Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Catholic Church Doctrine’ Category

I feel a bit of umbrage when someone who hasn’t experienced problems with female health issues makes the assertion that the pill,  ”contraception for women were NEVER designed to improve their health.”   This gives the implication that the pill can never be used to help with more severe female health issues when that isn’t the case.  As a female who has severe endometriosis I have experienced the good of the “pill”, it helping with me severe pain.  Maybe I’m being a little touchy on this subject but it is so disappointing when men or women who have had no experience in this area, as far as experiencing major female problems, insinuate or claim that the “pill” can never improve your health.  Obviously the intention of the creator of the “pill” and other contraceptives was to prevent conception.  The pill was designed particularly for this purpose.  With the exception of the above issue which ruffled my feathers Fr. Jason Smith at Biltrix wrote a great post called What Every Married Couple Should Know About the Truth of Sex and the Lie of Contraception which I encourage everyone to read.

Last year when I struggled in making a decision of whether it was licit to take birth control pills if it was for a severe health condition I wrote a post called Women’s Health, Conscience, and Humanae Vitae asking for people’s’ opinions and advice on the matter.  Unfortunately, in the end “the pill” didn’t help and I needed a hysterectomy.  When taking the “pill” for a medical condition the woman needs to weigh the risks of the side effects with the need to take the pill for the medical condition.  There are some serious side effects that can occur when taking the ” pill” – blood clots in legs and brains and breast cancer – but then again, every medicine has side effects so women just need to make informed decisions.  Now, there may be better health care options to treat certain female conditions which are more aligned with Catholic teaching but I’m not sure whether there is or not.

I will leave you with a quote from the encyclical Humanae Vitae:

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

So taking the “pill” for therapeutic reasons is NOT illicit and is in line with teachings of the Catholic Church.

Read Full Post »

links_image1

Apparently there has been some hullabaloo about news sites claiming that Pope Francis as Cardinal Bergoglio endorsed civil unions back in 2010. That’s a bunch of hooey. According to one of the Pope’s confidants Francis was faced with gay “marriage” being thrust upon citizens in Argentina so he offered the lesser of two evils as to have further discussion on the matter. It is the same when voting for a piece of legislation. Canon law allows for the politician voting for the legislation that is the lesser of two evils when there is no good option.

Woites’s statements contradict a New York Times article published yesterday stating, “Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the ‘lesser of two evils,’ said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. ‘He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.’”

Here is the article http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bergoglio-didnt-suggest-endorsing-homosexual-civil-unions-in-2010-says-conf

Fr. Orsi at Ave Maria is taking bishops to task for being unwilling to refuse Holy Communion to politicians who are in grave sin those who support abortion and euthanasia.  I’d add being in support of same-sex marriage to the list. Both Biden and Pelosi received Communion at Pope Francis’ installation mass. These type of politicians have been obstinate for so long and the bishops’ pastoral approach hasn’t worked over a lengthy period of time that a more visible act of standing for the faith and against scandal is necessary.  Here is a bit of what Fr. Orsi has to say:

Politicians such as Biden and Pelosi have been stubborn and contumacious in their pro-abortion policies and in presenting themselves for reception of the Eucharist. They know that the American bishops, for the most part, prefer a “pastoral approach,” which means basically let’s talk to them and help them to see the error of their ways. It has not worked, and there is no indication that it will. The topic of this essay is proof enough! They also know that Catholic priests are instructed not to cause a scene on the Communion line and that the person be permitted to receive. Thus, they opt to take advantage of these charitable loopholes.

There is a solution and perhaps some hope for stronger enforcement of Church policy on offending pols. The Vatican should clearly state that politicians who promote a culture of death, abortion, and euthanasia, are subject to excommunication by their bishop. Pope-Emeritus  Benedict XVI  made an unofficial statement on a trip to Mexico, in 2007, stating  that excommunication for pro choice legislators was not arbitrary and is part of canon law.  This would strengthen Canon 915 and some bishops’ backbones.

It is well known that Pope Francis forbade pro- choice politicians from receiving Holy Communion in his diocese, in Argentina.  Perhaps the new Pope can move this project along?

By the bishops refusing to take strong action, such as excommunication, politicians will continue their “in your face” attitude toward the church and her leaders. Such a failure will also continue to allow Catholics and people of good will to be scandalized. Even worse, it gives the impression that others may follow the behavior of wayward  politicians with impunity.

Biden and Pelosi only did at the Vatican what they have been allowed to do at home.  As the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonheoffer stated so well, dear bishops;  Not to act is to act!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ave-maria-law-priest-takes-bishops-to-task-for-failing-to-deny-communion-to?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=80c9604d99-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_03_20_2013&utm_medium=email

Dang those sequester cuts. Bang. Bop. That hurts… Wait!!! Hold on… stop listening to the MSM meme. Were there really cuts to government agencies because of the sequester? To Find out you can visit The Sequester Lies: Where are the Republicans? at Conservative Hideout. It’s all laid out neatly in a graph.

The Conservative Lady has a post titled A New “Most Dangerous” Man in America?   This person is a mayor of a major city but he has much influence over national politics.  He is a radical who wants to change (er take away) your rights using force.  He is not only against illegal guns but is also against legal guns.

1CatholicSalmon has a good post called Palm Sunday – the day after tomorrow, and Holy Week begins. Doesn’t it seem like Lent has flown by? Hard to believe it’s already almost one day before Holy Week begins.

Biltrix has a great post called Father, Forgive Them!  Fr. Jason Smith explains about having the urge to throw away his anger toward Judas betrayal when he hears the words ”Father forgive them.”  This had me questioning, should we really be angry at Judas? Wasn’t he apart of God’s divine plan? An essential part? Without Judas would Jesus have died to save our sins? Possibly…. but since this is what happened in God’s divine plan to save all of humanity from sin wouldn’t giving thanks to Judas be more appropriate?  We all sin and whether the sin be big or small if we ask for forgiveness God will grant His mercy and forgive us. For this reason and with there being conflicting accounts of Judas’ death  I do believe that it is possible that Judas repented before his death. This would mean that Judas would have been forgiven by God just as the rest of us are forgiven when we repent in Reconciliation.

 

Read Full Post »

Questioning does not necessarily mean that you don’t believe. But questioning can lead to the sin of unbelief. If the reason why you are questioning is to further understand something about the Faith that is a good thing. But if you are a skeptic of certain teachings questioning those teachings and uncertain whether you should believe this or that doctrinal teaching then you are giving way to the sin of unbelief.

Read Full Post »

H/T Breitbart 

Secretary of Defense Panetta said: “The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

After much introspection and because of a discussion on the topic of torture I have come around full circle to my original position on enhanced interrogation techniques. Our government may have overused these techniques but I think that these enhanced interrogation techniques are a necessity.  It may be necessary to use some of these techniques more frequently than others but I believe they are all needed to one degree or another in order to obtain and/or verify information from the terrorists. In addition I don’t see these techniques as constituting torture. Plus, there is no consensus or clear-cut definition of torture.

I know that the president takes an oath to defend and protect citizens from harm and in the discussion on a blog some of the commenters acknowledged this but, then they went onto to say that the president could authorize the use of what they call “torture”, the enhanced interrogation techniques, in order to save lives but then they continued the discussion by emphasizing that the president should have to accept the consequences.  They suggested court-martial. It’s not possible to court-martial a president. It’s too late to impeach Bush, since that’s probably the president that they were referring to. I disagree with this vehemently. Either the president has the obligation to protect the American people or he doesn’t.  Since he takes a pledge the president does have an obligation to protect us and he should have every reasonable type of interrogation technique available for his authorization so that those who carry out the interrogations – those responsible for getting information to stop attacks –  are able to have the best possible ways to stop future terrorist attacks.

Then I read a superb article by Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D. where he explains the Church’s history on torture and Biblical references to torture which pertains to the torture debate today and the enhanced interrogation techniques used by our government.

The nasty subject of torture, not normally a headline-grabbing topic in the twentieth century, has recently been catapulted to a much higher level of prominence in public debate throughout the world in the heightened atmosphere of tension following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

What are we Catholics to think about this subject? While recent magisterial statements (none of them definitive and infallible) have reprobated torture, Catholic theologians and apologists still face a challenge. The overall testimony of our authorities — Scripture, Tradition and the magisterium — over three millennia is by no means very clear, or even obviously consistent, in regard to the morality of intentional infliction of pain.

Even deciding what exactly we mean by torture is not easy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it as “physical or moral violence” (CCC 2297); the definition given by the 1984 United Nations Convention on Torture is “the intentional infliction of severe pain.” The words violence and severe are themselves somewhat vague. Who draws the line — and where? — as to which specific practices are harsh enough to correspond to those words? What has become clear in the contemporary debate is that while many shudder-evoking practices (which needn’t be spelled out here) are recognized by everyone as meriting the name torture, there is no consensus about whether other less extreme interrogation techniques really count as torture: for instance, sleep deprivation, being kept under harsh temperatures or in uncomfortable positions, or “waterboarding” (which causes a brief, panic-inducing sensation of being about to drown but no pain or injury). Since no Catholic magisterial intervention so far offers any real guidance for resolving this controversy, the only methods we can be sure are included under “torture,” when that word appears in Church documents, are those in the former group. CONTINUED 

Like I said in one of my comments where the discussion on torture took place, abortion much more clearly falls under the definitive description of torture than any of the interrogation techniques mentioned above. Abortion is an apt example of “physical and moral violence” taking place. So therefore IMO besides abortion being murder it also falls under the Church’s definition of torture.  But these same people who are so outspoken on what they perceive to be torture are totally okay with abortion being legal. This is so sad especially because abortion involves the killing of an innocent human being who hasn’t done any harm to anyone while the other involves a person who is more dangerous than the average criminal, is threatening violence against innocents and is withholding information that is vital to stopping a terrorist attack. Some people are so backwards with their thinking and have a screwed up sense of morality.

Read Full Post »

Catholic Charities must follow the Magisterium in totality.  We have seen the secularization in our society creep into certain Catholic charities and thus conflict with Church teachings, such as abortion and contraception.  Pope Benedict XVI has released an apostolic letter  which outlines the duty for Catholic charities to follow Church teachings while spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Pope Benedict also called on the bishops to improve their supervision of Catholic charities, to ensure that Catholic  organizations work is consistent with Church teachings.

Pope Benedict observed that it is the duty of the diocesan bishops and parish priests to safeguard that, in charitable service, the faithful “are not led into error or misunderstanding.”

According to Father Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, there has been a dramatic increase in charitable services to the poor becoming integrated with practices that are inconsistent with Church teaching.
“Emergency shelter somehow requires legalized abortion, food comes with condoms and incredible pressure to reduce birth rates, economic assistance requires adoption of a radical sexual and political agenda,” said Boquet. “More and more the message to the poor and suffering from the secular development industry is ‘we’ll help you, but you need to stop having children now and leave your traditions behind.’”

“The Church’s charitable activity at all levels must avoid the risk of becoming just another form of organized social assistance,” the pope wrote. He instructed that bishops and priests “are to prevent publicity being given through parish or diocesan structures to initiatives which, while presenting themselves as charitable, proposes choices or methods at odds with the Church’s teaching.” In addition, the pope wrote that church leaders must see to it that “the norms of the Church’s universal and particular law are respected, as well as the intentions of the faithful who made donations or bequests for these specific purposes.”

The pope explicitly identified the organization, Caritas Internationalis, the umbrella group that represents hundreds of Catholic charitable groups around the world. The U.S. members of Caritas are Catholic Charities U.S.A. and Catholic Relief Services.

In 2009, LifeSiteNews uncovered evidence that groups promoting legalized abortion and artificial contraceptives were being funded through grants from the Canadian Catholic Organisation for Development and Peace. Since that time, the Vatican has been forced to intervene directly on at least two occasions in Caritas activities.
Stephen Mosher, president of Population Research Institute, said that the pope’s directive “is a welcome corrective to the corrosive secularization of many Catholic agencies around the world, including Catholic Relief Services in the U.S. African and Latin American bishops have been complaining for years about so-called ‘Catholic charities’ that are, in fact, neither authentically Catholic nor truly charitable.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah, head of the Pontifical Council that oversees the Church’s charities, had earlier warned of a “silent apostasy” within Catholic charities when he informed Caritas:
Today, dear friends, the tragedy of modern mankind is not lacking clothing and housing. The most tragic hunger and the most terrible anguish is not lack of food. It’s much more about the absence of God and the lack of true love, the love that was revealed to us on the Cross.

Read Full Post »

I recently came across the blog Half Hermit by the Lake where a Catholic priest praised the re-election of President Obama, a few democrats in Maryland, and expressed his support for homosexual “marriage”. He also said that he was pleased that Maryland had upheld the law granting homosexuals the right to marry and called homosexual “marriage” a civil rights issue.

Here is what the Catholic half hermit wrote:

Does this picture look triumphant enough? This is a happy day for the U.S.A. and for yours truly. I can keep for four more years my Obama-Biden bumper sticker which has already weathered the last four years. Cardin continues in the Senate. I am glad that Bartlett will no longer be our non-representative in the House. I pray that his opponent Delaney and all those who were elected last night will work for what’s best for the people.
 I am also pleased that Marylanders voted to uphold our law allowing marriage between homosexuals. For many years my position was that, as long as we made sure that same sex couples had all the rights of married couples, that was sufficient. But about two years ago I began to see this as a civil rights issue. Everyone in Maryland, the Free State, now has an equal right to marry.
What pleases me about the election outcomes is that I see them supporting the common good, as opposed to the extreme individualism that has become evident in the last two or three years. I find them very much in keeping with Catholic teaching on Social Justice.

Here is how I responded on his blog:

Why as a Catholic priest do you believe that homosexual “marriage” should be considered a civil right? I can understand if you believe that we should treat homosexuals with human dignity. We should treat all individuals with human dignity. I can understand if you believe that homosexuals should have the right to each others health insurance, visitation at hospitals, and other life decisions but I am wondering why you believe homosexual relations to be just as legitimate as heterosexual relations? What in scripture justifies your position?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this on homosexuality:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who
experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the
same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in
different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of
grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the
sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and 
sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

As Catholics we are called to assent to Church teaching. We are called to believe and defend the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Deacons, priests, and bishops are called to Shepherd the flock -  the laity – and not side with what society deems as appropriate, fair, or moral when it conflicts with Church teaching.

Read Full Post »

Did you watch VP debate last night? I did.  What did you think of it? I thought it was a pretty good debate, pretty fiery at that.  Towards the end of the debate Martha Raddatz, the moderator, asked Joe Biden and Paul Ryan this:

This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. 

Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country … please talk personally about this, if you could.

Paul Ryan answered:

I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. 

Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science. 

You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception. 

That’s why – those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. 

Our Church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.

 

Joe Biden answered: 

My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who – who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. 

With regard to – with regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a – what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. 

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the – the congressman. I – I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. 

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. 

That is a fact. Now with regard to the way in which the – we differ, my friend says that he – well I guess he accepts Governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there was – there’s rape and forcible rape. He’s argued that in the case of rape or incest, it was still – it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.

 

Paul Ryan’s answer was beautiful and a great testament to both his Catholic Faith and his pro-life views.  Since there are problems with Joe Biden’s answer I am going to focus on his.

While Biden claims to follow the Church’s de fide doctrinal position on abortion he really doesn’t because if he did he would assent to the Church teaching which states that all life is precious and abortion is murder.  A law is unjust that doesn’t protect human life at all stages. Biden wouldn’t say that he doesn’t want to impose his personal beliefs on others if he truly had any respect for all human life, especially the most vulnerable.

From the Catechism: “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”56

Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.”61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

 

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

 

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 ”by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”82

2275 ”One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”83

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”84

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

What Biden calls a personal choice for women is not simply a personal preference like choosing between the type of shampoo, soap, hair style, or the make of vehicle one likes.  We are talking about a human being which exists or is alive from the moment of conception.  Biden doesn’t want to impose his beliefs so women don’t murder these innocent babies.  It is sick and sad that murder equals “women’s rights” and “equality” in pro-aborts minds.

 

Kristi Burton Brown from Live Action News made a great point.

Biden also contradicted his own admission that life begins at conception by stating that he does “not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.” However, if he believes that life – presumably a new life – begins at conception, we are not just talking about a woman controlling her own body. We are talking about ending the life of a new, unique human being. Biden seems to personally realize this truth, but refused to publicly acknowledge it.

 

At 8 weeks….

 

 

 

Baby Samuel…

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 501 other followers