 9:03pm post. I am hardly surprised that my response to it didn’t suffice for you. I reject YOUR definition of Marriage just as you reject the CHURCH’s definition of Marriage. You CHOOSE to use the STATE to impose your definition of Marriage onto all of us. You are an enemy of the Church!!!!!!!!

            The Church already recognizes lifetime love commitments which are not Sacramental Marriage. It is called “Consecrated Life”.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Tracy telling it like it is! Way to go sister!

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Tracy, regardless of how many exclamation points you use, it is just not true that I am an enemy of the Church. Moreover, you have a right to define marriage however you like, but as for the civil “definition” of marriage, the US recognizes a fundamental right to marry that extends beyond sacramental definitions of marriage. It’s just that simple. The Church cannot impose its definitions on the rest of society. That doesn’t make me or the State an enemy of the Church.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Where is the fervor in taking the gospel to the streets as the Holy Father has said we should? Where is the advocating for the spreading of Truth? Where is the love of Our Lord who hates sin and loves repentance? (Are we advocating for wholesale ignorance wrapped up in the bow of complex, sexual/family entanglements that cannot be undone for the sake of the ‘children,’ and facilitated by the Catholics entrusted with that which saves?)

            No, we need to cave to civil definitions and rights to trump those of the God who we supposedly believe is actually – well – God. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of final judgments. The backpedalling. The Social Justice excuses. The ridiculous 180 on Catholic teachings.

            But, Lord, I was the one entrusted to restrain Your rights over those poor sinners you were crucified to save. No, I didn’t spread the Truth of the gospel, but maintained the ignorant status-quo so that everyone would feel loved and accepted no matter what they did. That’s true love, Lord, and equality. Here, let me educate you, Lord.

            Sounds just like the old law of the Israelites who put forth the idea that Gentiles were little better than dogs and – well – didn’t have to tow any line because they had no hope of salvation because they weren’t the ‘chosen’ people.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        YFC maybe you misunderstood Father. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I agree we should not neglect this message that our Pope is conveying and I know Father also understands it very well too but I think that people are concerned….but I think that we need to be more humble and be a people of prayer. We need to set aside our concerns on how this holy Pope is appearing, and pray more. Prayer will console our hearts and ease up any anxiety that we may have especially on how this media has portrayed our New Pope. Our concern grows when they seem to like Him for how they perceive him, neglecting the truth, but we must let that go, it’s too early to have so much concern.

        We must be patient. “Patience is the companion of wisdom.” -St. Augustine

        • Abeca Christian says:

          “O my God, teach me to be generous,
          teach me to serve you as I should,
          to give without counting the cost,
          to fight without fear of being wounded,
          to work without seeking rest,
          to labour without expecting any reward,
          but the knowledge that I am doing your most holy will.”
          -St. Ignatius of Loyola

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Abeca Christian, I liked your posts at 11:51 PM and 11:52 PM. It is indeed possible that I misunderstood Father. If so, let him clarify or defend his post, and demonstrate why I misunderstood him. It is also possible you misunderstood him, and I think that is the more likely scenario since, I take it that he is critical of the Holy Father, and uses a fragment of a story to justify it. When, in reality, one takes that entire sentence and passage into context, one sees that it is first of all a foreshadowing of the suffering of the Cross, and secondly (especially in Luke) a recognition of the immense mercy of Christ — another theme of this Holy Father.

            And as to that second post of yours…I do like the quote, but I’m just cracking up a little that you would quote the founder of the Jesuits. 🙂

          • Ann Malley says:

            Your staunch defense of those you perceive as ‘critical’ of the Holy Father is so incredibly moving, YFC, especially in light of your having had to suffer through Benedict as you told me previously. Oh, the pain. The pain.

            As for cracking up with laughter, I’m sure everyone is cracking up over your selective use of phrases and sentences to slam Fr. Karl and his points while pointing out how shamed he should be for supposedly doing the same thing. You teach hypocrisy with consummate skill! Thank you!

            And with such self-righteous, affectation to boot!

          • Abeca Christian says:

            YFC Father is not here to argue on topics that should not be debated. But trust that he is praying for us all.

            Lets soften heartened hearts…..our Pope is representing the real poor. Don’t you know that when he speaks about them, it is not about the system we are having issues with, it is not a political talk …but it about the real poor.

            They had a show testing people, they dropped some money on the floor next to a bank and with the money there was the persons name and deposit slip. There was a homeless elder lady, she picked up the money and then went to the bank to turn it in. WOW…she was a homeless elder lady. She could of taken the money and ran but no she did not!

            I cried and cried, she humbled us with her honesty. Our Pope is speaking up for these poor. I know many want our Pope to admonish the abuses that go on and on but perhaps this is not the season for him to do so…but for now he speaks for the real poor. Even the parents, that are working hard, raising their families, they appear to be middle class but they are honest people and are struggling too…those are whom the Pope is representing, and he is asking you and I to not forgot these faithful ones and stop focusing on the ones who stand out, which are the bad ones. Focus on what matters…..

            God bless our POPE!

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley it astonishes me how a smart person such as yourself misunderstands posts here on CCD!

            1) read it again: I was not defending those who oppose our Holy father. I was supporting him. Contrary to your post.

            2) my suffering through Benedict is informed by biographical demonstrations which prove that he was at once the object of curial scorn, and called out those who would treat theologians with lacking academic respect. Yet when he became CDF and then Pope, he was the worst offender among them.

            Finally, 3) If you have issue with my interpretation of scripture vis a vis Father Karl, let’s hear them! But let not ad hominem attacks substitute for real conversation about what the scriptures really mean! Surely, Ann Malley, you cannot defend the lifting of a phrase out of a sentence, and therefore the sentence out of the context, to defend the position of a simple priest. Surely Christ calls us all to a higher view of humanity!

          • Ann Malley says:

            1) Sorry for having misspoken about your support of those who you mistakenly label as opposing Our Holy Father, YFC. I meant that I find your support of Francis hard to swallow, if it is simply based on his being the Holy Father and not on his style or perhaps your own misplaced hope that he’s going to change everything. He cannot. The Holy Spirit guards the Church.

            2) If it is the office and dictates of the ‘Holy Father’ you embrace, YFC, then Benedict, regardless of your personal angst, should command your unswerving respect/loyalty. It is the office that commands the respect – not the person. Perhaps his ‘offenses’ were the response of the Holy Spirit to protect Holy Mother Church??

            That said, just because others do not slavishly revel in the twisted misrepresentations of Pope Francis as being some change agent bringing fresh hope to the poor and downtrodden and those who choose ‘not’ to give up homosexual sex does not mean they oppose him. Quite the contrary. They CARE about him.

          • Ann Malley says:

            YFC: continued:

            This is why they oppose the loose/non-definitive speech that is even now being used to misrepresent/weaken the Church in Her moral teaching authority. The informed *biological* demonstrations are the breakdown of marriage, family, rampant apostasy and the misconceived notion of sanctifying (or at least turning a blind eye from) abortion, birth control, sodomy, and all manner of that which is and always has been an offense to God and thereby a peril to the soul. As demonstrated by your high defense of Francis in his ‘non-judgement’ misquote while you do a Nancy Kerrigan around your approval of homosexual sex while crying Inquisition.

            That is, “You skate around, better than anyone…. especially Catherine as she is the most direct person on CCD.”

            3) A simple priest? That says it all, YFC. For as I responded to you in an earlier post, you picked out a single sentence from the context of Fr. Karl’s message to wage your ad hominem attack only to dismiss the validity of the context he was relaying. So in light of your high view of humanity, play fair or at least play by the rules you yourself outline…. especially when dealing with an ordained priest who, despite your belief, is spiritually your superior.

            You might try remembering that and seeking to learn from him…. or at least ask him a question.

            4) This one is just for you. I find your tut tutting of Abeca disgraceful and highly disingenuous. As to her using a quote from St. Ignatius in her post, I find it not funny, haha, but funny providential. As in she is moved by grace.

            The Jesuit order as it stands today would SHAME St. Ignatius. And praying to the founder of what was formerly a fine and strong order that spoke all manner of CLARITY is precisely what needs doing. Especially for our Holy Father as he is being much misquoted and used a poster boy for those who would claw apart all that St. Ignatius strove to spread – the Catholic Faith, full and entire.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Anne Malley, I don’t believe I waged an ad hominem attack on Father karl. I disputed his use of scripture. That is not an attack on the person, but rather on his use of the “tools of the trade”. Being critical of what someone does is not an attack on the person.

            And really, to call me out for a little light banter with Abeca just shows how silly and hypercritical people on CCD become. If you can’t recognize an attempt at levity, but instead see it as some kind of horrible thing, well then your own humorlessness and desire to see only darkness where there is light tells us more about you than about me.

          • Ann Malley says:

            I look to the intent behind your post, YFC. No, I cannot read your mind, but I can recognize derisiveness when I read it. And humor, as you well know, is often used as a tool to shield attacks. It is used all the time in abusive relationships so that the offender can say, “But I was only joking.” You weren’t. You were using humor to dismiss and diminish Abeca Christian’s well intended points.

            Same goes for your attacking Fr. Karl – a simple priest.

            Regarding ad hominem attacks, I was merely following your definition of them. Perhaps not the one you define just above, but certainly the one you imply with your posts when you cry foul about anyone taking issue with the sin of homosexual sex with regard to your posts.

            So as you’ve now responded to my more pointed comments to you, I hope – although I doubt – that you’ve looked to what was said about Fr. Karl’s points instead of painting him falsely as trying to ignore Pope Francis.

            God bless 🙂

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Ann Malley there was no derision in my post to Abeca, despite the powers you imagine yourself to have to determine “intent”. My post was merely a use of irony as a tool of humor. But I suppose humorless people intent on criticizing others have a hard time getting that.

          • Anonymous says:

            YFC: I’m glad to know there was no intent for derision. As to the ‘power’ I have, you have it too and exercise it regularly to determine that people somehow hate you. Perhaps you are not as capable of conveying humor in your writings as you believe. It is a rather high art.

            One’s success in the arena is often – like singing, poetry, and sculpture – determined by the beholder and not the creator. In this instance, you.

            That said, my intention as I’ve repeatedly told you, was to defend Abeca Christian’s postings and experiences. But if you want to keep telling yourself that folks are attacking you, go ahead.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Horror of horrors, YFC, my above post came through as Anonymous. Oh, the bane of my existence. Still, the above concerning your none-too-limited power to perceive holds true.

      • Ann Malley says:

        …Our Lord also knew that Judas’s concern wasn’t for the poor, but rather for lining his own pocket. That is seeking his own agenda to the dismissal of God made Man who was sitting right there with him. He who by rights should be honored and glorified. Something recognized by the sinful woman – a charge laid with increasing Pharisaical regularity at the door of the traditional minded.

        So all of this indignation surrounding the supposed negation of Francis’ directives concerning the poor sounds much like a rehash of Judas dishonest exhortations.

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Yes, the role of Judas in this scripture is interesting. Here, Judas uses the poor not for his genuine concern but, as you suggest, to hide his own financial sins. But he also stands as a symbol for all of the Apostles who wanted to do anything they could to prevent the coming passion of Christ, and Christ in other places admonishes them that they should know that the Son of Man must suffer if he is to fulfill his mission. I always found the true parallel to this passage the one in which Peter cuts off the ear of the Roman soldier. Jesus admonishes Peter in a similar fashion to Judas. In other words, the agenda of God the Father is not always the agenda of the Apostles (and by extension, us), even if their/our agenda seems good (care for the poor and defense of the wrongly accused or physically attacked). But to use the scripture to say that because the poor will be with us always we can be dismissive of their needs is like saying that we shouldn’t come to the aid of someone being attacked because there must be sufferings in life. We miss the entire message of the scriptures if we take the wrong meaning from them.

          • Ann Malley says:

            I agree with your analysis of the scripture, YFC. I actually take comfort in the actions of Peter in the Garden and the admonitions of our Lord. As ‘action’ is often what I want/desire, when suffering is on the menu or just plain patience/endurance which is often far more difficult (certainly more difficult to understand with our limited brain power). We humans have such an attachment to the notion of being able to *DO* something. That is solving problems so that whatever it is will go away. Too often we cannot and must trust God and work with time while suffrage abounds.

            That said, I still do not believe that you have interpreted Fr. Karl correctly. He is not dismissing the poor by any means. That is an unfair charge. Much as the charge against the Church (made in the media and those who want to spin popular for Pope Francis) that because Francis calls for ‘renewed’ attention to the poor, that there hasn’t always been a Catholic response to the poor. There has been since the beginning hence the bounty of schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, and untold charitable works. Look back in history to see who began caring for the downtrodden amid a Pagan world. It was the Christians.

          • Ann Malley says:

            To YFC, continued:

            But whereas we want and feel the human drive to *DO* something, I believe, Fr. Karl was pointing out quite rightly that the poor will always be with us…. as they have always been with us. The same suffrage that the Catholic Church has always sought to alleviate. That is reality, Truth as Christ Himself speaks it. So while it is important to feed the poor (that is with food etc.), the primary purpose of the Church is to feed the soul with the Truth of Christ thereby transmitting eternal life.

            The shifting of thought to being able to solve the problems of the Poor is like Peter thinking he could solve ‘problems’ by just staying out of Jerusalem or cutting off the ear of Malchus in Gethsemane. All human action. Nothing of the understanding of the value of suffering, and that includes the suffering of those souls of good will who wish they could bring about world peace and feed everyone, but find via experience, that they cannot.

  10. Our Blessed Lord said, in the New Testament: “Woe to you when all men speak well of you. (Luke 6:26). Christ also said in Matthew 5:11-12, ” Blessed are you when men revile and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on My account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward will be great in Heaven, for so men persecuted the prophesy who were before you.” A new ultramontane attitude is rapidly picking up steam in the world. The fact that the secular and ungodly media has nothing but praise for Pope Francis is deeply troubling. The atheistic press describes Pope Francis as a sign of hope, receiving all his inspiration from Christ. Many, however believe he is following the dictates of liberation theology. Ave Maria Purrissima!

    • Many believe Pope Francis is following the dictates of liberation theology? “Many” are wrong, then. Thank goodness no one here, I hope!

      Meanwhile, the notion that the Church can minister to souls without caring for their temporal homes was rejected from the beginning and continues rejected today, ever-surfacing Manichæist heresays to the contrary.

      • Catherine says:

        Brian S,

        The Catholic Church contains the Fullness of Truth. Blessed Mother Teresa was a heroic champion at recognizing poverty and injustice so it is not a figment of anyone’s imagination that Blessed Mother Teresa said that the West suffered a greater spiritual poverty. I witnessed Mother Teresa speak in Long Beach, California when she said that the downfall of America would come through the sin of abortion and right after she said those sobering words the American flag crashed down across the stage right in front of her. So Brian, it is not enough to “only” address the physical or material needs of the poor. Maintaining a universal atmosphere of spiritual poverty and spiritual neglect is the greatest injustice of all because spiritual starvation and neglect can ultimately cost many their souls for all eternity. There is no notion on anyone’s part that we should not care for the hungry and the poor. Those are your words and your distraction. No one loses their richest gift of sharing eternal life for having been hungry or materially poor on this earth. Many lose the richest gift of eternal life because they were spiritually starved and spiritually neglected. So Brian you can believe or ignore the words of Our Lord, the saints, and the clear words in Sacred Scripture, the choice is yours.

        Matt.10: 28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”

        Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

        • What words do you think I am not believing, or ignoring, Catherine? Where I have exhibited lack of orthodoxy? These are sincere questions.

          • Catherine says:

            Brian S, writes “What words do you think I am not believing, or ignoring, Catherine? Where I have exhibited lack of orthodoxy? These are sincere questions.”

            Brian S, I hope you are sincere and not for my sake Brian but for the sake of being sincere to God who sees all things and knows the purity of intentions of each individual. There was absolutely no reason for you to write , “ever-surfacing Manichæist heresays to the contrary.” Brian S, You asked me where you exhibited a lack of orthodoxy. I would like to ask you why do you seek to diminish those who see the important need for better catechesis? Do you think that Mother Teresa got vapors and was not telling the truth when she talked about the spiritual poverty of the West? Your post on another thread showed that you seem to give more credit, have more patience and show more kindness and loyalty to Saul Alinsky than you have shown to your fellow Catholics. Why are you happy about Saul Alinsky being appreciated more than appreciating good and faithful priests and faithful Catholics who value all of the Teachings of the Catholic Church?

            Brian S. says:
            August 21, 2013 at 7:42 am
            “Hymie, you posted a link, to which I responded in detail. Now, you ignore that response and post a new snippet. You are simply talking past the issues you claim to rise. As for your latest bait – I’ve never understood the intensity of the hatred toward Alinsky here. He fought the corrupt system of Chicago on behalf of folks that system oppressed and against heavy odds, had some success. Apparently many prefer to identify with the Daley Machine and its gangsters. I’m happy to see that Dorothy Day might have appreciated him.”

        • Catherine, I strongly disagree with your assertion that there is “no notion on anyone’s part (not to) care for the hungry and the poor”. Just above, Joe flatly stated that no organization should help the poor, and Tracy quickly agreed. Others that have criticised what the Pope said, asserted what he should have said or done, all directly attack the importance of temporal care for people. The false distinction between body and soul is exactly the heart of the Manichaeist heresay, hence my entirely reasonable reference. I seek to “dimish” those who call for better cathecisis? Hrrmph…I defend OUR Pope whose approach to the world differs somewhat from the champion in the imagination of some and who, as a result, seek to turn entirely orthodox statements into proof of radicalism, socialism, and Liberation Theology.

          As for Saul Alinsky, thanks for saving my comment from months ago, and for including it here. It seems pretty luke-warm to me – I compare him favorably to Richard Daley and to the gangsters (aka “The Daley Machine”) who ran the City of Chicago. No doubt, succesfully taking on entrenched and nasty enemies requires inventive tactics, one need not approve of all aspects of his life to appreciate that. And yes, Dorothy Day did speak favorably of his work with the poor. Perhaps unlike you, but like the Church, I hold Dorothy Day to be a good and faithful Catholic who valued all of the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

          Refusing to adhere to the Glenn Beck-approved primal reaction to the mention of Alinsky’s name is hardly indicative of a lack of orthodoxy on my part.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Joe said that:

            “…Jesus did not say that any organization (or Church or Synagogue) should help the poor. Helping those truly in need is the responsibility of us as individuals, but in the USA the government wants to do the job.”

            That Jesus did not decree it is what Tracy agreed to. And Catherine is spot on with her assertion that there is no move afoot to ignore the poor. Please don’t twist people’s meanings. Or intimate that people are criticizing the Pope. It is his wording (and the excited misinterpretations of it) that is being called into question.

            The ‘why’ is because this issue of our poor has been addressed since the beginning of the Church. Specifically, in Acts 6 in the appointing of the Deacons – the individuals tasked with helping the poor, much like the individuals and groups within the Church that have always fed, clothed, housed, cared for the poor throughout Her history.

            As to the priests (that is the Apostles) it was said:

            Acts 6:2-5

            “…It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, that we may put them in charge of this work. But WE will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

            Why did the Twelve put preaching/teaching the word of God first, Brian S? Could it be because that was the primary duty? Well, it still is – despite the shift in style, mood, whatever.

            God bless!

            That said, would you advocate that the Church give over the salvation of souls to focus on feeding the hungry? If so, would you say priests should suspend their offering of the mass to do this much needed job? The early Church had this problem do – that is why the apostles appointed those to tend the poor as it wouldn’t be proper for them to give up prayer to God. “It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables.”

          • Catherine says:

            Brian S. writes, “Refusing to adhere to the Glenn Beck-approved primal reaction to the mention of Alinsky’s name is hardly indicative of a lack of orthodoxy on my part.”

            Brian S, ONLY focusing on the temporal needs while remaining completely silent and neglecting the spiritual duty to serve the poor by refusing to consistently adhere in defending and upholding “all” of the Church’s teachings often brings about the primal reaction of your last post. However Brian S, If I remember correctly you did once show kindness and courage when you addressed RB Rodda for his lording the tragic choice of Emerald City over the poor faithful who had absolutely no say in the decision that they are unjustly being asked to pay for.

          • Anonymous says:

            The ridiculous thing about some people is that they target, not heretics, schismatics or enemies of the Faith, but innocent, faithful Catholics, who obey all the precepts of Holy Mother Church, and dissent from nothing the Church teaches. They smear them with preposterous claims of connection to the usual boogeymen or accuse them of committing some grave moral atrocity which is not even a sin.

          • Ann Malley says:

            I wonder what Faith is to you, Anonymous? The letter alone?

          • So, Catherine, your divination of my lack of orthodoxy is essentially based on the fact that I don’t ditto calls for the TLM often, or strongly, enough to suit you. That is hardly sufficient grounds for such a nasty attack, you should be ashamed of yourself.

            But again, you accuse me of deserving such attack for remaining “completely silent and neglecting the spiritual duty to serve the poor”, as if my only speech or action is contained within the chat boxes on this website. Again, you should be ashamed.

            And yes, that was me criticizing the Crystal Cathedral. I have attended the TLM for years, my son is a TLM altar server. If I am unorthodox, I want to be corrected. I have asked you to do that, you have proven unable to do so. Please withdraw your nasty charges.

          • Catherine says:

            Brian S. writes, “as if my only speech or action is contained within the chat boxes on this website. ” = Royal Cop Out of the First Degree! It’s not your fault though, many have obviously let you get away with fooling yourself. Old habits are hard to overcome but when you cooperate with God’s grace miracles can happen. Don’t give up!

            Brian S, The proof is in the pudding print of these CCD chat boxes and so far your pudding has very little salt and even less flavor.

            Matthew 5: 13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. [14] You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. [15] Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

            Christ said, “The poor you will always have with you” and you twisted the meaning of the purity of intentions of a good priest and also fellow Catholics. Brian S., You also have a history of selective silence on CCD, and when you couple your selective silence with undermining and showing disrespect by hijacking the meaning of a good priest’s post, then this is why you are currently being trodden on in this little chat box. Time to pick yourself up and be a light for more than just serial killers or shame on you!

            cont.

          • Catherine says:

            continued January 3, 2014 from the 7:16 pm post for Brian S.

            Selective Silence & Undermining Good Priests Meets Serial Killer Love

            Brian S., This evidence was taken from CCD’s Topic, ‘Tremendous Aid for Our Campaign’ regarding the parental notification initiative for abortion and you were selectively silent when it came to posting about the topic regarding abortion and you only posted about capital punishment. Wonderfully intelligent Larry ( who we truly miss) at that time posted “the anti-death penally folks are not fooling anyone. So Brian S, once again, you were not fooling anyone then and you are not fooling anyone now especially when you deliberately take the time to choose to use your chat box to distort and twist Father Karl’s excellent meaning or others when discussing the topic of caring for the poor. You will be called out for your great lack of real salt. Here is the evidence. below …contained right within a chat box. I addressed your recognized pattern of selective silence at that time too. Even the editor had to step in to remind everyone.

            The Topic was Parental Notification regarding abortion ‘Tremendous Aid for Our Campaign

            Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:20 AM By Brian S
            John Paul and Benedict well understand evil as well as current incarceration policies, yet they support the abolition of capital punishment. Even if you cannot bring yourself to agree with them, you should at least shift your argument against them from one that implies theirs are based on ignorance of such basic problems.

            Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:26 AM By Catherine
            Brian S, I do not recall you ever posting one single word of gratitude for the sidewalk counselors who stand outside murdering mills. Is there a reason that selective silence?

            Posted Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:27 PM By EDITOR
            THIS THREAD IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DISCUSSION OF THE MORALITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY. NO FURTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY WILL BE POSTED ON THIS THREAD.

      • Brian S. you are correct in saying that we cannot ignore our temporal needs, to the exclusion of caring for our spiritual souls! The important question modern man needs to ask is, “What ARE our temporal needs?”

        My suggestion would be to use 1 Timothy 6:8 as a measuring stick for poverty.
        “But having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content.”
        In addition, we would be wise to apply Exodus 20:17,
        “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.”

        In my opinion, unless, personally or culturally, we are following the path toward sanctity, those two Bible passages will be far from our hearts, minds and souls.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jesusita, the secular media would love the Blessed Virgin Mary, too. And Jesus. They loved Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II, too. Sometimes they interpret things the way they want to. Rejoice that Pope Francis is loved. More people will want to be like him. Don’t be afraid. God has everything in His Hands. Trust Him.

  11. The Holy Father is so blessed, to have all these backseat drivers telling him the poor will always be part of the world, so we can ignore them.
    They remind me of Jesus’ own words: “what do did for the least of these…”
    Oops, that’s not the quote I meant! Never mind!

  12. Steve Phoenix says:

    Brian S. professes shock that some believe some statements Pope Francis has made contain ideas from liberation theology. Some of PF’s statements in fact border on concepts of liberation-theology and he certainly uses language from liberation theology. One example is the justification-of-violence of Miguez Bonino and Juan Luis Segundo. In Evangelium Gaudii (EG), PF states: When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programs or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root.” (n. 59) It sounds perilously close to justification of the use of violence by “the oppressed”. True, PF later disclaims the appeal to violent resolution of injustice (n. 60)…but weakly: “Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve.” Then why make a thesis of the matter? Or compare PF’s words with what Gustavo Gutierrez says in his famous “A Theology of Liberation”: “Poverty is not fate, it is a condition; it is not a misfortune, it is an injustice. It is the result of social structures and mental and cultural categories, it is linked to the way in which society has been built, in its various manifestations.” Sound very similar to PF? Yes, it does. Remember in 1984 and again in 1986 the Congregation for the Faith under Ratzinger criticized the liberation theologians’ focus on “institutional sin”—liberation theology promotes an ideology that rarely deals with the individual and his/her personal responsibility for sin. It’s opiate is to demonize structures and institutions as immoral. (Jon Sobrino was famous for defining “sin as unjust social structures.”) If a vague “unjust structure” is evil, any means can be advocated to destroy it. The moral calculus is that oppressed people win out over evil institutions. And how is the use of violence excluded from this turn of events? It isnt. You MUST utilize all means necessary because the end is so important. Therefore violence is on the table. So, yes, some of the statements of PF are disturbingly liberation-theology-like.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      Steve I thank you for explaining better on liberation theology, to be honest, I don’t really understand all that stuff. We can learn more because it can also help us see if we are playing into those things. When I don’t get something, I try to ask Jesus to help me because I prefer His instruction and am probably ignorant if our Pope is even spreading those instructions. It is sad these times, truly they are…..I wish our Pope would be informed on how some things just come across.

      Well still, we must not forget the poor. I have been reflecting on that topic more so since our new Pope. I always thought I had it right but lately I have noticed that there are many Americans who do struggle to make it and are jobless. Yes the poor will always be with us…but I think that if we are moved to care deeply to be more giving and less selfish, that other wonderful virtues will appear in us.

  13. Abeca Christian says:

    “Our body has this defect that, the more it is provided care and comforts, the more needs and desires it finds. ”

    St. Teresa of Avila

  14. Pope Francis needs to be more careful, since his words can cause confusion – especially when used by those who wish to justify sinful lifestyles.

    The Pope was very clear in telling all literate Catholics to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” to know their Faith, because without knowledge we can not move forward.

    Liberation Theology is sinful and violates God’s Commandment of: “Thou shall not steal”.

    CCC: ” 2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted.
    Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.
    One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.”

  15. I expressed shock, Steve P? Hardly, especially knowing how you and others get vapors over straight-forward expressions of Catholic social doctrine.

    So, what, exactly, is troubling about the acknowledgement that social cohesion is threatened by injustice? That has been acknowledged by thinkers throughout history. And, if Gustavo Gutierrez said that poverty was injustice, so did G.K. Chesterton. Another non-LT thinker you may accept even wrote that it was the right of the people to rise in violent revolution when abuses and usurpations became intolerable.

    • John 12:8
      Jesus said: “The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”
      The poor give us the opportunity to show love for our neighbors. We are required to Love our Neighbors which ALSO means helping them get to Heaven.
      But we must NEVER put the poor above God, as done by some.

      Catholic social doctrine is not Communism, Marxism, Socialism or Liberation Theology; nor is it pure Capitalism.

      All Charity must include teaching about Jesus so the Catholic Charity does not become merely a social justice organization.
      APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED ‘MOTU PROPRIO’ –
      “On the SERVICE of CHARITY”
      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20121111_caritas_en.html

      CCC: 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

      CCC: ” 1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.”

      CCC: ” 1883 Socialization also presents dangers.
      Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.
      The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

      It is the work of the devil to twist Church doctrine to further one’s political views.

      • COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE – without which no other form of JUSTICE is possible.

        CCC: ” 2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights.
        Commutative justice obliges strictly;
        it requires safeguarding property rights,
        paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted.
        Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.
        One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community,
        and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.”

        All of these quotes from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” must be included in all CHURCH DOCTRINE.
        “….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates , lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)

      • Ann Malley says:

        Well said, Sara!

      • Honestly, Sara -on subsidiarity, on which the Church has taught much, not only do you rely on a short quote from the Catechism – itself a summary – but from the “in brief” section, a summary of the summary! Meanwhile, way back …. in paragraph 1883, it is made clear that :

        “a community of a higher order … should support it (the lower order community) in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

        Using your logic, only the resources of the residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation – not even those of Shannon County, S. Dakota, or of the state of South Dakota, may be used to address the needs of Pine Ridge. That is not the teaching of the Church.

  16. Pat Buchanan, a Roman Catholic, wrote an excellent opinion piece today in the Laconia Daily Sun, titled, “Freedom Begets Inequality”. He writes, “Get people to believe you are seeking the utopian goal of equality of all and there is no limit to the power you can amass.” He reminds us of a truth we so often forget, that “it is freedom which produces inequality”. http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/opinion/columns/74155-pat-buchanan-freedom-begets-inequality

  17. Pat Buchanan writes much more frequently to decry the lack of economic justice and to bring needed attention to the ever-widening gap between the working and the capitalist classes. Occasionally he drops an egg like that one, where he confuses widespread availability of the fruits of technological progress with relative wealth. Essentially that argument boils down to “King Louis XIV didn’t have a microwave oven, therefore poor people today are richer than he was.” Utter nonsense, of course, but Pat knows better than to use that argument against himself. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cd6eHqbBxr8 Note that this tirade is devoid of any consoling talk about the size or quality of today’s television sets.

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      The thought of Louis XIV with a microwave oven cracks me up!

    • Brian S., my post was not an attempt to endorse Pat Buchanan but only to give him credit for the quotes which were his. I believed Mr. Buchanan’s remarks were both timely and relevant to our discussion. For the most part, I am not familiar with the bulk of Mr. Buchanan’s thoughts or beliefs.

      • Brian S., I found it telling, that instead of commenting on the quotes of Pat Buchanan, which I posted, and giving your opinion with regards to them, you instead chose to maline Mr. Buchanan’s character.
        That told me volumes about your character.

        • Nonsense, Tracy. I read the article, and commented directly upon what he wrote.

          I happen to think highly of Mr. Buchanan and I cannot imagine what you misinterpret as maligning of his character. You didn’t notice that I advised you to read more of him?

          At this point, you are merely grasping at straws to malign my character. Join Catherine in that!

  18. Sara gives us a good synopsis of church teaching on one subject: The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” What this section of the teaching does not address is how we should proceed when lower level organizations are not doing their job and it is necessary for the next higher level to intervene. Poverty in our country is out of hand. The lack of real jobs that pay living wages is outrageous. The gap between the rich and the middle class land the poor is growing. The inability or unwillingness of our elected officials to govern is the worst in our history. Unfettered capitalism, as a theory, is working for only a very small number of people. The majority of wealth in the U.S. is owned by a very few families while the rest of the nation struggles. Let’s stipulate that unfettered socialism, communism or any other economic form would likely not be any better. In other words, the system is broken. There is too much government, but it is ineffectual. There is too little government in some areas and it is ineffectual.

    • Ann Malley says:

      But showing concern for ‘poverty being out of hand,’ is a far cry from seemingly trading that issue (under the auspice of mismanagement) for the God given charter of the salvation of souls. The primary duty of Holy Mother Church. And Christ Himself.

      That is what is being called out here, Bob One, not whether or not it is important to aid the poor. Something the Church has *ALWAYS* done. Something which She will *ALWAYS* do. Even if the State continues their attempt at backhanded deconstruction. That is attempting to strong arm Christ’s Spouse to give over saving souls if they want to serve the poor.

    • Bob One, please demonstrate to us how today’s capitalism is “unfettered”?

      Fetteres — Something that restricts or restrains.

      There are far more fetters on today’s commerce involving American Citizens than at any time in our country’s history and far less fetters on our borders! Poor immigrants of years past had Ellis Island to pass through! Now we permit our poor immigrants to be “undocumented”

      • You need to become better acquainted with the work of Pat Buchanan. He will most likely do a better job of explaining how the lack of real jobs that pay living wages is outrageous, how the gap between the rich and the middle class land the poor is growing, and how the inability or unwillingness of our elected officials to govern is the worst in our history.

        He spends considerable time discussing how our current “capitalist” system is working for only a very small number of people, and how the majority of wealth in the U.S. is owned by a very few families while the rest of the nation struggles.

        His columns are not long, or hard to find. Please read a couple of dozen of them!

        • Brian S. I will let my 1/2/14, 5:12pm, and 1/3/14, 4:38pm comments to you suffice as an answer. Whether or not I agree or disagree with Pat Buchanan’s other writings is irrelevant to me. I chose to post what I did, because I agreed with what he wrote in that article, so much so, that I still consider it worthy of pondering.

      • Tracy, shall we start with the great recession that we are now just trying to come out of? Shall we mention the scandal in the home mortgage business of a few years ago? Shall we mention the mortgage-backed securities that caused so many to lose their retirement money.? Shall we mention the CEOs who are bringing down $20mm salaries but refusing to pay a living wage to those at the bottom of the ladder? Shall we mention the unwillingness of the government to regulate the securities industry in the early 2000’s? Where do you want to start? Capitalism may be, far and away, the best economic system in the history of the world, but it has proven time and time again that it can’t be unfettered – think the depressions of the 1700’s, 1800’s, 1929, tea-pot-dome, soy-oil scandals, etc. There have to be some controls on the economic system or we will just repeat history.

        • Capitalism is defended because it is confused with the right to private property. What happens – and what the unbroken string of Popes have warned and urged mitigation against – is that a small class comes to possess so much of the capital that the large majority of the citizens are reduced to working for wages – that is, the large majority of citizens do not possess capital!

          G.K. Chesterton pointed out the irony of this:

          “One would think, to hear people talk, that the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were on the side of property. But obviously they are the enemies of property because they are enemies of their own limitations. (That) is the negation of property ….just as it would be the negation of marriage (to have) all our wives in one harem.”

          • Brian S., nothing you mentioned above debunks the fact that TODAY’s American economy is “fettered” by crippling regulation!

            I get it. You fear, that the releasing of even ONE shackle will spell doom for Americans!

            I value FREEDOM over UTOPIAN SAFETY! This is where we differ. (By the way, ponder this: Why would anyone need God in Utopia?)

          • Steve Phoenix says:

            “What the unbroken string of Popes have warned and urged mitigation against – is that a small class comes to possess so much of the capital that the large majority of the citizens are reduced to working for wages..” What nonsense (the anti-capitalism premise), and a basic Marxist re-hash at that. I don’t know where he gets this mis-info. What Brian S would be well-advised instead to consider is the manipulation of money in the social order by powerful individuals that operate central banks, money unguaranteed by any commodity of value, individuals who can make the banknotes one holds worthless or devalued at the stroke of a pen (or keystroke of a computer).

        • Bob One do you honestly believe that the government should be telling the private industry what everyone should be paid. I guess in the soviet paradise that exist only in your head the world is equal. You should be happy Bob, we now in live a country where individual achievement is consider evil, and sloth and welfare is the highest virtue. The wonderful welfare state that you so adore currently has $90 Trillion in unfunded obligations. This will not stand it will completely collapse and that will be the final legacy of the idiot Roosevelt and Johnson and the rest of the progressives. Bob One you are the kind of person who believes a person simply cannot live without an overreaching government, I believe government should be brought to its knees

          • I agree with the notion that the government that governs best is the one that governs least. No, I don’t like the government telling business what they should pay for wages. But, and it is a big but, it is the duty of industry to pay a fair living wage to its employees. It is the duty of the companies to provide adequate health care, pensions, etc. It is the duty of the companies to provide safe working conditions. When the state, city, county, whatever, issues a business license to a company, they have the expectation that the company will do good, in addition to making a reasonable profit. The problem we have in our country now is that the companies did not live up to their end of the bargain. They didn’t create safe work spaces, so we needed OSHA. They didn’t treat people fairly or hire based on qualifications, so we have the Equal Opportunity Commission. They didn’t provide adequate living wages, so we have minimum wage laws. They didn’t provide proper insurance, so we have the affordable health care law. It is us capitalist who are responsible for our current situation. We didn’t do our jobs. With millions of people out of work, and no jobs to go to, with unemployment safety nets being limited, with a few nuts in congress that want to reduce the pensions earned through social security, etc., etc., I surprised we don’t have riots in the streets. No, Canisius, I don’t like big government, but I realize that it comes about because we, the people, didn’t do what is right to begin with.

        • Bob One, I get it. You believe that more governmental control is the answer to our problems. I believe that more governmental control has CAUSED our problems! INCLUDING those which you mentioned above!

          I and others would argue that this difference of opinion among Americans today is quite possibly larger than the difference of opinion between the North and the South during the Civil War. How it will be resolve remains to be seen.

  19. To Tracy, Ann, Abeca and Catherine, please give up on YFC he is lost. He is the worst kind of enemy of the Faith he is inside it spreading lies and demanding acceptance of homo-sex lifestyle.

    • Abeca Christian says:

      Thank you Canisius for your caring and good advice. We can still pray for him.

    • Ann Malley says:

      It appears you are right, Canisius, as YFC seems to already know whatever points are made. His choices are his own. Prayers all around as Abeca suggests!

      God bless.

    • Canisius, since I cannot read a man’s heart, I would never say that he is lost forever, although I can admit that at present I believe he IS lost!

      My debating with YFC may or may not benefit him, but it has helped me understand our enemies’ tactics better, as well as, how to best defend ourselves from them. I imagine that other readers of these treads have found the debate informative as well.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Tracy excellent reflection. : )

        God bless you ladies…God bless you Canisuis.

      • YFC isn’t your enemy. He is a man, prone to weakness like the rest of us. Don’t exaggerate his particular weakness, even Popes are said to have suffered from it, which did not prevent them from being used by God.

        • Brian S., let me first state the obvious; both men and fallen spirits can be our enemies! That one’s enemy has weaknesses is quite irrelevant to this basic fact. Queer ACTIVIST happen to be enemies of the Church. YFC IS a queer activist. Therefore he IS my enemy. Worse than that he claims to be a fellow Catholic, which makes him the worst kind of enemy one can have. It is YFC’s ACTIVISM which I oppose, not his weaknesses! I am not exaggerating his activism, but YOU are exaggerating his weaknesses!

        • Abeca Christian says:

          LIKE THE REST OF US? OK. : )
          Brian S, the only difference is that we are not on this website or any other website promoting our “weaknesses”. And believe it or not but there are those who do seek to avoid sin just like the rest of us. There is no excuse. If our Lord has not cheapened His message and His challenging us to perfection in Him, then praise God for knowing that we can be better in Him.

          It is insulting of you to be offended by true charity that you felt the need to defend it as if we did not know this. No one preaches here to be better. If anyone defends “gay” lifestyles and undermining true Catholic teachings then expect people of faith to find that scandalous on a public forum. Have you not read that YFC called some saints, especially doctors of the church “bigots”….he said that the church lived in bigotry, something of that nature. Brian S you try to be charitable towards YFC but in reality you are throwing many of faith under the bus. Why can’t you see the harm. YFC may not be an enemy but his actions have placed him in a dangerous area, against chastity, against the truth on the natural law, so yes he has made an enemy out of himself for now. If you felt that Canisius was harsh, then others words would have been better but your comments did not work for the greater good for YFC. You probably would have been better not saying anything, especially since your comments are not challenging sinners to turn away from grave sins.

          In this instance silence can be golden.

          • Yeah, like the rest of us, Sister Abeca. As he attempts to remind us with his pen-name, YFC is our brother. If his unhealthy sexual desires make it harder for you to accept that than do the unhealthy desires of others, that is a problem for you as well as he.

            Yes, I find calling another an “enemy”, declaring him “lost”, and advocating their shunning to be harsh. Even if your website brow-beating and harping could be the least bit effective, there appears to be no charity in it.

            In fullest charity, I find it disgusting that people calling themselves orthodox Catholics are in such disregard of the teachings of the Church on this. While I will leave it to others to locate the paragraph, you can find the proper attitude toward homosexuals in the CCD, second edition.

          • Catherine says:

            Abeca, Another excellent post!

          • Brian S., just because you equate calling another “enemy” with being “lost” forever, doesn’t make it so! In fact shunning and reprimanding can both be powerful ways to redress a wrong and bring a sinner back to the right road.

            When Peter protested Jesus telling the Apostles that He must suffer and die…., Jesus rebuked Peter instantly, saying “get behind me Satan….” Jesus recognized his “enemy” immediately and renounced him at once! Jesus did not brush off Peter’s comments saying something like, “Oh, dear Peter, one day you will understand what I am saying to you, I can see that you love me so much that you don’t want to see me get hurt!” NO Jesus treated Peter for what he was to Him at that moment, “a stumbling block”, an enemy! And yes, at that very moment, Peter WAS lost! But Jesus swiftly issued the remedy which quickly brought him back!

          • Abeca Christian says:

            I find it disgusting Brian S that you did not acknowledge nor felt disgusted by YFC calling saints bigots! Your priorities to address what truly matters is all whacked! I find your comments deplorable! Go ahead land in the hands of the modern day heresies on homosexuality and continue to stone to death, with your false compassion and your man made intelligence , the people of faith, people who fear the Lord. You lack fearing the Lord Brian! You obviously do not understand the severity of the attacks against Purity! Trade in your man made intelligence and seek God’s wisdom and knowledge…for that you need to have a heart of conversion, humility and prayer. Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find! It’s not something new…but it takes fearing the Lord and humility!

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Where did I call the saints bigots?

          • Catherine says:

            Tracy,

            God bless you for your excellent post!

            “When Peter protested Jesus telling the Apostles that He must suffer and die…., Jesus rebuked Peter instantly, saying “get behind me Satan….” Jesus recognized his “enemy” immediately and renounced him at once!”

          • Catherine says:

            Abeca Christian,

            That was a very truthful post. You are certainly right about Brian S ‘s very misguided priorities.

          • Anonymous says:

            Abeca Christian, here is something I would like your advice on. A relative (middle age churchgoing Catholic but pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, very liberal, voted for Obama) is trying to set up an event so that my son can meet some young people (none Catholic.) They are children of her middle aged friends. The adults are responsible adults however their get-togethers involve drinking wine and beer. This relative in the past has expressed disapproval (actually disdain) of our Catholic values. I am kind of suspicious of this because two of this relative’s very close friend refuse to even speak to me. I have never done anything to them; how could I have we have never spoken? I assume that I have been talked about in a negative way. So I am kind of concerned that this invitation is an attempt to “broaden” my sons life experience to include more “normal” people. I am inclined to tell my son that something isn’t right here and to decline the invitation. What do you think?

          • Catherine says:

            “I have never done anything to them; how could I have we have never spoken? ”

            kanonymous, I remember when I posted to Bob about bad influences taking place in a Catholic high school for boys. There was clergy that wanted the students to “broaden” their life experiences as being normal too. Well, I have never spoken with you either and so far your track record on this website is pretty inconsistent. Perhaps the word is out that when other Catholic parents want to rightfully protect their children from bad schools and bad clergy you call it “sinful gossip” but when *you* want to rightfully protect your son from being harmed by bad influences you give only yourself a”selective gossip” permission slip under the pretend banner of seeking advice. All children and all students deserve to be protected, not just your child. Maybe your relatives see that inconsistent trait too.

            1. A relative (middle age churchgoing Catholic but pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, very liberal, voted for Obama) is trying to set up an event so that my son can meet some young people (none Catholic.) = selective gossip

            2. The adults are responsible adults however their get-togethers involve drinking wine and beer. ” = “selective gossip “

          • Anonymous, I see that you asked Abeca’s opinion, but I hope you will not object to mine. You seem to have fallen prey to the false notion of “tolerance” being equated with Christianity and “discrimination” as something evil. Whether you agree with it or not, prior to Vatican II, a Catholic was not allowed to attend a protestant funeral or wedding without first receiving permission from their pastor. These policies and others may seem harsh by today’s sensibilities, but they were adhered to in order to protect the Catholic faithful from scandal.

            God gave you a mind and conscience to discriminate between right and wrong behavior. He expects you to be intolerant of sin. Why would you even for one moment consider placing your son in the hands of someone who opposes these values?! God gave you authority over your son for a very short period of time to teach him His values! Jesus promised us that the “world” would reject Him! When your son becomes an adult, he will have plenty of opportunity to choose for himself who he wants to mingle with. In the mean time your sending him to these people is akin to giving your endorsement of their choices and behavior.

            It sounds to me that you need to make a decision between desiring your son to become accepted by the “world’s” standards or becoming a saint!

            Be assured of my prayers for your discernment.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Anonymous Tracy gave you good advice. I agree with her. She is wise and discerning well.

            If your son respects your feelings, then he may not want to attend. Its not the end of the world if he does not attend. There will other opportunities with more agreeable acquaintances, patience Anony and see how the good Lord will bless your son with better friendships. Better he meet a few than many who may undermine your values. Plus meeting them is one thing but him fitting in will be another thing.

            God always blesses us with other invites that may bless us better. It also depends on if you trust your son to make wise choices too. If he has shown you that he can handle himself well around those who oppose our values, then you have no worries, for he may convert hearts but if he is still very young and still being easily influenced, then it’s probably best for him to attend other functions where there is no one disrespecting you or undermining your values. You say “normal” but “normal” can mean anything to anyone, depending on whom we surround themselves with. I know its hard to find more like minded folks but its best to keep praying and seeking….The Lord will bless your perseverance. If your son is already an adult, then you can express your sentiments and hopefully he will consider your feelings on it and decide that there are other ways of meeting friends.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Anony I remember growing up, since my grandmum was a great influence on me and my values, so that helped form my character. When my parents would have us hang out in situations as you have discussed with liberal adults, drinking and stuff…..for some reason, I was not a follower so instead I was outspoken on my values, so I guess it depends on how your son is, his character and how he can handle people undermining you.

            But one thing for sure….My parents, even if they were a little open minded about hanging out with some liberals, they probably would not have attended any functions where people disliked them as bad as you have described.

            Tracy gave you excellent advice, i don’t need to add more, she said it well but I just added a few thoughts. : )

          • Anonymous says:

            Tracy, thank you for your opinion and your prayers.

          • Anonymous says:

            Abeca Christian, thank you for your valuable advice.

        • Catherine says:

          “YFC isn’t your enemy. He is a man, prone to weakness like the rest of us. Don’t exaggerate his particular weakness, even Popes are said to have suffered from it, which did not prevent them from being used by God.”

          Selfish and Self-Serving Selective Silence! Selective Courage! Selective Charity! Selective Truth!

          NINE WAYS OF BEING ACCESSORY TO ANOTHER’S SIN

          1. By counsel.

          2. By command.

          3. By consent.

          4. By provocation.

          5. *By praise or flattery.*

          6. * By concealment.*

          7. By partaking.

          8. * * By silence. **

          9. *By defense of the ill done *

          “Inconsistency on the part of pastors and the faithful between what they say and what they do, between word and manner of life, is undermining the Church’s credibility.”……..Pope Francis

          • Your responses are all about selectivity, Catherine, and now you may add a post urging respect toward a homosexual – a respect fully in accordance with Church teaching – to my post urging respect for the understanding and judgement of Popes as proof of my perfidy. You have odd standards by which to judge orthodoxy, indeed.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Nobody is exaggerating YFC’s particular weakness, Brian S. He is very forthcoming in his views. And yes, God can and does use anyone, whenever and however He wills. It is quite possible, He has big plans for YFC. Plans that will only come to fruit by way of the Cross – which could include YFC’s dialogues here on CCD. ‘We’ cannot know.

            So the old, ‘leave the poor guy alone’ might be just the opposite of what is needed.

            I do not know *what* to make about your bringing up hearsay about previous Popes. Suffice to say, I wouldn’t turn to you in matters of orthodoxy.

          • Brian S., Why did you ignore Catherine’s excellent comments?

            Which aspect of an activist queer’s lifestyle would you say, deserves our respect?

            Respect — deferential or high regard; esteem.
            Deference — courteous submission to the opinion, wishes, or judgement of another.
            Submit — to yield (oneself) to the will or authority of another. to commit (something) to the consideration of another.

            Now when you consider the proper use of the word “respect” you can clearly see that we owe “respect” to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints. Children owe respect to their parents or others in proper authority. This IS Church teaching!

          • Catherine says:

            “Your responses are all about selectivity, Catherine, and now you may add a post urging respect toward a homosexual – a respect fully in accordance with Church teaching ”

            Brian S, Your posts do not demonstrate respect for Jesus’s words in the Gospel so why do you look to me or to others to urge respect for anyone who boasts about their particular sins, no matter what they may be. If you were truly interested in urging respect toward a homosexual person you would first respect Christ and then charitably apply those teachings to a person who is misguided and says they are a practicing Catholic while simultaneously practicing acts that are offensive to God. You are only selectively stung each time you hear a vile remark for another fellow human being, yet you are blinded to your own vile disrespect of not speaking up for Christ first and your vile and cold disrespect for a faithful priest. I urge you to get your priorities in order before you urge other human being to improve on Christ’s Revealed truths.

            cont.

          • Catherine says:

            Continued for Brian S, from January 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm

            Taken from Father Z’s Blog

            “On a related story, HERE, the Bp. of Bathurst in Canada (not in Australia) has suspended a priest, Fr. Donat Gionet, 85, because of his preaching about the evil influence on the Church coming from Catholics engaged in homosexual acts and abortions procured by Catholics. According to the news report, the decision was “welcomed by Joseph Lanteigne, the openly gay mayor of Saint-Léolin.”

            Fr. Gionet wrote to the local newspaper to explain what he was preaching about:

            “I said: ‘Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.’ (That’s when I pointed at my chest – through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that’s when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: ‘We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil’ … What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes.”

          • Anonymous says:

            While it is encouraging to see that you know and accept your weaknesses, you also need to stop. Thank you for your confession. I wish everyone were so humble. Don’t encourage evil, whatever form it takes.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Obsessions. A terrible thing.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            YFC yes it is…go to confession and give up yours, the one that separates you from our Lord!

  20. Steve Phoenix says:

    Brian S’ meaningless sarcasm aside (usually the sign that someone has lost the argument), GK Chesterton certainly did not define poverty as injustice in the same way as lib-theos like Gustavo Gutierrez, a matter that is self-evident (except to Brian), QED. This is an argument about the vague use of language, for example, about “unjust social structures = sin” (Sobrino). It is a matter of fact that liberation theology has been condemned for moving sinful action from personal responsibility to unclear claims of “unjust social institutions” and systems, and esp. what action is therefore justified against them. More specifically, it is the use of language by Pope Francis that continues to confuse people, as he does in Evan. Gaudium., 82 single-spaced pages of meandering ideas. Pope Francis, who again I point out never finished his Ph.D in theology @ Frankfurt’s tough Sahnkt-Georgen theologate, does not define his terms. As a result, he creates “circiterisms” – somehow deriving a specific application from a vague concept. (The most famous circiterism is “The Spirit of Vatican II”: exactly what does that mean?) What does it mean when PF makes the claim that “society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes?” What action is required? Brian has already stated in other posts he believes in a powerful central government that should “enforce” (his word) justice. Who gets to “enforce” and who gets to be “enforced against”. Brian and others seem to have a very clear agenda justified by PF’s circiterisms. Forget commutative justice, Sara’s cogent point. The concern of rational people should be that all it takes is a spark to spark even more centralized oppression or to light a violent revolution, to feel quite justified to kill and destroy for a vague idea of “social injustice” (Witness the Sendero Luminoso in Peru or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua). So, I dont think PF and Brian are justifying the use of force by the Tea Party, but something much more like Robespierre’s oxymoronically named “Committee of Public Safety”.

  21. Injustice results from sin, the perpetuation of injustice is a sin, whoever says that is simply expressing a truth. You don’t suppose that there was injustice in Eden, I hope.

    I do not know what you misinterpreted as sarcasm, none was intended, but GK most certainly and repeatedly made the link between sin, injustice, and poverty. For example, he famously noted that if charity was to be directed only to the deserving poor then it was not charity at all, but only justice.

    As for what I have claimed, I have never advocated for a “powerful central government”, but I did quote Pius who wrote that the State was to “sit like a Queen” to arbitrate between the classes. Certainly, if as you advocate, corporations are to be allowed to grow without bound, only a very powerful government could be expected to do that. Avoiding that powerful government (a cause I favor, regardless of your imagination) is another worthy reason to restrain the accumulation of capital.

    As for your note that Pope Francis did not receive a PhD, I doubt if you are much enthralled of most denizens of the ivory tower.

  22. Steve P claims not to know where I got this :

    “a small class comes to possess so much of the capital that the large majority of the citizens are reduced to working for wages.”

    And THEN denounces it as “nonsense” and “basic Marxist re-hash”!

    Of course it is a near-direct lift from GK Chesterton, as any Google cut-and-paste will reveal. For that matter, Leo XIII says essentially the same thing in paragraph 3 of Rerum Novarum. GK Chesterton & Pope Leo XIII – noted nonsense-spouters and basic Marxist rehasers!

    Meanwhile, glad to see you denounce bankers, Steve, but don’t you realize that bankers ARE capitalists?

    • Abeca Christian says:

      AYE Brian you just love to poke….why bring up Capitalist? What difference does it make. Out of the whole post, you come up with that one.

      • What difference does it make? Steve and I have been arguing about capitalism, and when he reveals that he holds bankers distinct from capitalists, I’m not expected to comment? Heck, we just found some common ground!

        • Brian S. Aren’t “bankers” under heavy governmental regulation these days? There it is again, “fettered” capitalism!

          • Steven P’s objections to modern banking practice are entirely correct. They create money, they then loan it to us. You kid yourself.

          • Brian S., I was asking a legitimate question are banks “fettered” with governmental regulations or not? (my question was posed neither to endorse nor to condemn our modern day banking industry), only to clarify what our government is doing? I was not kidding myself!

            Maybe your point is that you are lamenting that banks are finding ways around their governmental chains. If this is so, would your solution be for our government to enact MORE chains, or possibly to eliminate all private banks and become the ONLY bank in the country? Or would you endorse our government to stay entirely out of the banking industry?

            By the way, isn’t our government “creating” money by printing it with nothing of value to back it beyond the paper and ink it is printed with?

  23. “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

    • Brian S, did you actually mean to say that “the number of men and women who have deep-seated same-sex attractions in San Francisco is not negligible”? If this is what you meant then, I would agree with you there! What I can’t understand is why you draw the conclusion that this fact alone should THEREFORE make it mandatory that they be “accepted with RESPECT, COMPASSION, and, SENSITIVITY?

      The inclinations of social paths to commit crime and murder (for example) are also DEEP-SEATED, and their numbers in prisons around the country ARE NOT negligible either, yet would this fact alone follow that they therefore need to be “accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity?!!! Of course not!!! Respect IS earned! And what would treating social paths with compassion and sensitivity do for them anyway?!!!! Prayer and Fasting is the only thing which can break such evil inclinations!!!

      As would say that evil “deep-seated” tendencies of any variety would all need to be treated the same!

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        Tracy, he is quoting – verbatim – official church teaching on the matter. It is binding church teaching, on you, on me, on all Catholics.

      • Tracy, my post was cut and paste directly from paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am surprised you did not recognize it. Your argument is not with me, but with the Church.

        • Steve Phoenix says:

          Instead of trying to dialogue on factual matters, a new ploy being employed here is to cite an orthodox Catholic teaching out of context and without referenced citation to entrap Calcatholic commentators. Pretty juvenile.

          • The quotation marks should have been a clue, Steve. But as often as the use of the cathecism is urged, and as often as homosexuality is discussed in these pages, I expected it to be recognized immediately. It wasn’t intended as a trick.

        • YFC and Brian S., the new Catechism is not the first example of how the use of our English language has been perverted by some of our Catholic leaders. Just look at the prayers of the Mass, as well as, the St. Joseph’s edition of the New American Bible!

          I would have no problem pointing out the illogic of the Catechism statement you posted to the Pope himself! Words have meaning! Liberals use this to their advantage, as the two of you clearly demonstrate over and over again!

          • So the catechism is wrong and illogical? And I’m the one accused of lack of orthodoxy? You folks are a church to yourselves!

          • Ann Malley says:

            If you go to Rome, Tracy, I’d be please to go with you 🙂

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Tracy – perhaps you would like to provide your own personal translation from the Latin of this passage? You make a serious charge here, that those entrusted with translating it have intentionally twisted its meaning. That those who wrote and worked on the original Latin, many of whom speak English, were impotent to intervene when the English translation was to be promulgated. So if you have a better command of the Latin than these Bishops and Cardinals and Popes, perhaps you would like to offer your own translation?

          • Ann, I would love to travel with you, thanks for the invite!

            YFC and Brian S., I challenged the quote you offered from the Catechism based on my understanding of what the words mean in the English language. So far neither of you have attempted to debunked what I posted on January 6, 2014 at 2:14 pm. If you wish to make the case where you believe that something I wrote was illogical, I would welcome that.

            It is an historical fact that the Latin translation of Church documents have been mistranslated in the past. This was the very reason given for why the English Lectionary of the Mass was recently re-translated. So my assertion that the section of the Catechism you quoted as possibly being mistranslated is not beyond reason.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Tracy, I’m not sure which I find more astounding, your seeming inability to comprehend logical argument or your ignorance of the foundations of catholic moral theology.

            Because Rome decided to alter a few words here and there in the Mass recently to better reflect deep theological questions does not lend any credence whatsoever to your claim that translations are used to “pervert” the meaning of the original. That is a vicious accusation to make against the translators, and one for which you provide zero evidence. To then make the jump that based upon that accusation to say that the CCC must have been perverted to require respect, compassion, and sensitivity towards gay people, yet you provide ZERO evidence of this accusation either. You seem unable to accept the fact that this is indeed what the Catechism says, and that you are called to follow it as a true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

            Not only do you take issue with the translations, you take issue with the logic behind the teaching. Yet the teaching is based squarely upon the age old teachings of the Catholic Church about how we should treat ALL of our neighbors. At the beginning of the Catechism’s section on morality, the root of this teaching is given: (CCC 1700): “The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God.” To treat a gay person – or any person – with anything other than respect, compassion and sensitivity is a violation of their dignity. The person disrespecting the other disrespects God himself. This is the core and foundation of our entire Catholic moral teaching.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Not sure about you, Tracy, but I find it grossly comical, not astounding, that the correcting of blatant mistranslations – mistranslations that alter the entire meaning of something so critical – are brushed off as Rome altering a few words here and there.

            Kind of like, “Let’s eat Grandma!” versus, “Let’s eat, Grandma!”

            Very different meanings. A grammarian would KNOW the difference. Much like a Theologian, that is a Catholic Theologian, would understand the doctrinal implications of ‘for all’ versus ‘for many.’ To attribute the corrections to a sudden, heart swelling, new-found theological understanding, especially when said understanding hearkens back to what – could it be? – something everybody magically knew before, is nothing but blowing nice smoke. And I mean the ‘nice’ that originated from that which formerly implied: stupid and foolish, silly, simple, ignorant or incapable. (Translations matter a great deal as even the astounded on CCD comprehend oh, so well.)

            But I suppose you are just vicious, Tracy, horribly so in expecting theologians, those entrusted to translate Biblical text, those who SHOULD by virtue of the job be exceedingly cautious, to actually know their craft. Shame on you! You treat these learned men as if they have an intellect and…. and dare I say it, a will! How could you!

            The same can be said of you expecting Catholics to treat themselves with the dignity God gave them by not using their bodies – bodies that are made in His image and likeness – to ape His creation… much like they ape a superior intellect when trying to use the tenants of the Faith to erase reality. Or silence anyone who can actually reason.

            I wonder if certain posters would be just as charitable to a lawyer who got a little mixed up when altering a family trust or will. Just a word or two, mind. Would they be charitable enough not to go to court, that is, and fight for what was right. But that would just be vicious. Vicious!

          • YFC, somehow I truly doubt that you were “astounded”! It is apparent, however, that I have touched a nerve with you! First of all I never used the word “pervert”. Secondly, it was Rome who said that the English translation of the Mass as it had been first translated for the NO Mass had changed the original Latin meaning. (it was Rome who made that “viscous accusation” about her own English translation, not me!) This is Rome’s explanation for the recent re-translation of the Mass we now currently have. In fact, if you understand Spanish, you would know that the Spanish NO translation never made the same translational errors as the English translation had. If you read the English translations in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, you would see that the new translations we now use had already been made prior to the implementation of the NO Mass. (minus the Thee’s and Thou’s).

            With regards to what I wrote on January 6, 2014 at 2:14 pm, I was raising legitimate questions based on the English definitions of “respect, compassion, and sensitivity”. Hopefully, you have found your dictionary by now so you can look those up for yourself. (If not I will be happy to provide them for you!) That you do not like the analogy I gave is one thing, but since you apparently cannot debunk my analogy all you have left is to spew lies and insults at me! Your staged outrage toward me, along with your lame attempt to smear my character, is an old Leftist tactic used to shut up an opponent when you think he/she has scored points and you lack any rebuttal!

          • Ann Malley, thanks for the support! I love your dry humor!

          • YFC, first let me make a correction, I did refer to the English language as having been “perverted” in my January 7, 2014 at 10:50 am post to you and Brian S.

            This morning I discovered a sermon by St. Alphonsus Liguori, who is one of the Doctor’s of the Church. It is titled “On Human Respect” by St. Alphonsus Liguori.
            copiosa.org/liguori_sermons/liguori_sermon_10.htm
            I found it to be a spiritually enlightening read for those of us who appreciate this sort of thing.

            Also, if you haven’t yet found your dictionary, I defined the word “respect” for Brian S. in my January 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm post to him. (it can be found about 30 posts above this one) 🙂

          • Anonymous says:

            …Sarcasm is perhaps the most cutting form of communication in existence. Dictionaries I have consulted define sarcasm in terms of bitterness and pain. It is “a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain;” it is “a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual.”… The origin of the word sarcasm (from the Greek sarkazmos and sarkazein) literally means “to strip off the flesh.”… The etymology helps explain why our understanding of “sarcasm” involves causing pain… Sarcasm usually makes us feel superior as we utter a cutting comment… In all of our interactions with others, we must examine our use of sarcasm and avoid its predominance in our conversations. We must ask ourselves whether what we say is truly acceptable wit and good humor, or if it is just a cutting remark, likely uttered to raise ourselves above our peers… A quote from Thomas Carlyle: a Scottish essayist and historian, that reminds us of the deadly seriousness of this form of speech: “Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the Devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it.”
            Blog by April Yeager 2010 edited for brevity

          • Catherine says:

            Excellent points in all of your posts Tracy and Ann Malley!

            Thank you Tracy for recommending the very enlightening sermon by St. Alphonsus Liguori.

            John 16:2 “They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God.” Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible

  24. Tracy, you expressed concern over the reputation of former popes, and seem to chide me over citing the historical fact of contempary accusations. Surely you realize that no pope has ever been protected against personal sin. All popes have confessors, and all are expected to need them. They are infalliable, not impecable.

    Obviously, I cannot provide eye-witness testimony for the sexuality of long dead popes credibly accused of homosexual practice during their ponificates. Just as obviously, neither can I provide hearsay evidence, (as you accuse) since no accusers have talked to me. I can only point you to history books.

    How odd, however, that the reputation of these long-dead popes is a concern to you, especially since you have shown none over the many attacks on this thread against our current Pope. You are that concerned about the reputation of Julius III?

    • Ann Malley says:

      Brian, that was me who called into question your bringing the assertion of homosexual inclination against past Popes. More than anything, it is the revisionist history mentality not so much the ‘reputation’ of the Popes that I took issue with. I mean, pull another one out of the hat already.

      Are we going to have a ‘be kind to pedophiles’ speech from you based on a new history book that disparages priestly sins. After all, priests confect the Blessed Sacrament on the altar and so God uses them for good. There’s a good argument for you. Come on.

      There are self-styled theologians out there attempting to convince people that St. Paul had Same Sex Attraction and that’s why he was so hard when speaking out against sexual sins – because he couldn’t come to terms with his own sexuality. I’ve had that one tossed to me on NCR. ‘Historians’ abound!

      So, whatever ‘history’ books you’re reading, you may want to stick with Catholic books… at least when trying to digest/understand Catholicism. And look to Jesus for your example instead of what you think others might have done. He spoke Truth and didn’t mince words. He welcomed, but stated clearly the need for repentance. He also told us that Faith is a gift from the Father. That is it is something we should pray for and protect. Not negotiate.

      • Homosexual practices are disordered, they are also well-documented through history. If some Borgias or Julius were unfairly charged, then shame on their accusers, but there is no reason for me to whitewash them.

        The Church instructs us how to behave toward those among us, that should be enough for us.

        • Ann Malley says:

          Nobody is asking you to whitewash anything, Brian S. But the reference of purportedly SSA afflicted Popes, I would imagine, would be the beauty and glory of God’s using them despite their infirmities/inclinations, not because of them. That said, much of the homosexual discussion that goes on here on CCD is that which tries to affirm/whitewash said lifestyle hence the rebuttal. Acting as if there is no impetus for the discussion, is playing dumb.

          That said, RESPECT, COMPASSION, and, SENSITIVITY can be interpreted many different ways. Respecting someone, that is their inherent dignity, would be to teach, preach, and put forward the Truth that human beings have the God given capacity to overcome by relying on God’s grace and their free will to choose that which they do and do not do. What you think, you think, but what you *do* you become.

          That is respect for the human and human nature – not respecting the ‘sin’ by elevating it to define a person and what they are capable of doing and/or not doing.

          Compassion is also having mercy in teaching Truth. For how compassionate is it to let someone to their own devices, like leaving an alcoholic to suffer and die as, ‘he is just hard wired and incapable of avoiding the bottle.’ No. Compassion would dictate a consistent ministering to heal the wounds. Accent on ‘heal,’ not allow to fester. Christ healed sinners – transformed them – He didn’t just cover sin like snow over a dung-heap. That is a Protestant, we can’t help ourselves, mentality.

          • Ann Malley says:

            And sensitivity should be that of a concerned mother. One who recognizes her children’s desire for warmth, and thereby provides them with coats and muffs and scarves, while keeping them away from the fire on the stovetop that has burned many a child in the past.

            So while quoting the catechism, let’s define the terms in a Catholic sense instead of the ambiguous nature preferred by the world who would twist all things to suit itself.

          • I call it whitewash, you call it sticking with Catholic books. I have no way of knowing the facts, however, out of 264 men across the centuries, I would be very surprised if none were homosexual. Obviously, they were used in spite of their failings, as we are all to be.

            As my posts prove, I’m not against blunt talk. But the homosexual discussion that goes on here is unrelentingly harpish and beyond being quite unlikely to assist the sinner, is also a fine example of citing the speck in another’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own. Day after day, posters cite the catechism as some Protestants do the King James bible. Yet, on something as often discussed here as homosexuality, its content is either unrecognized, claimed as mistranslated, out of context, or intentionally twisted.

            I most certainly agree with and accept Church teaching on the inherent disorder of same-sex relations. But every adult knows same-sex attraced people and any family large enough to provide testimony to fecundity contains them. If the supernatural brother and sister hood of our Church is not real enough, these natural familial and friendship bonds should be enough to temper our responses to any homosexual willing to enter into conversation here.

            I entered this thicket by reacting to one “let ’em burn” response too many. I do not accept that that comment can be cloaked by claims of compassion, respect, and sensitivity.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Brian writes that we should, “…temper our responses to any homosexual willing to enter into conversation here.” Woah, charger. While I applaud your attempt at charity and compassion, not all sinners and not all folks with SSA are alike. You seem to believe that everyone with SSA is somehow ignorant of Church teaching and feels truly threatened like they’ll be rounded up for burning or hanging. (If that were so nobody would ‘dare’ say ‘my partner’ because we adults all get what that means. Regardless of whether or not the fecundity of our family has given testimony to the existence of SSA.)

            While gentleness may be necessary for someone who is timid, feeling rejected and looking for help and/or encouragement in leading a chaste life, etc, being ‘gentle’ with somebody who states for all to see, hear, and learn that he has a partner of 12 years while openly advocating for homosexual progressive policies is not. Someone who from another posting appears to be none other than an extraordinary Eucharistic Minister. Good grief.

            As to the Popes and your unsubstantiated assertions, let’s make another parallel. Would you opt to be sensitive, compassionate, and respectful of Pope Francis if he introduced a partner, ‘his’ partner to the world and flagrantly flew around with him, all-the-while advocating what a good Catholic he is? Would you just opt to leave the poor guy alone because, after all, we all sin and God has used past Popes? How about a Bishop? How about your confessor?

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Brian S I tell you, it’s that intellectual part of yours that needs to be more of a humble attitude. This thicket you call is not, if you can’t accept correction, then that is where you can go wrong. It’s too bad you are so filled with your man made intelligence that you forget to seek for the true gentle and loving wisdom and knowledge that comes from the heavens. Our Lord deserves better. Us women can be those precious flowers and our conversations those aromatic scents speaking His word and the men can be what honors our Lord even more by their manly protection of what truly matters most. Protect and define. The strength and power united in God’s truths but so much confusion in what the church has always taught has been watered down, twisted etc. But how can I blame you or others when we are all byproducts of the secular.

            But a good challenge to move hearts is in order my friend, and you are intelligent enough to ask for discernment, but always putting humility in the front line.

            When a man is challenged, it can be humbling but to some it is can be a test hopefully leading towards humility.

          • Abeca Christian says:

            Brian S you said “But the homosexual discussion that goes on here is unrelentingly harpish and beyond being quite unlikely to assist the sinner, is also a fine example of citing the speck in another’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own.”…..really? Well if you can do better, then why don’t you, I don’t see you dialoguing with YFC to help him repent, no siree bob, but instead you judge the ones who are trying and being obedient. You have done more harm by again throwing the faithful under the bus. It’s disgusting. (YFC is probably cheering you on)

            Also this eye thing(verse) you bring up? You are running out of excuses for your bad behavior here that you had to come up with that one too. Where is your reasoning dear lad…..You are the one not assisting the sinners at all either….instead you are throwing the faithful under the bus. Have you taken the time to read the pearls posted by Catherine, Tracy, Ann etc? No instead it seems like it goes one ear and out the other(You use the eye verse, I use the ear expression)…..as you continue to speak ill. Since you seem to have the answers, then go right ahead see how you will help YFC and other activists who promote the advancing of “gay” agenda’s. Lets see…..but stop judging us sir. Follow your own eye advice!

          • Abeca Christian says:

            You are right Tracy and Ann about the comments you make about respect. Homosexual activists or not, many of them are being so full of pride and lack virtues that lead them to a true conversion, they are so narcissistic because they expect “respect” and use the church to promote this as well, which usually leads many to not fully understand the truth of the matter.

            What is heart breaking to me is that they seek more “respect” in their own definition, than they would give to their creator. They shun the Lord yet get offended when others do not approve of their agenda’s. They mock what is suppose to be respected and holy. They violate the natural law and expect respect for it.

            “Respect” …..are we really reasoning on what that truly is without neglecting the message of salvation. Does it compromise humility when we “respect” the way the world tells us? Those of us who seek to be faithful, know that answer….discern it and feel it. It’s in our guts, in our being because we often reflect on the passion of Christ….He didn’t not get respect, not any.

          • Ann Malley says:

            Abeca writes, “…Those of us who seek to be faithful, know that answer….discern it and feel it. It’s in our guts, in our being because we often reflect on the passion of Christ….He didn’t not get respect, not any.”

            You’re right, Abeca. Christ didn’t get the world’s respect. But he gave those who crucified Him respect in that He called them to correspond with their God-given dignity, that of believing and following Truth.

            But much like then, those who say they want respect, ignore true respect when it is given.

            God bless!

        • Brian S. you said that you “entered this thicket by reacting to one “let ‘em burn” response too many”. Who are you referring to? Certainly not myself or Ann Malley! Brian please consider placing your “collective” emotions aside and respond to each of us posters here as individuals! If you did this I believe we would have more fruitful conversations.

          • Ann Malley says:

            He was talking to me, Tracy. No worries. Wish we could plan that trip to Italy pronto!

            God bless 🙂

          • Canius’ post was the one ‘let ’em burn’ post too many for me.

            No doubt we will exchange posts again.

        • Abeca Christian says:

          Well then Brian S follow what you just posted on January 7, 2014 at 5:39 pm. Because your first comments to Canius did not show this. It showed the opposite. The saints teachings on homosexuality did not go in vein. Also homosexuals are called to be chaste. They have free will. Homosexuality does not mean that they can not control their sexual appetites. If we do not challenge them to embrace God’s commandments on such disorders, then we are no different than those who say that they have the right to fleshly happiness and a right to same sex activity. Their disorder calls them to certain virtues to work on to gain heaven just like the heterosexuals too have certain human callings from our Lord to live a more virtuous witness to gain sanctifying graces. You know this. But your words here did not show it. Your priorities are what need more attention.

          You don’t read any heterosexual here posting the promotion of sex outside of marriage, you don’t have them pushing live in with your honey and try them out before committing to them to marriage, you don’t. If we did, we would remind them of the teachings of the church, but no one is fiercely promoting heterosexual lifestyles outside of God’s natural law or outside of chastity here like the pro-gay crowd but we only read the ones who actively push same sex anything….those are the dangerous ones and the ones you should find distasteful, that is what should offend any decent person.

          • Your Fellow Catholic says:

            Abeca, can you please point to a single place where any person has come on here promoting sex outside of marriage? I haven’t found one yet. Maybe I missed it?

          • Abeca Christian says:

            YFC that is the point…no one…but I was conveying that the homosexual activists are the major contributors of promoting their own agenda’s here….on a Catholic Website.

          • YFC, you are as clever and cunning as the Devil!

            “Stay sober and alert. Your opponent the devil is prowling like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, solid in your faith.” 1 Peter 5: 8-9a

            Oh Mary Conceived Without Sin Pray For Us Who Have Recourse T0 Thee. And Pray For Those Who Do Not Have Recourse To Thee, Especially The Enemies Of The Church.

          • YFC, why did I not see this before?!!!! I do RESPECT you! There is an old saying, “Respect your enemy”! (In other words, don’t underestimate your enemy!) All is well!

    • Brian S., could you please show me where I posted any expressed concerns over the reputation of former popes? I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Tracy he won’t…his ego is on the line…pray for him. Don’t expect him to reply either to the points we made…if so, it may not be direct ones.

  25. Steve Phoenix says:

    Context is everything, and as noted above, GK Chesterton did not use the language of poverty = injustice in the same way that the lib theos as Gustavo Gutierrez and other lib-theos have done. Only Brian S. holds this position.
    Leo XIII did not either state “the same thing” in Rerum Novarum N. 3—in fact he states that the state of poverty “is no disgrace” (n.23) and of itself therefore has no moral content. Destroying the context presents it exactly as neo-Marxist proponents have done, having won the battle on language and ideology. Leo XIII does however spend most of the 1st 19 paragraphs (Rerum Novarum) attacking socialism and class warfare, the same engine that fuels liberation theology: “To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights,..” (n.4) Leo XIII echoes then-Cardinal Ratzinger in attacking Sobrino’s concept that “unjust social structures = sin”. All of this brings us back to main point: the confusing and ambiguous “liberation-theology-like” language of this pope, which is the point we have raised (Brian S alone in his corner) and which papal language continues to create division and minsunderstanding

  26. Steve Phoenix says:

    Another mis-interpretation of Brian S. is that I am speaking of “bankers” and “modern banking practice”: I am addressing the manipulation of money in the social order by central banking authorities, working with powerful heads of states and elite global individuals who have special access to these central bankers. Think George Soros, who bankrolled Buddy Obama, Soros who broke the Bank of England in 1992 with a complex currency speculation scheme, and who declaimed he somehow made $8Billion during the 2008 US financial collapse. Think Jeffrey Immelt, whose GE corp avoids paying taxes, but has a preferred, collusive relationship with Obama. Think of Obama, who, in complete violation of written law, wiped out by executive order preferred (guaranteed) stockholders of GM and awarded the unsecured creditor UAW financial millions in the GM bankruptcy case. Manipulation of money extends beyond bank notes (although this is central) to those who can destroy securities and “guaranteed” stock and destroy the ordinary individual’s wealth.

  27. You obviously did not look up the quote, or read Rerum Novarum, Steve. Here is the statement you condemned as nonsensical Marxist re-hash, side by side with those references.

    What I said: “a small class comes to possess so much of the capital that the large majority of the citizens are reduced to working for wages – that is, the large majority of citizens do not possess capital!”

    What G.K. Chesterton said: “When I say ‘Capitalism,’ I commonly mean something that may be stated thus: ‘That economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.” (From The Outline of Sanity)

    What Leo XIII said: “To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” (From Rerum Novrum, paragraph 3)

    • Steve Phoenix says:

      It is hopeless to try to reply to Brian S. —although I beg his pardon, I of course studied his out-of-context quote(s), and I am sure that I have read Rerum Novarum IN CONTEXT, I believe,many more times than him and moreover under the guidance of excellent Catholic professors who knew the full sweep of actual Catholic social teaching. The issue is that GK Chesterton (neither nor Leo XIII, who Brian S claimed in other posts, “condemned capitalism” in RN, a complete fabrication: LXIII specifically condemns socialism in RN)—neither of them use this language of poverty, wealth and especially class conflict in the same context and meaning as liberation-theos like Gustavo Gutierrez: only Brian S holds that hopeless position. It is also the typical argumentation today to allege that any defense of market economics is a full endorsement of monstrous crimes of speculators and money manipulation —the typical straw man argument. Yet George Soros was convicted in 2005 of insider trading—in, of all places, France (that bastion of capitalism!). And yet he has full access to the present CEO of the US. Interesting. [Brian is probably OK with that.] My point here is really not to respond to Brian, which is futile, but to provide context and provide reference info to people with open minds like (thank you:) Abeca, and Tracy, and perhaps Catherine. And again, the real point: Pope Francis, who does not define his terms, who does not present his argument in an organized, cohesive manner (Ev. Gaudium is a disaster), uses language that at least sounds like the vague “unjust social structures” of Gutierrez, Sobrino, and other lib-theos and if nothing else, confuses and divides us all as we try to figure out what the Gehenna he is actually saying. However, the opportunists have no problem citing him as moral support to “enforce” (Brian S’ word) in essence a powerful central police state, with nominal property rights and bankers and “capitalists” as public enemies No. 1. All we need now is a bulletproof train to roll into town and get those #@#$ kulaks.

  28. Why would I be “ok” with the influence peddling of Soros? I am the one warning of the ugly nexus of the capitalists and politicians. It is you who strains to subdivide “bankers” from “central banking authorities”, just as you strain to separate “capitalists” (good, praiseworthy, embraced by Leo) from “speculators and money manipulators”, who you condemn.

    Pius XI did not use the word “Nazi” in Mit brennender Sorge, but it’s target was clear enough. In Rerum Novarum Leo does not use the word “capitalism”. However, Leo does describe the conditions of his time as resulting in a situation where “a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.” One must be very determined to see no condemnation in that.

    Like Leo, like Chesterton, I condemn the concentration of capital whether it in the hands of the State, of Soros, or Bill Gates. If you, or others cannot see that there are alternatives between those options, you are denying the long experience of the pre-reformation world.

    Finally, if you seek to appeal to your credentials, you should post your Curriculum Vitae. I’d love to see who your professors were.

  29. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
    Article 3. Social Justice
    III. Human Solidarity
    The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood. (Cf. John Paul II, SRS 38-40; CA 10)
    An error, “today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity.” (Pius XII, Summi pontificatus, October 20, 1939; AAS 31 (1939) 423 ff). [1939]

  30. Anonymous says:

    It is true as St Faustina writes that the more one is “recollected” the more one will suffer from those who are not. People want other people to be like themselves. I’ve know several women who would try to make people conform to their ideas of what they should be. Many times they would try to undermine spiritual progress. They would criticize, gossip, insult, make evil suggestions, emotionally abuse, lie just to try to make the person more like them-which was, to be honest, not very good and really not holy. If they only knew how hard those others were praying and working to not be like them.

  31. Steve Phoenix says:

    yahoonews.com 3/10/14: “In an NBC news piece titled “Not Everyone Loves Francis,” Boston College theology professor Thomas Groome pondered whether or not true Catholic conservatives would be able to keep supporting the Pope’s new approach towards acceptance and mercy and still keep their faith. “I think it will be a real test for conservative Catholics,” he told NBC. “They have always pointed the finger, quoting the Pope for the last 35 years. Suddenly, will they stop quoting the Pope? It’ll be a good test of whether or not they’re really Catholics.”

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.