San Francisco speaks to Rome

Father Fessio defends Filipino bishops against other Jesuits
Aquino welcomes Pope Francis to the Philippines

Aquino welcomes Pope Francis to the Philippines

The following comes from a Jan. 29 story by Sandro Magister in Chiesa news service.

They have not gone without notice, the harsh criticisms addressed by an authoritative Jesuit of the authoritative La Civiltà Cattolica to the bishops of the Philippines, for their strenuous opposition to the law on “reproductive health” successfully backed in the country by Catholic president Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino.

The criticisms, formulated in a book, were presented in detail in this article from www.chiesa: > Bishops of the Philippines Under Pressure. Examined and Rejected

The Jesuit who slammed the Filipino bishops for being “backward” and “closed off” not only with respect to the beacons of modernity but also with respect to the requests of Pope Francis is the Frenchman Pierre de Charentenay, a former president of the Centre Sèvres, the Paris institute of higher education of the Society of Jesus, director from 2004 to 2012 of the magazine of the Jesuits of France, Études, and since last year part of the team of writers of La Civiltà Cattolica, the magazine of the Rome Jesuits printed after inspection by Vatican authorities and directed by a man very close to the pope, Fr. Antonio Spadaro.

His dismissal of the bishops of the Philippines made an even bigger impression because it coincided with the journey of Pope Francis to that country, which is not only the only one in Asia with a majority Catholic population, but also distinguishes itself by the strong presence of its bishops in the public sphere.

Receiving the pope on January 16 at the presidential palace, Benigno Aquino, educated in the Jesuit schools of Manila, also took the opportunity to criticize the Filipino bishops. In welcoming his guest he cited and turned against them the pre-Christmas address of Francis to the Roman curia, with the condemnation of those who by virtue of their roles make themselves “sowers of discord.”

But neither in the discourse delivered immediately after that circumstance – where he nonetheless struck a blow for the “inalienable right to life, beginning with that of the unborn” – nor in other moments of his visit did Pope Francis expend a single word in defense of the bishops.

Not everyone, however, among the Jesuits agrees with the accusatory theses of their confrere of La Civiltà Cattolica, clearly disparaging toward the cultural limitations that he identifies in the Catholicism of the Philippines: “close to a Latin American spirituality, expressive along the lines of the Spanish model but without the liberal tendencies inherited from the Enlightenment or the French Revolution.”

From San Francisco, after reading the rejection of the Filipino bishops decreed by Fr. de Charentenay because of their closure to modernity, the Jesuit Joseph Fessio reacted by sending us the letter reproduced below.

Fr. Fessio is not an unknown. Formed in the theological school of Joseph Ratzinger – and a prominent member of the circle of his disciples, the Ratzinger Schülerkreis – he founded and directs the publishing house Ignatius Press in the United States, which recently made an impression with the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” with contributions from five cardinals against communion for the divorced and remarried.

The following are the “errors of reason and of fact” that Fr. Fessio sees present in Fr. de Charentenay’s criticisms of the bishops of the Philippines, on matters of “reproductive health.”

Fessio letter
Dear Sandro Magister,

I am deeply saddened and distressed by what Fr. Pierre de Charentenay has written. It is all the more damaging because the book, as you have described it, is otherwise a serious and informed work.

Here are two passages which I find especially noxious, even though – perhaps because – they give expression to widespread, but false, opinions.

1. Fr. de Charentenay writes: “In the discussion, the Catholic Church never mentions the proliferation of abortion, a reality decidedly more serious than the contraception it is fighting. The two things are connected, because abortion is the means for avoiding birth when contraception is not used. The greater evil follows the lesser evil.”

Is it true that abortion is a greater evil than contraception, even “decidedly more serious”? Not necessarily. Take the case of  married couples who without grave necessity use contraception to postpone having children for years after they are married. Certainly in some cases it is God’s will for them to be open to new life. Which then is the graver evil? To prevent the conception – and very existence – of a human being with an immortal soul, desired by God and destined for eternal happiness? Or to abort a child in the womb? The latter is certainly a grave evil, Gaudium et spes calls it an “abominable crime”. But a child exists who will live eternally. In the former circumstance a child God intended to be will never exist.

Certainly contraception is widespread, even among married Catholics. But, just as in the millions upon millions of procured abortions that have taken place in recent years, the profound question is raised: How can God allow such evil to proliferate? There are no easy answers to this mysterium iniquitatis. And that means that the easy answer – that an evil like contraception is not really serious – is unacceptable for a Christian. God’s ways are not our ways. But that does not negate knowable fundamental principles, one of which is: it is a greater evil to deprive someone of existence than to deprive someone of temporal life.

In addition Fr. de Charentenay’s fundamental error of reason, he is also factually in error. He rightly states that abortion and contraception “are connected”; but they are not connected in the way he implies. i.e. that increased access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. The facts support the exact opposite conclusion. Statistics worldwide show that increased access to contraception has a high correlation to increased abortions. And the data are also intuitive: once a contraceptive mentality has become widespread, then abortion is regarded as simply a “backup” when contraception fails – as it so often does.

2. Fr. de Charentenay writes: “The RH Bill was conceived of to assist the poor populations and permit them to have access to the contraception that the middle class and the wealthy are already using. The different social groups do not have the same opportunities on this point. So the RH bill responds to a question of justice that is motivating the government on behalf of these poor populations.”

The pernicious error here is obvious and needs little comment: because the wealthy are able to circumvent a law proscribing a grave evil, then the law should be abolished so that the poor are not deprived of the same opportunity.

I am not saying that there cannot be sound reasons for the Church in some circumstances to tolerate laws which permit a moral evil. However the claim that it is a “question of justice” is not one of them.

Cordially,
Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.

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. Warren Goddard says:

    . “. Which then is the graver evil? To prevent the conception – and very existence – of a human being with an immortal soul, desired by God and destined for eternal happiness? Or to abort a child in the womb? The latter is certainly a grave evil, Gaudium et spes calls it an “abominable crime”. But a child exists who will live eternally. In the former circumstance a child God intended to be will never exist” Better not conceived than being in hell for eternity.

    • Then nobody should be conceived for fear he/she might end up in hell? It’s amazing the absurdities people can come up with to justify contraception of abortion.

      • Warren Goddard says:

        Rodney, what is absurd about saying that the souls of those who die in original sin descend immediately into hell? Councils of Lyon and Florence Dn 464&693.

        • Anonymous says:

          Warren Goddard, the Church teaches that people do not go to hell unless they have committed personal sin. So an aborted baby does not go to hell.
          “The words of the Council of Lyons speaks of those who die in original sin as going to hell. The Latin word used is , which means the realm of the dead, and need not mean the hell of the damned. As to the word , often translated as punishment, in Latin it need not mean the positive infliction of suffering, but could stand for only the loss or deprivation of some good. If unbaptized infants are deprived of the vision of God, that is a , but would not have to involve any suffering. We are certain of this from the teaching of Pope Pius IX, in , August 10, 1863: “God… in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” Of course, the infants do not have any voluntary fault. Hence they cannot be in the hell of the damned.
          http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/INFANT2.TXT

          • Anonymous says:

            Sorry, some computer glitch deleted the Latin words. The first word was infernum, which means the realm of the dead. (The Apostles Creed in Latin includes the phrase descendit ad infernos.) The second was poena. often translated as punishment…

  2. Fr. Fessio supports the whole truth, Pope Francis speaks out about loving the sinner, but not about hating the sin. We must pay more attention to what Pope Francis does not say.

    • Joel you apparently don’t listen to what Pope Francis says. He talks about sin almost every day.

      • It is very rare when the Pope speaks about mortal sin. The only one I remember is about the Mafia.

        • Anonymous says:

          Paula, either your sources or your memory are failing you. He speaks of it almost daily.

          • Anonymous –
            Then why did Pope Francis personally invite Kasper, and Daneels (of homosexual fame) to be prominent and guest speakers at the 2014 Synod ?

            Why is Pope Francis even considering the Sacrilege of giving Holy Communion to those who choose to continue living in Mortal Sin with no repentance
            – adulterers who choose to continue sexual activity with the valid spouse of another;
            and active homosexuals ?

            No one in his right mind believes the lie that it is PASTORAL, MERCIFUL or CHARITABLE to affirm or confirm anyone in any Mortal Sin.
            Sacrilege never causes anyone to repent and sin no more, as evidenced by numerous “Catholic” politicians such as Pelosi, Brown, Kerry, Cuomo, etc. Sacrilege only drives them more solidly and further into their sin.

            ” But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide PASTORAL care is NEITHER CARING NOR PASTORAL.
            Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral.”
            – Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict)
            http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

            We have had 12 bad Popes in the history of the 267 Popes of the Catholic Church.
            The Jury is out on Pope Francis. Is he going to help Save Souls in accord with Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium as stated in the CCC, or cave in to the relativism and sins of today’s society ?

          • PETE, you would have to ask the Pope your “why” questions. He doesn’t tell me why. All I know is that the objective evidence is that he speaks about sin, evil, the devil, etc. nearly every day. I was correcting the misstatement that the Pope never speaks of evil. So, if you ask him the “why” questions that you feel are appropriate, and you get an answer, please report back. But please don’t ream on me for reporting the correct facts of the matter.

  3. For al of this mess we can thank the “reforms” of Vatican II

  4. Popes are capable of sin as well.

    Any high ranking clergy that goes against Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium’s defined Doctrine of the Faith as contained in the CCC commits a Mortal Sin, and if done in public – the mortal sin of Sandal as well.

    People who do not want children should abstain from Sexual activity.
    People are not animals.

    CCC on Abortion: 2271, 2272, 2274, 2322;
    CCC on Contraception: 2370, 2399.
    Both are stated as being INTRINSIC Evils.

    The Jesuits who oppose any teachings in the CCC are heretics and should be excommunicated forthwith, and this includes: Fr. de Charentenay.
    The Faithful are being persecuted even within the Church.

    When is the Pope going to do his job and start defending the Faith, and getting rid of heretical religious and heretical theologians ?

    • DAN, thank you for speaking plainly. “People who do not want children should abstain from Sexual activity. People are not animals.”

      Jeremiah 1:5 states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” I can only wonder how many individuals God has “known” who were prevented from ever being conceived. Contraception and purposeful sterilization equals the “sin of pride” plain and simple.

  5. Linda Maria says:

    The Holy Father, and the Vatican, truly need to return to a full, honest commitment to the Catholic Faith!

  6. Abeca Christian says:

    It looks like there are several priests who are breaking away from SSPX. Fr. Patrick Girouard leaves the SSPX!

    Fr. Patrick Girouard, ordained an SSPX priest, and formerly stationed in Vancouver, Canada, finally left the new SSPX in the end of March, 2013. He did not return to become in full communion either.

    Fr Hugo Ruiz Vallejo speaks out!
    Fr. Ruiz Vallejo was ordained an SSPX priest. In March, 2013 he wrote the courageous and encouraging letter below outlining the reasons for his leaving the SSPX. Father wrote the letter in Spanish

    Shows how schism works itself also from their own and how they consider it a brave move to break away from SSPX and thus starting their own Catholic identity away from SSPX:
    3-9-2013: Traditional German Carmelite nuns speak out, break with the new SSPX!

    History: In the 1980’s, those same Belgian Carmelites opened a daughter house in Germany which has been served by, and loyal to the SSPX until now.

    The News: They have however become increasingly wary of the new SSPX’s move to make a practical agreement with unconverted Rome,(thats their own words against Rome) and they have in the past let Fr. Schmidberger know of their opposition. Recently, these so called sisters have not only spoken out against the new SSPX, but have openly broken with the SSPX (5 of 6 sisters left; one remained loyal to the new SSPX).

    • ” The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
      There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.
      In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. ” – Pope Benedict XVI, March 10, 2009.

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

    • Ann Malley says:

      And there have been schisms away from the Catholic Church since her inception, Abeca. By your reasoning the Catholic Church Herself promotes schism because folks break away.

      The fact that there are those braking away from the SSPX for ‘fear’ of an agreement with Rome should demonstrate to you that the SSPX is not opposed to Papal authority.

      Please, stop working against that which the Church Herself is seeking to gain – unity with the SSPX to the benefit of the teaching of the fullness of Faith.

  7. Linda Maria says:

    The SSPX are true-blue Catholics! Better than poor Pope Francis’ (bless him, though!) Vatican II Church!! Please do take some time, and go personally visit their priests, or one of their chapels! You will be so THRILLED!! Archbishop. Lefebvre was an outstanding, courageous, saintly, and true Catholic leader, when others had all tragically gone off to apostasy, heresy, and even horrific immorality! Originally, the SSPX was supported by the Vatican. When Lefebvre was elderly, and soon going to die, he desired to consecrate four bishops, to carry on his work, of priestly ordinations for the Tridentine Mass. He correctly sought the Vatican’s approval– but they stalled— and poor Lefebvre realized, he was being tricked! The Vatican awaited his death– and hopefully, the death, too, of Catholic Tradition, and the Tridentine Mass! So, Lefebvre did the consecrations, anyway, and they all got excommunicated, for DISOBEDIENCE!! Later, Pope Benedict rightfully lifted these excommunications. Well, go see for yourself– you’ll be THRILLED!! The Pope needs to excommunicate “bad Catholics,” not the SSPX!!

  8. Linda Maria says:

    I will add something, to my above post. In today’s tragic, post-Vatican II Church, you actually see very few real Catholics! So many priests, nuns, and prelates, are heretical, apostate, and also immoral! Look at the tragic results, of the recent Synod on the Family! However, the very opposite situation exists, in the SSPX!! There, we have complete, enthusiastic uniformity of belief, and adherence to the Church’s True Teachings and Tradition!! The entire Deposit of Faith is totally secure! They also recognize the authority of the Holy Father– although they do not accept Vatican II, that’s all! I, myself, am Catholic– but truly, I accept very little, of Vatican II!! I thought it was a FARCE!! (And likewise, I view the recent Synod on the Family, as a FARCE!!) And our Holy Father is himself, on the very brink of heresy and apostasy! BLESS him!

  9. Warren Goddard says:

    Anonympos: Pope Pius IX distinguished between those lost due indifferentism (having and dismissing knowledge of Christ and His Church) and those lost due to invincible ignorance (knowledge of Christ and His Church never being available). He then said the latter are not punished for being ignorant as are the indifferent.
    Pope Pius IX’s response to sophistical “invincible ignorance” inquiries:
    Pope Pius IX’s 1854 allocution on rationalism and indifferentism, Singulari quadem, states that “it is destructive error to believe that those who never lived in the true Church” may be saved. And it also says that the invincibly ignorant, among those not saved for this reason, are not guilty of indifferentism in the eyes of God because knowledge of the Faith is not available to them.
    Pope Pius IX’s 1863 encyclical on indifferentism, Quanto conficiamure moerore, is composed of four sentences:
    1. Censures Catholics who believe that men can attain salvation from outside the Church.
    2. This “very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged” is quite contrary to Catholic teaching.
    3. An invincibly ignorant man can by the operating power of divine light and grace attain eternal life. 
    4. No one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who obstinately and persistently separate themselves from the Church cannot obtain eternal salvation.

    • Anonymous says:

      Warren Goddard, thank you for this post.
      So, if this is a followup to the first discussion, you are saying that it depends on why someone is in a state of original sin?

      • Warren Goddard says:

        Anonymous: It is in response to your misunderstanding of Pius IX on invincible ignorance and the Lyon/Florence Councils on original sin both saying: The souls of those who die in mortal, sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to suffer different punishments. The only remedy for original sin is the sacrament of baptism. Council of Trent Session 5 Decree 3.

  10. Linda Maria says:

    I wish to add just one more thing, to my above post. Bless Pope Francis– because he truly does care very, very much, about people! But how much does he REALLY CARE?? You CAN’T FOOL GOD!! Why does he not advise people correctly, when he calls them, on the telephone?? Why does he not stand up for the helpless unborn, and for the holy Sacrament of Marriage?? Why does he not CARE enough– to do his job right, for Christ?? A truly good teacher, cares enough to teach his students correctly, and helps them to succeed– WITHOUT CHEATING!! And to LIE, AND CHEAT ON GOD– is a HORROR!! Whom do you think you’re kidding, Pope Francis?? GOD SEES YOU!! I much prefer the HONESTY and INTEGRITY of the SSPX!! LOVE our Church’s BEAUTIFUL TRADITION, too, and the old LATIN MASS!! BLESS the SSPX! I am SO STUCK– like many are– in this awful, DISHONEST, post-Vatican II Church!! Wish Cardinal Burke could be our Pope!! Pope Francis has badly mistreated outstanding, true Catholic leaders, like Cardinal Burke– what a SHAME!!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Apparently, LInda maria, you haven’t heard that the SSPX sect founder ordained 4 bishops without authorization from Rome in a schismatic act. One of the four was exposed as a holocaust denier. Today, he speaks vicious words against the founder’s successor. Other SSPX-related clergy follow him, some follow the successor. Moves to reunify with the Roman Pontiff are met with horror among many in the SSPX, and members such as yourself feel free to badmouth the Pope in public as though it were a game. You cannot badmouth a Pope with such little concern for the unity of the Church and believe you are doing a good thing.

      • Ann Malley says:

        “…You cannot badmouth a Pope with such little concern for the unity of the Church and believe you are doing a good thing.”

        You put the Pope above the teachings of the Church and God Himself, YFC, with your pet agenda. So your admonishing others comes across as little more than misguided idolatry, not faithful Catholicism.

  11. Linda Maria says:

    Well, for Catholics concerned about schisms, I would say– a horrible schism already occurred, at Vatican II, and beyond! In today’s Church, we have very few true Catholics! Many Church leaders and laymen are heretical, apostate, and immoral! Many Catholic prelates who seem to be honest and responsible with their Faith, also sadly “tolerate” those who are immoral, heretical, and apostate, even giving them big roles, in the Church! And they also give Church money from sincere Catholic laymen– to irresponsible, immoral charities and programs! Very sad!! This is the result of irresponsible, “Vatican II-style freedoms,” and refusal to maturely accept responsibility, for one’s religious Faith and Morals!! To be a follower of Christ, is a big responsibility! NOT an immature “hippie joyride” of babyish “freedom!” Church leaders all should be OLD ENOUGH, to know this!! So, today’s Church is really in a very bad “SILENT SCHISM,” which Church leaders fail to see, for what it really is: “CATHOLIC IN NAME ONLY!!” A LIE!! A dishonest, “SILENT SCHISM!!”

    • Abeca Christian says:

      Linda Maria your arguments are based only on your prejudges and misinformation. Not on truth, you are not focused on Christ and His infallible word and promises. But you lean often on your own understanding which are in error. You definitely have a lot of opinions that are based on fear not on truth. Pray the rosary.

      • Linda Maria says:

        This is response to the post of Lou. You should re-read my post! I said that the Church had suffered a sort of “schism,” of many obviously heretical, apostate, immoral Catholic clergy and laymen, since the Council. A SILENT schism, such as what Pope St. John Paul II referred to, in his use of the term, “Silent Apostasy.” A very real problem! Very few Catholics are left, in the Catholic Church! It is “Catholic in name only!” The Pope also said that he would not seek measures to correct this problem, in his papacy, fearing the total collapse of the Catholic Church. Vatican II promoted so-called “freedoms” which caused many heretical, immoral, apostate clergy and laymen to practice a false Catholicism, yet remain in the Church, seeking to change it to their tastes, rather than to leave the Church. And Church leaders did not excommunicate or discipline most of them, to this very day!

      • Linda Maria says:

        This is in response to the post of Abecca Christian. No, my posts regarding the SSPX are NOT my “opinions,” “prejudices,” or “fears,” based on “misinformation!” And yes, I do love Christ, and I do pray the Rosary! But not out of fear! That is silly! It is wrongful, of you, to make up all these silly things about people whom you have never met! It is not necessary, for someone to go into a wild, overly-emotionally reactive, angry tirade, of overly-harsh judgments, about a very nice religious group, very faithful to Church teachings, like the SSPX! Are they some horrible, sinful, wicked religious group, to your imagination? All because they “sinfully” favor the beautiful old Latin Mass, and 2000 years of Catholicism, originating from Christ, long before Vatican II?? Did the Catholic Church suddenly begin in 1962, with the opening of the Second Vatican Council?? What a great sin the SSPX has committed, according to you, and according to the post-Conciliar Church!! Very sad!

        • Your Fellow Catholic says:

          Linda Maria, a sect cannot be “very faithful to Church teachings” and go and ordain bishops without the approval of the Pope. Even if they are a very nice religious group.

        • Linda Marie, if you want people to believe you, simple provide a link from OFFICIAL Church Documents the prove all your accusations.
          Be as specific as possible.

          Do not use some heretical group link information.
          The Vatican web site is loaded with OFFICIAL Church documentation.

      • Ann Malley says:

        “…But you lean often on your own understanding which are in error. You definitely have a lot of opinions that are based on fear not on truth.”

        And there is the truth behind your own posts, Abeca Christian. Learn, read, research and grow – without fear. Pray the Rosary every day. And Our Lady will obtain for you the strength of grace to observe and discern without having to bash others out of ignorance.

    • Linda Marie, you have to start supporting your statements with official documents.

      What SCHISMS have taken place specifically due to Vatican II? List them in number order, and supply an official Church (Vatican) link.
      Here are the V II Documents: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

      Also list those schisms (if any) which had NOTHING to do with Vatican II, but were INDULTS requested by the US Bishops Conference.
      (Include bad decisions of the US Conference)

      Here are the official Church definitions:
      CCC: ” 2089 INCREDULITY is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
      HERESY is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
      APOSTACY is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
      SCHISM is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

      • Abeca Christian says:

        Linda Maria LOU pretty much summed it up. I wonder why you refuse to reflect on these facts. How about the sex scandals from the SSPX and priests leaving. All those secrets kept in strict lockup. Have you read all my posts on those concerns? I didnt hear any SSPX supporter denounce the sex abuse on those cases here. I dont question that you love Jesus. But do you have a personal relationship with Him. To know of Him is one thing but to know him in an ever deeply level that is needing our daily nurturing is another thing? My question to you is do you trust Jesus enough? Not to insult or insinuate anythiny but in humity, its a question that we all need to reflect on honestly. Pax Christie. Jmj

        • Ann Malley says:

          “…But do you have a personal relationship with Him.” My goodness, Abeca, but you sound Evangelical. In all humility, have you looked into the founding of the SSPX on any other sites besides those which are unofficial and seek to slander maliciously?

          Your views do not seem to be Faith based, but rather ‘team’ based as in ‘my’ team without regard to what the team is actually about. And the schisms that are going on within the Church are not ‘formal’ schisms because those like Cardinal Kasper who teach that which is against the Faith are allowed to do so for ‘fear’ of him leading the Bishops of Germany into formal schism.

          Much like giving your daughter a lock for her door so she can do what she wills without having to leave home to do it. Is the girl fornicating part of the ‘family’? Really? Or is she just physically at home while spiritually lost?

          In all humility, what are you fighting for? Full communion on paper or actual full communion of Faith?

        • Linda Maria says:

          Abecca, your behavior is definitely not “Christian!” Maybe you are ill, and need medical help. Not worth a reply, any longer!

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.