Showing posts with label Matrimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matrimony. Show all posts
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Spiritual Communion for the Divorced & Remarried: Is it Possible?

This relevant and timely article is taken from the website of the Society of St. Pius X:

Teaching of Trent

We begin with the Council of Trent, which explains the tri-fold distinction concerning reception of Holy Communion:

One may receive only sacramentally because they are sinners. Others receive it only spiritually; they are the ones who, receiving in desire the heavenly bread put before them, with a living faith ‘working through love’ (Gal. 5:6), experience its fruit and benefit from it. The third group receive it both sacramentally and spiritually (can. 8); they are the ones who examine and prepare themselves beforehand to approach this divine table, clothed in the wedding garment (cf. Matt. 22:11f ).”

The State of Grace is Needed for Communion

Like all Christians, the divorced and remarried must imperatively be in the state of grace in order to receive Communion both sacramentally and spiritually. If this is not the case, they must first recover the state of grace by going to confession with true contrition.

State of Mortal Sin

By establishing a life together and having intimate relations although at least one of them is bound by a valid sacramental marriage, the divorced and remarried enter into a counterfeit marriage. Not satisfied with sinning by adultery in act – which was already reproved by the Old Law (Ex. 20:14) – and in thought – which Jesus Christ sternly blamed (Matt. 5:28) –, they turn this sin into a stable and permanent condition of life. The state of mortal sin that results from this is the consequence that makes it impossible for them to receive the Eucharist worthily, unless they first purify their conscience through the sacrament of Penance.

Firm Purpose Not to Sin

Contrition – the necessary preliminary to a valid absolution – requires of the divorced and remarried not only sorrow for their past sins, but also the firm purpose to sin no more. Concretely, this means that they must, without delay, put an end to their life together and to their intimate relations, which ordinarily constitute near and free occasions of sin. If they do not accomplish these necessary changes, their contrition is only apparent, the absolution invalid, and the confession sacrilegious. Obviously, partaking of Holy Communion in such a condition would only make their situation worse.

Which Separation?

Per se, the divorced and remarried have an obligation to separate, for living together places them in a near and free occasion of sin.

Per accidens, their life together can and must be tolerated when they have grave obligations in justice towards the children born of their union. Although in a near and necessary occasion of sin due to the fact that they live together, they must nonetheless without delay put an end to all intimate relations. Separate bedrooms, which will allow them to live as brother and sister, are an indispensible condition for the absolution of their sins. Making this requirement concrete will appear to them as an unequivocal sign of their return to God and their effective ability to receive His pardon.

If their condition as divorced and remarried is unknown to the community to which they belong, there is nothing to hinder them from receiving Communion publicly. That is to say, their reception of the Eucharist will not cause a public scandal or appear as an affront to faith and morals. However, If this is not the case, the fact that the couple have children together may lead others to believe the couple continues to have intimate relations. In such circumstances, their public reception of Communion may cause scandal and they should therefore be encouraged to make frequent acts of Spiritual Communion. It should be up to the discretion of the couple's priest when and if they should be given Communion privately.

Same Requirements for Sacramental and Spiritual Communion

However, this counsel is not suitable for those who are not in the state of grace, either because they continue to live together when they can and must separate, or because they continue to have intimate relations when their life together is tolerated for serious reasons. Indeed, the dispositions of soul required to draw profit from Communion – faith and charity - are identical whether the Communion be spiritual or sacramental. This is confirmed by Fr. Felix Capello, S.J. in his Tractatus Canonico-Moralis: “[H]e who is in mortal sin” must at least “repent in his heart if he wishes to spiritually communicate profitably." This is further supported by Fr. Francis D. Costa, S.S.S., in his study, "Nature and Effects of Spiritual Communion," from the Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1958: "The person [making an act of Spiritual Communion] must be in the state of grace, since this is a necessary condition for Holy Communion, and also because this desire is essentially an act of love of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament."


Even though divorced and remarried couples who have not repented would find no merit in acts of Spiritual Communion, it is still praiseworthy to instill in them an ardent desire for receiving the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Such persons should be reminded in charity that they place their immortal souls in grave danger by continuing to live in sin. So long as they persist in their sin, they cannot properly partake of Communion; to do so would place their Salvation in even greater peril.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
Rite for Foreigners Marrying in Poland (1892 Version)

Recently a friend of mine received the Sacrament of Matrimony in Poland. As a US citizen marrying abroad in the Traditional Rite of the Church, he used the Rite for Foreigners Marrying in Poland, established in 1892.  The text for this fascinating ritual are shared below.  Please keep Michael and his wife in your prayers, and may God grace them with many children.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Parents Must be Devoted to the Eucharist & the Mass

Archbishop Lefebvre comments on the importance of the parents' devotion to the Holy Eucharist for the education of the children.

Image Source: A personal photo taken by me in Rome, Italy
People who are in the path of marriage have to have a great devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to the Holy Eucharist. That is where they are going to draw the graces to fulfill their mission the way God wills, particularly in what concerns the education of their children.

Something painful for Catholic parents today is to feel very often that the Christian education of their children is slippling through their hands because of the scandals of the world. Those who ought to be protecting the family and helping parents to educate their children in a Christian manner are those who, on the contrary, are scandalazing them, leading them toward sin, turning them away from our Lord Jesus Christ. What a sorrow, what tragic situations in families today! How many letters we receive from weeping parents, begging the seminary to pray for their children, for a son, for a daughter, who has completely turned away from God, who has completely abandoned all practice of religion, who is living an immoral life! And those are children from profoundly Christian families, profoundly Catholic families.

So today more than ever we have to remember that the graces of the Christian education of children come above all from the parents' own devotion to the Holy Eucharist. That is where their children in turn are going to have to draw all of the graces they will need in order to resist the scandals of the world.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Annulments: The "Get Out of Marriage Card" for Catholics

In recent days Pope Francis has made headlines by championing a new process of streamlining annulments in the Church under the intention of promoting mercy and reconciliation to the lost sheep of Christ's flock.

Unfortunately, this latest scandal to the indissolubility of marriage has undone decades of work by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II to prevent annulments being nothing other than the "Catholic Divorce."  If divorce is not possible for a Catholic and with the number of annulments measuring in the tens of thousands each year, how is it that so many invalid marriages are allowed to be contracted to begin with?

Along with the grave error of homosexual marriage which I recently wrote on, the issue of annulments are a very pressing and grave concern.  If we fail to act, we shall certainly incur the judgment of God upon this very unholy and pagan world.

To start, let's examine the basics.

Q: What is an annulment? What is a divorce?  How are they different?

A: Fr. Peter Carota from the Diocese of Phoenix summarizes:
Up till lately, the Catholic Church has always upheld the Holy Bond of Marriage between a man and a woman.  That means that the marriage bond was indissoluble which means “till death do us part”.  But since the annulment process has been so liberalized and made easy since Vatican II, the marriage bond has been terribly weakened.
Many people refer to the annulment process as the “Catholic divorce”.  Annulment means that a couple go through a long process written questions, witnesses, canon lawyers and interviews to prove that there never was a marriage bond.   I am not saying that there is not sometimes true grounds for annulments, but I think the whole thing has to be seriously looked at and be sure that we are not going against Jesus’ admonition: “What God has united, let no one separate”.
Grounds for an annulment of the wedding vows can be:
1) Not wanting children, because the purpose of marriage is to have children.
2) Hidden drug and alcohol abuse (and probably other addictions) at time of marriage .
3) Infidelity before, during and after the marriage.
4) Immaturity to be able to make a life long commitment, like marrying at 17 and the marriage only last a very short time.
5) Forced to marry by spouse, parents or circumstances like pregnancy.
6) Physical or verbal abuse before, during and after the marriage.
Then there is also what is called the “Pauline Privilege” that deals with the conversion of an unbaptized spouse to the Catholic faith and the other unbaptized spouse does not support it.

Another whole very important area is the “Lack of Form”.  This is where a baptized Catholic gets married without a Catholic marriage.  This is for sure not a Catholic marriage and can be nulled.  A Catholic only is validly married when they have filled out all the papers, have permission from the pastor, have the marriage witnessed by a priest or deacon and two witnesses.   This only applies to baptized Catholics.

All other marriages between non Christians or non Catholics are valid and can not be nullified with out an annulment process.  This means that the non catholic spouse has to be willing to go through giving information for the catholic annulment process.  Most find this very annoying.  All marriages that take place outside the Catholic Church are valid because they are not Catholics and are not required to go by Catholic canon law.
Q: How have annulments changed since before Vatican II in the 1960s?

A: This picture illustrates how serious the situation has become.

From 1952 to 1955 there were a total of 392 annulments issued for the entire world.  This is seemingly in line with what an annulment is - it is a statement that a marriage was never validly contracted.  You would logically expect that few of the people who claim to live a married life are actually not really married.

But in 1997 there were 73,000 annulments issued worldwide!  It is simply ludicrous to believe that so many invalid marriages take place.  If they do take place, shouldn't one of the greatest concerns in the Church and society be limiting the number of these invalid unions?

Sources: What We Have Lost: And the Road to Restoration

Q: How have annulments changed under Pope Francis?  How do these changes attack the indissolubility of marriage and undermine the Sacraments? 

A:  Father Glen Tattersall of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter recently published a response to the actions taken just last week by Pope Francis to change the annulment process.  His response concretely summarizes the grave concerns of modern annulments.
Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

Recent days have witnessed what I regard as a grievous blow to the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, under the guise of mercy and the salvation of souls. Pope Francis has issued, motu proprio, new legal provisions for declarations of nullity of marriage. In the Latin rite, these provisions are contained in the Apostolic Letter Mitis Iudex Dominus Jesus.

I cannot deny the Pope’s power to promulgate these new provisions, but with all the respect that is due to his office, I find myself bound to question their appropriateness. It will be necessary to go into greater length in coming weeks or months, so today I will confine myself to the broad scope of the changes and my general concerns. 
Because marriage is instituted by God, and according to God’s law and man’s nature is indissoluble (an indissolubility that is absolute in the case of sacramental marriage), marriages must be regarded as valid until proved otherwise. The Church cannot annul a true marital bond, merely declare – after a careful and precise canonical process – that a given putative marriage, after all, is not real because the conditions for validity have not been met. This means that the truth about the validity of the marriage bond is the fundamental consideration proper to the juridical process of a tribunal. In discovering this truth, the Church through the tribunal provides a true pastoral service to souls.

The result of the new dispositions imposed by Pope Francis is to subvert this, and to establish as a priority instead the subjective interests of the parties. The most important novelties by which this is achieved are the general abolition of double judgment (by which cases are submitted to a second tribunal for a confirmatory judgment), the granting of wide powers to Diocesan Bishops to make their own determinations of cases, and the provision of a fast track process where both parties consent, and certain factors are present – a number of these factors, such as brevity of married life, having no actual bearing on any question of validity!

This is indeed a revolutionary decree, hurriedly draped up in a vague semblance of conservative legal form. Aside from anything else, it seems to me that declarations of nullity under these new provisions, potentially, will be so lacking in juridical integrity, and therefore in any corresponding moral certitude, that it may become impossible to distinguish a legitimate case of nullity from one without any real basis. The implications are obvious, and terrible. This, on the eve of a Synod that was supposed to dealing with such matters…. So much for collegiality!

Sincerely in Christ,
Fr Glen Tattersall, PP
Q: What is the Negative Effect of Annulments?

A: Lyle J. Arnold, Jr. in his article "Snookering the Indissolubility of Marriage" explains:
In a book dealing with the problem of divorce published one year before Vatican II, this paradox is pointed out: “Just when the post-Christian world has entered into an unparalleled period of hedonistic ideals, and of contempt for such unprofitable notions as a world to come, self-control, and penance, Catholics have emerged from their own private enclave to become more a part of the world around them than they had been for centuries." (Whom God Hath Not Joined by Claire McAuley (c) 1962 pp 5-6)

It was with this world of "hedonistic ideals" that Vatican II merged, not to remedy the problem, but to insure its success. Its objective was to promote and accelerate the engine driving this hedonism by adding the dynamism of the Church to it. One field where its effects were clearly felt is Catholic marriage. To destroy the indissolubility off marriage is to destroy the august benefits of the family. In the annulment process, practically any pretext has been accepted to end marriages and the result is that some 60,000 annulments a year have taken place.

An annulment made under the authority of Church is now a form of divorce in every way but name. The "Catholic divorce" is extremely harmful to the family and society. It hurts children as well as spouses, often induces applicants to misrepresent the past, and drives many away from the Church. It is a disaster.

In His Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:31-32), Our Lord expressly forbade divorce, but the Jews rejected this precept forthwith. Passing through the district of Peraea, we see Him assailed by His bitter enemies, the Pharisees, who nowhere leave Him in peace. Having decided to hasten His death, they were always on the watch for some “error” on His part so they could condemn Him.

They thought they had found one on the subject of marriage. With hearts of malice, the Jews posed this question to Our Lord: “The great lawgiver Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Do You deny the validity of the Law of this man of God?"

Our Lord pointed out that Moses made this temporary concession because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts. He allowed divorce in some instances in the Old Law, but this temporary permission came to an end in the New Covenant. Thus, He reestablished the indissolubility of marriage in all its chaste beauty.
Indissolubility of marriage was the rule of law in the Catholic Church from the time of Our Lord until Vatican II, when the agents of Progressivism devised a method to snooker Our Lord's command, that is, to place the indissolubility of marriage in an almost impossible situation.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015
The Irony of Kim Davis & The Indissolubility of Marriage

The media has widely made known the case of Kim Davis, the County Clerk from Kentucky, who has opposed the legislation of "gay marriage" in the United States by refusing to issue marriage certificates to homosexuals under her authority.  Kim has repeatedly stated that to do so is in violation of her conscience and an offense against God.

But is Kim Davis someone worth imitating?  Is Kim right about marriage in the fullest of the sense?  Is Kim another St. Thomas More?

Firstly, it's worth repeating: Human Law is subordinate to Divine Law and Natural Law.

What is Natural Law?  
NATURAL law is that objective, eternal and immutable hierarchy of moral values, which are sources of obligation with regard to man because they have been so ordained by the Creator of nature. This law conforms to the essence of human nature which He has created. It is that aspect of the eternal law which directs the actions of men.' Although this law is divine in the sense that it does not depend on human will, nevertheless, it is distinguishable from divine positive law, which has been communicated directly from God to men through revelation, for natural law is discoverable by reason alone." Natural law has been promulgated in the intellect. At least as regards its more fundamental principles it is knowable proximately through the conscience

Source: The Natural Law, the Marriage bond, and Divorce by Brendan F. Brown, 1955, in Fordham Law Review
Natural law and its role is the pivotal issue underlying Kim's actions.  Despite his unjust conclusion, US District Judge David Bunning correctly saw natural law as the foundation of the issue when he said, “The idea of natural law superceding [sic] this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed."

But that is precisely the error!  The natural law does supercede mere human legal constructs.  The Natural Law is superior to the Constitution of the United States!  Sooner should the masonic inspired Constitution be undone than the natural law - and the Divine Law - be unjustly subjected to inferior laws made by fallible men.  Human laws error - divine laws are without error.  It should be common sense for us - men error and thus make imperfect laws.  God however is perfect and His laws are universally true for all peoples at all times.  No government on earth has lived forever and no earthly government will last forever.  The time will come for all governments to fail as ancient Rome fell and with it, earthly laws are shown to be fallible and short-lived. 

Pope Leo XIII affirmed this blatantly in Rerun Novarum: "No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: 'Increase and multiply.'"

Should someone who claims to be Catholic actually claim that human law supercedes natural law, that person would become a heretic outside of the Ark of Salvation and an enemy of God.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."  -- St Thomas Aquinas
Kim Davis is right to resist this unjust law as it distorts the Truth by affirming that which is contrary to the natural law.

But is Kim Davis a true example of Catholic marriage?  Far from it!

“What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt 19:6)

Kim Davis may have rejected homosexual "marriage," but she has fallen into the protestant heresy of accepting divorce. 
There are numerous amounts of people out there that are not married, in the true meaning of Holy Matrimony. This women possessed an Protestant idea of marriage. She herself has been "married" 4 times. If she is going to deny marriage contracts to homosexuals than she should also do the same for the divorced and remarried. Otherwise she becomes no more than a tyrant.  Source: Landon Chancey, Catholic Facebook User
In truth, many people in our society that the government identifies as married are in fact not married at all.  Divorce itself does not exist.  Our Blessed Lord forbid divorce completely.  Those who are legitimately married can never put aside their spouse for another one.  We have the example of Kim Davis and others who support the notion of divorce. 

Those who have entered into civilly accepted "marriages" including gay "marriage" and multiple marriages following divorces attack the truths of the Catholic Faith.

In the 1600s, our Blessed Mother appeared in South America under the title "Our Lady of Good Success," and the Church has fully approved the validly of these apparitions.  Our Lady of Good Success said back in the early 1600's that in our times: "The spirit of impurity will saturate the atmosphere . Like a filthy ocean, it will run through the streets, squares and public places with an astonishing liberty..."

She also said that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, will be "attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word." Iniquitous laws will work at doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin, encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church.

These prophecies have been fulfilled. We are now reaping the rotten fruits. Man is so blinded by sin that he can no longer understand the Natural Law. Let us remain faithful to God's unchanging Laws, and we will understand and embrace Marriage as God has created it.

Rather that honoring Kim Davis, let us seek to defend marriage in the fullest sense against all attacks.  Let us pray not only for her to remain steadfast in her conviction against gay marriage, but also let us pray for her conversion to the True Faith and the acceptance of the truths of marriage and the impossibility of divorce. Marriage is indissoluble and whether the assaults on it are from atheistic liberals or protestants, we as Catholics must remain on the narrow road of Truth and defend that which Christ taught.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Cardinal Burke Repudiates Francis, Synod on the Family

Guest Article By David Martin

Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the Vatican's highest court of canon law and who is recognized as one of the most outstanding prelates of the Catholic Church today has gone on record as saying that the recent Synod on the Family was designed to "weaken the Church's teaching and practice.” This “weakening” apparently had the blessing of Pope Francis.

On October 17, Burke told BuzzFeed News: "If Pope Francis had selected certain cardinals to steer the meeting to advance his personal views on matters like divorce and the treatment of LGBT people, he would not be observing his mandate as the leader of the Catholic Church."

Unfortunately the Synod was controlled by a clique of liberals and their media affiliates so that the views of the good bishops in attendance were scarcely reflected in the Synod documents. The pope’s duty was to censure progressivist, anti-family action and to support the views of conservative participants who demonstrated true pastoral concern, but we saw quite the opposite.

Conservative Catholic sources report that Francis in fact has been “irritated” with Burke and other Vatican conservatives for opposing the views of Cardinal Kasper, the key spokesman of the upheaval and Francis' close ally, who maintains that divorced and “remarried” people be allowed to receive Holy Communion. Burke’s censure of Kasper and his defense of orthodoxy have unfortunately put an end to his work in Rome, as Francis has now demoted him from his position as Rome’s chief guardian of canon law, and is sending him to the island of Malta in a sort of exile to assume a rather insignificant post there. This was confirmed by Burke in his interview with BuzzFeed on October 17.

But Burke remains relentless in his defense of truth. The cardinal said: “The pope, more than anyone else as the pastor of the universal church, is bound to serve the truth,” pointing out that "the pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other doctrine of the Faith.”

Given the times we are living in, the most pastoral thing the pope can do is to safeguard the flock from false pastors, so it is nothing less than appalling that suspect theologians like Cardinal Kasper were appointed to key positions of the Synod. Other participating members included Cardinal Timothy Dolan who supports gay participation in the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, Cardinal Donald Wuerl who from his seminary days has been known as “Wuerl the girl,” and Cardinal Godfried Danneels who is reputed for his pedophile connections and gay-marriage advocacy.

In short, a gay-lobby was in force to corrupt the Synod, as evidenced in the Synod’s midterm report Relatio post Disceptationem which embraced gayhood with open arms. The Synod fathers were all aware that Francis had read and approved the relatio for publication, so this raises some serious questions about Francis and warrants growing concerns that he clarify his position on critical moral issues. Burke said in his interview that Francis has "done a lot of harm” by not stating “openly what his position is.”

The thrust of the progressivist lobby was to drum up respect for homosexuality and to incorporate people of gay orientation, as if they were a valued part of the Catholic Church. Consider the following from the relatio issued by the Synod on Monday, October 13:

50. "Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community... Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing them a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation?"

Since when is the orientation of lewd sex offenders something that the Holy Roman Catholic Church values? The Church rather condemns homosexuality and places it on par with willful murder, listing it as one of the “four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance.”

St. Paul speaks of those offenders and enemies of the Faith "who have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy," and goes on to say that "they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." (Romans 1:27,32) Hence if so much as respecting homosexuality renders one "worthy of death," how is it that a Vatican synod could have the dare to foster its growth?

The same-sex aspiration of homosexuals is not a gift, but a criminal tendency springing from the devil and original sin, just as the desire to rape or murder is of the devil. If doctors go to great extent to purge cancerous tumors from the body, with how much greater urgency must the hierarchy purge these effeminate tumors from the Body of Christ? There certainly can be no integrating of filth with grace. Yet the Relatio states:

51. "The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect."

Since when does the hierarchy reflect seriously on how to integrate sodomy with Holy Mother the Church? Have they forgotten the divine wrath and destruction that fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality? Are they so addicted to their shame that they would rather watch their brothers and sisters burn in the torture chambers of eternity before admitting their error?

Charity for homosexuals consists in rescuing them from their bondage, not in sustaining their vice so that it takes them down to the fires of Hell. The Church’s pastoral duty to gays is to correct and admonish them about their offense so that they too can be saved. It is only through repentance and amendment of life that homosexuals and mortal offenders can be admitted to the Church. The mere fact that this is been the Church’s fruitful and unwavering position for 2000 years should be enough proof that it should be the Church’s position today. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21)

Hence the midterm relatio of October 13 constituted a radical break from Church teaching. By Thursday October 16, the conservative backlash was so great that it exploded into an all-out revolt that significantly altered the direction of the Synod for the better. A professor from a pontifical university in Rome who was in direct contact with the Synod fathers had this to say:
“I have spoken to a huge number of prelates in the past few days, many of them Synod Fathers. They are all furious and indignant with Francis. A president of a Conference of Bishops of a large African country even called him to my face "an agent of disruption." The right word to describe the general atmosphere reigning in the Curia and the Synod, after 18 months of a government imposed by fear and persecution, is one I've heard several times in the past week: "esasperazione" ("exasperation"). The experiences of the past century show that a government of fear and manipulation cannot subsist for long without rebellion, and that was what erupted on Thursday. It was as if a pressure cooker exploded at the end of an 18-month-long simmering.”  (Rorate Caeli

The real rebellion will occur in the future if we don’t see more of this passionate defense of the Faith in Rome. History has proved that some of the most important decisions of Church history occurred in a moment of intense moral indignation, just as the indignation of the good bishops paid off at the Synod. Among the key warriors leading the charge was Cardinal Burke, the public opponent of Francis throughout the Synod, who together with several cardinals accused Francis of having inflicted “great damage” to the Church. Of noteworthy mention is Archbishop Napier of South Africa, who distinguished himself as one of the key opponents of the obscene relatio and who spoke of the “irreparable damage” to the Synod in his potent, but lucidly eloquent first speech.

Even so, the Synod on the Family did not completely alter its tune after the confrontation. The final Synod document Relatio Synodi, issued on October 18, still echos some of the gay sympathies reflected in the previous document, though significantly toned down and with more diplomacy. But nonetheless there, as we read in article 55:

“Men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." This ambiguous double-talk is reminiscent of the Vatican II Council which also used mushy, ambiguous wording to advance progressive agenda.

The point being that there is nothing said or even implied in the final document that homosexuality is a gravely sinful disorder generated by the devil, and one which is spawning most of the sexual-abuse throughout the Church. It would have made more sense for the Synod to extend “welcoming” arms to rapists, porn-hustlers, and gamblers, since their poison isn’t as deadly as that of homosexuals, nor is it directed against the institution of the family the way gay agenda is. It is a known fact that the lesbians and gays run the pro-death culture throughout the world!
But we owe our indebtedness to Cardinal Burke and those faithful ones of the conservative lobby who stood up against the obscene clique, because without their action the key architects of the Synod would have succeeded with their plan to proclaim to the world that the Catholic Church had finally embraced homosexuality as an accepted way of life. The planned “October revolution” was foiled! The Synod served as a spiritual call to arms, and one which Burke and his allies answered with a great deal of courage and zeal.

And interesting to note that Cardinal Burke is a fervent advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass wherein the priest says the Mass facing the tabernacle, ad orientum. Time and again we have seen how the old Mass fosters a sense of doctrinal purity and true pastoral concern, as opposed to the new rite which in many ways has adulterated the Faith and alienated the faithful from God.

The faithful indeed are blessed to have someone like Cardinal Raymond Burke to look to at this crucial moment of Church history. May he serve to strengthen the wearied bands, and may the Church Militant follow his lead in speaking out against error without respect to persons.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Synod Document "Relatio post disceptationem" Encourages Sin, Destroys Catholic Teaching

I have chosen to stay away from the topic of the current Synod but as the mid-term report from the Synod was released, we can now see for ourselves the evil being wrought by men who claim to be successors to the apostles.  It is simply unprecedented in the history of the Church! We ought to pray and do penance before the wishes of evil bishops spread heresy and apostacy far and wide in the barque of Peter.

The Secret Synod Does What We Expected: Evil  
by Christopher A. Ferrara  
As if we didn’t know it before, today we learned why the Secret Synod was conducted in secret, with the faithful not being permitted to see the texts of the participants’ addresses or even to know which bishop or cardinal was advancing which position. The Secret Synod was conducted in secret because evil advances in shadows. 
Many others, and not just traditionalists, have already expressed outrage over the disastrous “Relatio post disceptationem,” which appeared on the Vatican website today, October 13. This is the anniversary of Pope Leo’s vision of Satan’s attack on the Church (leading to his composition of the Leonine prayer suddenly abandoned after Vatican II), the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and the derailing of the Second Vatican Council by Cardinal Liénart’s violation of the procedural rules in seizing the microphone in order to demand new drafting committees for the conciliar documents. 
By way of the comments of others, suffice it to note, as reported by Vatican Radio, that no less than the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference, Archbishop Stanislaw Gądecki, “did not hesitate to say that this document departs from the teaching of John Paul II [meaning the entire Magisterium regarding marriage and procreation], and even that in it can be noticed traces of the anti-marriage ideology. According to Archbishop Gądecki, this text also highlights the lack of a clear vision for the synodal assembly.” 
I must disagree with the final sentence of the report. The Synod had a very clear vision: nullification of the Church’s censures of sexual immorality of all kinds, including sodomy, and with this nothing less than an effective decommissioning of the Church as moral preceptor of humanity. This is what the aged Modernist cabal Pope Francis put in charge of this sham of a Synod has in view.  Continue reading the excerpted article... 
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
4 Disastrous Effects of Artificial Contraception

Paul VI, despite his deficiencies which led to unprecedented disasters in the Liturgy and the Faith as part of the aftermath of Vatican II, was notably accurate in his predictions on the effects of contraceptives.   The effects of artificial contraception as outlined in his landmark encyclical “Humanae Vitae” are worth mentioning and evaluating:

1.       General lowering of moral standards
2.       A rise in infidelity and illegitimacy
3.       Reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men
4.       Government coercion in reproductive matters

As forty years have passed since this landmark encyclical, let us explore the effects of contraception as it concerns what Paul VI predicted.  The results are grave.

Contraception has become commonplace in our culture.  Whether in the form of the birth control pill, injections, implants, or condoms, the purpose of contraception is to prevent procreation, or the creation of a child.  But while contraception may be readily available in pharmacies, supermarkets, and doctors’ offices that does not mean that it is morally acceptable.

Since contraception is designed to prevent the development of a new human life, it is anti-life in nature.  Therefore, it opposes the Will of God, the Divine Author of Life.  As Pope Paul VI stated in the encyclical Humanae Vitae, “Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

The Catholic Church recognizes a definite link between contraception and abortion.  To begin with, some contraceptives, known as abortifacients, cause chemical abortions.  Both IUDs and the birth control pill can kill tiny human embryos.   In his book, A Consumers Guide to the Pill and Other Drugs, author John Wilks noted that the birth control pill is contraceptive in nature when it prevents ovulation or blocks the sperm from reaching the egg.  If, however, the pill prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg, it is, in fact, causing a chemical abortion, since life begins at fertilization, or conception.  

From a simple compare and contrast point of view, there is little room to doubt that society over the past 60 years has become degenerate in its moral standards.  Look no further than the media. What is permissible for a child to say or be exposed to and what is allowed to be discussed in public are abhorrent.  The list is long and as Paul VI predicted, society has become more and more lacking in morals in the years since artificial contraception became prevalent in society.

As to his second point, the amount of children being born to parents who are not married is staggering.  The percentage of first births to cohabiting women tripled from 9% in 1985 to 27% for births from 2003 to 2010. This rise in first births to cohabiting women parallels increases in first births to unmarried women overall. Of first births from 2006-10, 46% were to unmarried mothers, compared with 38% in 2002. (Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Survey of Family Growth 2006-2010). 

Infidelity is the act of cheating on a spouse.  Statistics show the rate of infidelity in the US rose drastically over the last 25 years.  The divorce rate has risen from 20% in 1960 (that is population wide and not only Catholics who at the time were virtually zero) to over 50%!
For those who continue to claim that contraception reduces abortion, the statistics over the past fifty plus years shows this to be far from true.  An article in LifeSiteNews by journalist Peter Baklinski states:

“Most abortions result from failed contraception,” admitted Joyce Arthur, founder and executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, earlier this year. 

The United State’s highest court had no difficulty in seeing the causal link between contraception and abortion in a 1992 ruling that confirmed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that brought legal abortion to America. 

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court argued that in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception: “...for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” 

What the Supreme Court pointed out is that in a contracepting society, abortion not only becomes a necessity, but it becomes the ultimate fail-safe method of birth control. In the mind of the court, contraception doesn’t lessen the need for abortion, but on the contrary, contraception precipitates abortion.

Dr. Janet Smith, a professor, author, and national speaker, agrees with Dr. Irving: "Contraception leads us to believe that sex can be a momentary encounter, not a life-long commitment. It has brought about the concept of 'accidental pregnancy.'" 

“The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion,” she wrote.  

Put differently, contraception radically changes the meaning and purpose of sex. Contraception turns the sexual act between a man and a woman that is biologically ordered towards the creation of a new life into a parody of the act, where a newly created life can suddenly be viewed as an uninvited and unwelcome guest. Abortion becomes the easy solution by which the parent permanently and violently disinvites the unwelcome guest. 

With the Governmental mandate forcing individuals and companies to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, and with other anti-information initiatives including ObamaCare, we see again the prediction of Paul VI coming true.

Contraceptives are destroying marriages, killing lives, increasing violence against women, and destroying society.  It would be in the best interest of us – not only from a spiritual but even from a secular point of view – to eliminate contraceptives altogether.

Note: If you check out a post of mine back from 2008, you'll see that Fr. Eutenuer agrees.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Can Divorced and Remarried Catholics Receive Communion?

What does the Church actually teach on the topic of Holy Communion and remarried-divorcees?

Fr. Knittel gives some clear answers.  The following is directly quoted from him and presented here for the benefit of my readers.  The original source can be found by clicking here.

Communion for Remarried Divorcees? 

The doctrinal crisis the Church is currently experiencing can be observed and measured on two levels. It is manifest first in the new general directions of the Second Vatican Council (religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality) as well as in the liturgical reform of 1969. But it is also manifest on a concrete level in daily life when issues such the ordination of women, the lawfulness of contraception, the burial of suicides or the cremated, the personal character of the sacrament of Penance, etc., are called back into question.

Communion for remarried divorcees enters into the second category, as witnessed by the numerous interventions by Rome on this theme during the last 30 years.

After listing several arguments of activists in favor of Communion for the remarried and divorced, we will examine the crux of the question, before ending by responding to these arguments.


Arguments in favour of allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Communion refer 1) to the example of Christ, 2) to the teachings of St. Paul and 3) to the discipline of the Church.

  1. The Evangelists tell us that during Christ’s life on earth, He accepted to eat with sinners (Matthew 9:11), allowed Himself to be approached by a sinner during a meal (Luke 7:37) and spoke with the Samaritan woman who lived with a man who was not her husband (John 4:9; 18-27). It is surely contradictory that the Church should push remarried divorcees away from Christ by refusing them Communion.
  2. St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for the divisions appearing in their brotherly agapes, “and one indeed is hungry and another is drunk” (I Cor. 11:20). Is it not contradictory to have invited people to a meal (here, the Eucharist) and not to let them take part (here, to receive Communion)?
  3. The Church discipline that deprived publicly recognized sinners of ecclesiastical burial (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1240, paragraph 1, 6) was changed by decree of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith on September 20, 1973, stipulating, ”Funerals will not be forbidden for public sinners if they have given any signs of repentance before death and if there is no public scandal for the rest of the faithful.” 

Is it not then possible to change the discipline of Eucharistic communion in the same way, in favour of remarried divorcees?

The Teaching of the Church

Baptism and Penance are called sacraments of the dead, because they establish or re-establish the life of grace in the recipient. The other sacraments are called sacraments of the living, because they increase grace in someone already in a state of grace.

The end of the sacraments is to give or increase grace in the recipient. The sacrament of the Eucharist allows the communicant not only to receive grace, but also the Author of all grace. The Eucharist is therefore a sacrament of the living that requires the one who receives it to be in a state of grace that he may also receive Christ. Such is the first condition for receiving this sacrament worthily and fruitfully.

The warning of St. Paul to the Corinthians emphasizes this condition:
Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (I Cor. 11:27–29).
Do remarried divorcees satisfy these conditions for worthiness?

The Gospel records Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage:
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (…) And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:6–9; 11–12)
In his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul compares the union of spouses in marriage with the union of Christ and His Church:
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband. (Ephesians 5:31–32)
Just there is only one Savior, Jesus Christ, and only one Church, the Catholic Church, and their union is indissoluble, so it is with marriage which is one (union of one man and one woman) and indissoluble (union forever).

Remarried divorcees are therefore living in a state opposite to that willed by Christ and explained by St. Paul. This permanent and public state of grave sin makes them unworthy to receive Communion and incapable of receiving its fruits ([Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas], III, q. 80, a. 4). If this state is known, the priest is bound to refuse them Communion publicly (III, q. 80, a. 6). If they succeed in receiving Communion nonetheless, they commit a mortal sin of sacrilege (III, q. 80, a. 4).


In conclusion, let us respond briefly to the arguments set forth at the beginning.

  1. The contact with sinners that Christ authorizes in the Gospels have a very clear purpose: the cure of sinners and a call to conversion (Matthew 9:12–13), the forgiveness of sins (Luke 7:47–48), and the establishment of worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23). Certainly, Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but He instructed her to sin no more (John 8:11), for “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers… shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Cor. 6:9)
  2. Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist and taught the precept of fraternal charity during a meal. The Early Church had maintained the habit of uniting the celebration of the holy mysteries and the fraternal agape. In his reproaches to the Corinthians, St. Paul distinguishes between two kinds of abuse: lack of charity to one’s neighbor during the agapes (I Cor. 11:18–22) and receiving Communion unworthily during Mass (I Cor. 11:27–29).
  3. By denying ecclesiastical burial to remarried divorcees, the Church intended to emphasize their public state of mortal sin—a state that is in no way modified, improved, or corrected by the prayer of the Church—and contrast it with the sanctity of Christian marriage. The recent change of this disciplinary measure in no way changes the minimum requirements for a fruitful Communion, but it illustrates the relationship between relaxing discipline and questioning doctrine.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Married Couples: Watch Over Your Children

"Dear married couples, watch over your children and, in a world dominated by technology, transmit to them, with serenity and trust, reasons for living, the strength of faith, pointing them towards high goals and supporting them in their fragility. Your vocation is not easy to live, especially today, but the vocation to love is a wonderful thing, it is the only force that can truly transform the world." ~Pope Benedict XVI, June 3rd, 2012

The Holy Father also said, "Dear families, despite the relentless rhythms of the modern world, do not lose a sense of the Lord’s day."  In this spirit, I highly recommend the book "Marriage in the Heart and Mind of the Church," as a means for couples (married and engaged) to recall their God-given mission to raise Catholic children.

Image Source: Pope Benedict XVI is greeted by Milan Archbishop Cardinal Angelo Scola (R) as he arrives in Duomo square, downtown Milan June 1, 2012. The Pope is visiting Milan for the 2012 World Family Meeting. Picture taken June 1, 2012.  Source is Reuters
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Marriage in the Heart and Mind of the Church

Written by Preston E Wiggins, Jr, Marriage in the Heart and the Mind of the Church is a series of reflections on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.  Intended for couples preparing to receive the Sacrament, this guide prepares the couple for the Sacrament of Matrimony and the interior dispositions necessary for marriage.

Available in a 94-page paperback, this book draws upon the writings of John Paul II, Paul VI, Pius XII, and Christopher West to present a comprehensive marriage preparation aid.  A must-read for all couples and a great resource for parishes to use with couples!

The following is taken from the book's forward:
In his 1978 Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae (On Catechesis In Our Time), Pope John Paul II proclaimed “the definitive aim of catechesis is to put people not only in touch but in communion, in intimacy, with Jesus Christ.”  This sounds like a high and lofty goal, but what does it look like?  Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught using parables; this helped His audience to understand because parables bring the supernatural into the natural realm.  His technique was to use a situation that His listeners would be familiar with in order to unveil certain supernatural truths (cf. Mt 11:25).  Can we use this method to find a modern day “visual” (parable) of what exactly does an intimate communion look like?
We are all called, by virtue of our Baptism, to be in an intimate communion with Jesus Christ. I did not really begin to understand what this entails until I was granted the great privilege of being united as one with the former Susan Kamaski.  I had spent two years in a pre-theologate program in serious discernment for the priesthood.  The time was well spent as I drew closer to the Lord, fell more in love with His Church, and built a life firmly anchored on the Rock foundation that is Jesus Christ.  I had no doubt that God, our Father, truly loved me as a beloved son, as did the Blessed Mother.  A relationship I had, but I was not sure just what the nature of that relationship was.
A week after our marriage, I began to realize that there was a different quality to our relationship; we had a union that did not exist before we said, “I do.”  This new intimate communion with Susan was the catalyst for reflection and meditation on the nature of one’s relationship with Jesus Christ.  Two titles of the Church have been the primary fuel of my reflections: the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ.  In recent years, there has been a widespread discovery of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body,which gave credence to my conviction that the nature of our relationship with Jesus is spousal. 
This book is a tribute to those reflections, guided by the Holy Spirit with frequent contact with Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  These reflections are augmented by the reality of the emotional and psychological damage that children experience due to an unstable family life that my wife has witnessed as a mental health counselor, our own experience as mentors for engaged couples and our involvement in Engaged Encounter.  I have brought these reflections into talks and teaching with head bobs of agreement from the participants.  Hopefully, you, too, will bob your head in agreement and be motivated to do whatever you can to strengthen marriages and families as God has planned from the very beginning.  There is little that is more powerful than prayer and witness of faithful Catholics madly in love with Jesus Christ.
You may purchase physical paper book books at the following link:
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Validity of SSPX Confessions & Marriages in light of Canon Law

Drawing upon the first two paragraph's of Father Paul L. Kramer's "The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy," Chapter II, Part II.  The book is a work of outstanding scholarship and many of the following sentences and throughout the book are footnoted extensively.  This book is highly recommended.
The faithful have the right to receive sacraments that are certainly valid.  The Canon Law Society Commentary elaborates, "This right is rooted in baptism; it is not a privilege granted by Church authorities but a claim rooted in the action of Christ."  The Church may not impose new rites on the faithful, because Catholics have the "right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own right."  This right establishes on the part of the faithful an inviolable moral faculty according to which they can and must demand to be provided the goods and services of the Church according to their own custom and rite.

Since the Divine Law establishes the right and duty which constitutes an inviolable claim on the part of the faithful to receive the sacraments according to their own custom and rite, that claim may not be legitimately denied.  It is in virtue of this inviolable claim, and that if the faithful are unlawfully denied their traditional rites, then, in accord with the principle of equity, they may not be punished for availing themselves of services of priests and bishops whose adherence to Tradition has earned for them the withdrawal or deprivation of their priestly faculties.  Such withdrawal of faculties is unlawful, while the penal deprivation of faculties under such circumstances is certainly invalid, since such priests are guilty of nothing other than exercising  their divinely commissioned ministry.


Image Source: SSPX.ORG
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Patriarch Alexy II: Unacceptable to Bless Homosexual Unions

Moscow, June 19, Interfax - Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia considers church blessing of homosexual unions unacceptable though it becomes wide spread among Protestant communities in the West.

"Blessing of the marriage urges God to bless childbearing and giving birth," Alexy II said at his meeting with general secretary of the Baptist World Alliance Neville Callam in St. Daniel's monastery in Moscow.

"We have every reason to think that the majority of Baptists share our concerns for today's state of Christian communities in the world and together we can oppose these destructive tendencies," the patriarch said.

The Baptist World Alliance's general secretary believes "militant secularism has become the highest and the strongest challenge" Christians face today.

"We, Baptists, also oppose this cancer of secularization and we seek to spread the good news of Jesus Christ like you do," Callam said. He hopes that friendly relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Baptists will develop and it will let both parties "denounce the monster of secularism."

The patriarch reminded that the resolution of the last joint seminar of the Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Baptists held in 2006 "expressed deep concerns with alarming tendencies in some Protestant communities which revise Biblical norms of morality and ordain women." The resolution further stated "the necessity to reach harmonic unity between human rights and moral values."

The Russian Orthodox Church suspended contacts with the Lutheran Church of Sweden as it "not only blessed homosexual "marriages," but even worked out the text for blessing them in the church," Alexy II noted.

The Moscow Patriarchate had to suspend relations with the Episcopal Church of the USA as its leaders ordained an open homosexual.

Sunday, March 25, 2007
Baltimore Catechism on Marriage

The Baltimore Catechism No. 2 states:

When a Catholic is "married" at a civil or non-Catholic ceremony, other Catholics are not allowed to be present, or even to send gifts or show any approval, since this is not a real marriage, but simply a terrible agreement to live together in sin.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Pope Benedict XVI: Tighten up Annulment Criteria

I am extremely pleased to read that Pope Benedict XVI has called for Vatican Judges to tighten up the criteria in granting annulments. This follows a report that states 69 annulments were granted in 2005 for truly insufficient reasons including husbands being too attached to their mothers! For those new to the term, an "annulment" is declaring a marriage null and void.

In the Gospel of St. Luke 16:18, Christ tells us that anyone who puts away his wife and marries another, commits adultery!

Unfortunately, the number of annulments from 1952 to 1956 number 359 worldwide. Following Vatican II in 1968, there were 450 in the US alone! In 1997, there were more than 73,000 annulments worldwide! This is outrageous!

Annulments have since Vatican II become the "Get Out of Marriage" Free Card. It's a travesty. 
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Wal-Mart and Gay Rights?

Update (November 21, 2006) from

Thank Walmart which has announced it "will no longer make corporate contributions to support or oppose controversial issues unless they directly relate to their ability to serve their customers" .

Update (November 9, 2006) from

In a show of support to help homosexuals legalize same-sex marriage, Wal-Mart has agreed to automatically donate 5% of online sales directly to the Washington DC Community Center for Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender People. The cash donation will come from online purchases made at Wal-Mart through the homosexual group's Web site. This move follows Wal-Mart's joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and agreeing to give generous financial help to that organization also.

Every purchase made online for books, music, videos, clothing and accessories, children's clothing and toys, and electronics at the site will automatically send 5% of the sales to the CCBLBT People. The agreement is an indication that Wal-Mart is totally committed to supporting the homosexual movement.

Wal-Mart also gave a generous cash donation to the Northwest Arkansas Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center, helping to provide a place where homosexuals can come together to "socialize."

Many observers feel it would have been a wise business decision for Wal-Mart to remain neutral in the cultural battle over homosexual marriage. But this was an ideological decision by Wal-Mart - not a business decision.

When Wal-Mart announced their support for the homosexual agenda a few weeks ago, they meant what they said. You will remember that Wal-Mart asked for, and received, permission to join the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC). The company announced they were giving two large grants to NGLCC. The world's largest retailer was rewarded with a position on the board of NGLCC. Wal-Mart also announced they would give preference to homosexual-owned businesses in purchasing products.

Justin Nelson, president of NGLCC, said he expects Wal-Mart to use its influence to pressure suppliers like P&G, Johnson & Johnson, and Gillette to give homosexual businesses preferential treatment. Wal-Mart is also working on a plan to provide domestic-partnership benefits to homsexual employee "partners." The NGLCC is a leading promoter of homosexual marriage.

A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale:

Gay - 1148
Lesbian - 468
Transgender - 40
Bisexual - 38
Gay Marriage - 26
Thursday, June 1, 2006
The Church Will Never Recommend Condoms

I've noticed that over the past few weeks several groups are claiming the Church will allow condoms. This is preposterous. As the Pontifical Council for Health Care has recently emphasized, the Church will never do such a thing. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the Catholic Church would not back down from its long-standing teaching against condoms.

Why you ask are we against condoms?

Artificial contraception damages the gift of self. It destroys martial bonds because it prevents the transmission of life. For those who argue condoms should be supported because they will save lives in the fight against AIDS, condoms will not save lives. What is needed is education to change the lifestyles of these people. They must be taught that chastity is to be valued and sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong. This is a must and if we can teach this we can save more lives.

If condoms are allowed then many countries will begin to support sex outside of marriage and I guarantee that AIDS will skyrocket. People do not realize that the AIDS virus is so small that it can be transmitted through a condom.

From a comment in the article linked above:
We can see from results in Africa that the use of condoms spreads AIDS rather than stopping it. Tanzia went from 3 cases to over 2 million with condom use, while Uganda went from a 30% AIDS rate to only 6%, after it stopped condom use. Clearly condoms spread rather than stop AIDS transmission. The Church is right in rejecting them.
And again it comes down to our faith. We are not to question God's Church. We should seek to understand everything and not just believing statements immediately, but we must never go against the Church's teachings on faith and morals. As Pope Paul VI proclaimed in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, artificial contraception is contrary to the will of God.

Subscribe to Future Posts on A Catholic Life

Enter email address:

Copyright / Disclaimer

Copyright Notice: Unless otherwise stated, all items are copyrighted under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. If you quote from this blog, cite a link to the post on this blog in your article.

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links on this blog are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate, for instance, I earn a small commission from qualifying purchases made by those who click on the Amazon affiliate links included on this website. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”