Happy St Paddy's Day, once again!
I was ill this year, so spent most of the day sleeping, and trying to get well fast as they say.
But I can think of no better wish than the one I wrote last year, even if I felt on top of the world.
So without further adieu.... please read.....
and God bless!
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Happy St Paddy's Day, once again!
Friday, March 16, 2007
Marital Infidelity--Adultery by any other name-- is proof of WHAT???
According to a woman on Fox's Studio B with Shephard Smith , it is proof of the ability to MULTI-TASK, and is therefore a 'good' thing to consider when looking at Presidential candidates????
Not to me. It is evidence that someone is immoral. It is evidence that someone has broken vows. It is evidence that the person is not faithful. It is evidence that the person's word cannot be trusted, nor loyalty. It is evidence that the person can be tempted to walk away from what is right by another, into what is wrong.
It is NOT a good thing. It is an evil thing. It hurts faithful wives/husbands, and the children involved! It hurts extended family. It hurts friends. It hurts society. And most times, that faithful spouse is blamed for one reason or another.
It is called CHEATING for a reason.
It is immoral.
Check out this Catholic Online Headline
Sent from: WI Catholic
OK, now this would be a REAL penance for me, but when one has 'muskrat dinners' or even fish dinners as a night out, full of fun and entertainment, I lose the idea of it truly being any sort of penance whatsoever... has always amazed me that some (like my mother) are so upset about it no longer being a requirement (per se) to abstain from meat on Fridays, yet they always went out on Fridays for FISH FRYS.
(By the way, we ARE still supposed to abstain from meat on Fridays OR CHOOSE another form of abstinence, except on Ash Wednesday and Fridays of Lent and Advent)
Check out this Catholic Online Headline
Sent from: WI Catholic
Interesting, as Fr Catoir is the one who wrote an article about 'Internal Forum' that is not in line with Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching says that marriage is a public entity, and that we CANNOT use Internal Forum to resolve marital validity/nullity.
UPDATED March 15, 2008I had a visitor today, and learned that the link to EWTN didn't work (it was the cached version so that the high-lighted sections were easier to spot and read).
So I have corrected the link, and am posting what it says below...
EXCERPTS relating to this topic:
Others who know that divorced Catholics remain members of the church and understand that those who have entered into irregular marriages cannot be admitted to holy communion react to this moral reality in different ways. Those who understand the teaching of the church on the indissolubility of marriage and on sexual morality regard this practice as fitting since the couple have placed themselves in an objectively adulterous situation that stands in direct violation of the teaching of Christ and his church.8 Others look upon this practice as the mere imposition of church regulations or rules which they view as outdated in a society where so many marriages end in divorce. Some have proposed an approach that would allow divorced and remarried persons who, for any number of reasons, have not received a declaration of nullity of their first marriage(s) to receive holy communion on the basis of their sincere judgment of conscience that their first marriage was invalid. This so-called "internal forum solution" has also been invoked to justify reception of holy communion by persons in other objectively immoral situations.
We believe that those who promote unacceptable pastoral initiatives among divorced Catholics are in fact harming the spiritual welfare of those very persons they intend to help, and as shepherds of the flock we are concerned that the faithful not be misled in this regard.
In light of the serious confusion that sometimes occurs in this matter, we need to enunciate once again that divorced Catholics in irregular unions are not permitted to receive the eucharist. The Catechism of the Catholic Church helps us to understand the theological and pastoral reasons for this necessary restriction.******and the sections devoted to it alone:
5. Internal Forum Solution: Unacceptable for Divorced and Remarried
For similar reasons, the use of the so-called "internal forum solution" for cases of divorced-and-remarried persons who are personally convinced that their previous marriage was invalid is unacceptable, unnecessary and pastorally unsound. The canonical judicial procedures established by the Code of Canon Law to examine claims that a previous marriage was invalid are, in our view, comprehensive and responsive enough to declare invalid all marriages which truly are. As Msgr. Mario F. Pompedda, now dean of the Rota, remarked: "It would be purely academic to hypothesize about the existence of cases in which moral certitude could be reached only in the internal forum, that is, in conscience; such would be so rare that they should be considered practically nonexistent."12 This is especially true since Canon 1536.2, combined with Canon 1679, allows tribunals to grant a declaration of nullity, in the absence of other "objective" proofs of a previous marriage's invalidity, on the basis of personal depositions of the parties themselves. The canons, however, further require that these personal depositions of the parties be corroborated by character witnesses for the parties, if possible, and by other relevant facts and supporting evidence (Indicia Adminicula).13 These canons were added to the Code of Canon Law when it was revised in 1983 precisely to address cases in which proofs of invalidity-other than the declaration of the parties-are not available. Their presence in the code refutes one of the principal arguments for the use of the so-called "internal forum solution," making any use of it unnecessary and unacceptable.
Apart from the question of the canonical judicial procedure the "internal forum solution" in which individuals make a personal and subjective judgment about their canonical status is, in fact, a flawed pastoral solution because it cannot bring about the full reconciliation of the couple to the church. The couple's full participation in the life of the church can be re-established only through an ecclesiastical declaration of nullity or the death of a former spouse and the convalidation of the new union. Through these public acts of the church the couple will not only be admitted to holy communion, but will be entitled to share in the full life of the church available to all the laity. We encourage all Catholics who find themselves in irregular marriage situations, and therefore sadly separated from holy communion, to avail themselves of the tribunal process in their local diocese with the hope of being completely reconciled to the sacramental life of the church.
6. Unacceptable Extension of The "Internal Forum" Solution
Although originally employed to justify the reception of holy communion by divorced- and-remarried persons whose personal judgment was that their previous marriage was invalid, the so-called "internal forum solution" has been applied, although erroneously, in other similar situations. For example, it is now sometimes utilized by those living together without the benefit of marriage; by those civilly married; and by those in other objectively immoral situations. In these cases some persons claim that their subjective judgment of conscience allows them to receive holy communion. Those who exercise pastoral ministry in the church, particularly our priests, as well as all the members of the church, should understand why such rationalization is contrary to the true good of the church and ultimately detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the individuals involved. We emphasize this point for several reasons.
First, the "internal forum solution" has the effect of ratifying an erroneous judgment of conscience against the reality of objective moral truth. As a result, an opposition between the moral law which is normative and the subjective judgment of an individual's conscience is established and maintained. Such dichotomy leads only to spiritual harm. The ratification of erroneous judgment of conscience obscures the demand for moral truth. And in this way it can be seen as a "pastoral" solution which proposes "a kind of double status of truth ... [permitting one to do in practice and in good conscience what is qualified as intrinsically evil by the moral law. A separation, or even an opposition, is thus established in some cases between the teaching of the precept, which is valid in general, and the norm of the individual conscience, which would in fact make the final decision about what is good and what is evil."14 True conversion of heart and growth in holiness are thus hindered since the person sees no need to repent, reform and grow in the spiritual life.
Second, the "internal forum solution" undermines the teaching of the Lord and the church on the indissolubility of marriage and the sanctity of sexual union. Like marriage itself, the reception of the eucharist is an essentially public act. When individuals receive the eucharist, they proclaim their belief not only in the sacramental body of Christ, but also their sincere adherence to the teachings and practice of the church. As noted previously, for Catholics whose living situation violates the moral law the reception of the eucharist is contrary to the public situations in which they find themselves.
This unacceptable contradiction applies to the divorced and invalidly remarried, as well as to the individuals who are in other irregular situations mentioned above. By allowing persons in these situations to receive the eucharist the harmful consequences of the objective contradiction between the moral law and their real-life situation is overlooked. As a result, it might appear to some that the teaching of the church, which is the authentic expression of the law of Christ, represents only a vague ideal with no relevance to daily life rather than a life-giving precept meant to be followed with Christian faith and trust.
Third, we are concerned about the problem of scandal. Scandal is much more than a vague discomfort people experience when they see someone doing something wrong. The more serious danger of scandal is that in witnessing such situations others will be confused, weakened and misled into immoral behavior themselves.
The consequences of scandal are very real in the case of persons receiving the eucharist without the proper moral disposition. Permitting divorced-and-invalidly-remarried persons and those living in other morally objectionable relationships to receive the eucharist is potentially a source of great confusion and disunity within the body of Christ as well as a source of scandal. If the church were to allow this practice it would itself become a participant in the trends of our society that undermine the stability of marriage and family life. This would, of course, be completely contrary to its divine mission to be the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" in speaking and teaching about the sacrament of matrimony. The ministers of the Gospel, then, would have succumbed to the influence of secular culture rather than struggling to transform the sinful world through the power of the Gospel of Christ.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
I watched this interview, and I was distressed, greatly, by the way that Sean Hannity spoke to Fr Euteneuer. He did NOT give Fr a chance to respond to much at all, and if I am not mistaken, he also said that he had been in a seminary at one time. Anyone can respectfully disagree, but to be rude is not conducive to either side hearing the other. Hannity literally rode rough shod over Fr Euteneuer.
Regardless, it is Fr's job to teach and speak Truth, on Catholic teaching. Furthermore, Fr Euteneuer is one of the faithful priests that had nothing to do with those who scandalously betrayed our Church, and he HAS spoken out about it in the past.
Hannity has taken the "JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED" Matt 7:1 (RSV) and "ye who is without sin cast the first stone" completely out of Context. The responsibilities of any Catholic include the Corporal and Spiritual Acts of Mercy, ONE of which is to 'Admonish the Sinner!!' And another is to teach those who do not know!!
The spiritual works of mercy are:
- To instruct the ignorant;
- To counsel the doubtful;
- To admonish sinners;
- To bear wrongs patiently;
- To forgive offenses willingly;
- To comfort the afflicted;
- To pray for the living and the dead.
Paul VI was vilified by many for Humanae Vitae (especially by priests (one named Charles Curran in particular) on the steps of the Catholic University in DC), but his words have proven to be very prophetic. I urge you to read it, not just take what others (dissenters) have said about it. Another source for it (besides at the Vatican site itself is here.
Hannity claims to be pro-life, yet ignores the fact that MOST of the artificial birth control means are actually abortifacients (producing abortions by not allowing fertilized eggs to implant)!! Dr J. C. Willke MD, has spent many years trying to educate the public on this subject, and, if you READ THE FINE PRINT OF the birth control literature that is distributed WITH the Pill by the maufacturer, you can find it from the horse's mouth themselves.
There are more and more times that Sean Hannity has been rude to the guests. He would probably get much further by less of that.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Hannity, priest clash on doctrine
March 14, 2007
Conservative commentator Sean Hannity's support for contraception and a segment on his TV show has led to criticism of him as a dissenting "cultural Catholic," led by a priest who heads a major pro-life group and who said Mr. Hannity should be denied Communion.
"I have no problem with birth control. It's a good thing," Mr. Hannity has said, prompting the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, to send a mass e-mail last week calling the Fox News Channel and talk-radio host's repeated public defenses of contraception "just devastating for the faith of others who may be weak or vacillating in this area."
"We have enough pretenders to the title of Catholic in public life without being treated to superficial assessments of profound moral issues. ... Public Catholics like Hannity have no right to profess 'another Gospel,' or the faith of millions -- and indeed their own souls -- are in serious jeopardy," Father Euteneuer said.
The sparks have been flying via the YouTube.com video site and the conservative Catholic blogosphere ever since.
The priest appeared on Friday's "Hannity & Colmes" program, where Mr. Hannity defended himself by telling the priest that he studied Latin and theology, and went to a Catholic school. He repeatedly warned Father Euteneuer by citing the Bible passages of "judge not, lest ye be judged" and "ye who is without sin cast the first stone." Mr. Hannity demanded, "Why don't you work on the corruption in the church? Why don't you work on the sex scandal?"
When Mr. Hannity asked if the priest would deny him Communion, Father Euteneuer responded, "I would."
The Rev. Jonathan Morris, a Fox News commentator, defended his network colleague, saying Father Euteneuer "exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment," but called it "an honest mistake" in "brandishing law without palpable love."
Prominent Catholic bloggers saw it differently. Amy Welborn at her site
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2007/03/sean_hannity.html criticized Mr. Hannity for "running all over" Father Euteneuer and "refusing to give him three seconds to actually explain church teaching."
Mr. Hannity is not backing down, saying on Monday's radio program that if he were excommunicated he would call the Rev. Jerry Falwell and ask to join his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va.
Fwd: You Tube Video About Missing Person Jessie Foster
Please help to spread this and other messages for missing persons!
For Jessie's parents and family, please read my prayer for you, found in Numbers Chapter 6 verses 24-26, and may God bless you, and Jessie.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glendene Grant <email@example.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2007 11:29 AM
Subject: You Tube Video