tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post1261807623688238351..comments2024-03-28T19:16:02.689-04:00Comments on Catholic in Brooklyn: Cardinals Standing On The PrecipiceCatholic in Brooklynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-38951948725794464362017-09-25T14:37:26.109-04:002017-09-25T14:37:26.109-04:00Catholic in Brooklyn, check out the following URL:...Catholic in Brooklyn, check out the following URL:<br /><br />http://www.correctiofilialis.org/Christopher Stuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17477722106362926482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-91137454955946185132017-02-19T11:00:40.578-05:002017-02-19T11:00:40.578-05:00Having once been deeply involved in the traditiona...Having once been deeply involved in the traditionalist movement, and even once a supporter of Vennari and an admirer of Cardinal Burke, I know exactly what you mean when you call me a heretic. And coming from a traditionalist, I cannot think of a higher compliment, because in your eyes, I am in the same league as Pope St John Paul II, Pope St. John XXIIII /and of course of our current Holy Father, the same Pope for whom the blood of St. Jansrius liquified. <br /><br />https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/blood-naples-patron-liquefies-during-pope-francis-visit-cathedralCatholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-46482997879195226222017-02-11T18:28:49.346-05:002017-02-11T18:28:49.346-05:00You know, I've read your blog few times in the...You know, I've read your blog few times in the past when you were denouncing John Vennari for criticizing Evangelii Gaudium, and I thought you were simply off the mark, and nothing more.<br />But I now see where you're attacking the four authors of the Dubia, and defending the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Please let me revise my earlier assessment of you. <br />You are, unquestionably, a Modernist of the first order. You are a heretic. may God have mercy on your soul.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15765942028980517147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-79406627260279897902017-01-13T12:50:53.566-05:002017-01-13T12:50:53.566-05:00In your first comment you state:
He is also there...In your first comment you state:<br /><br /><i>He is also there to offer grace, and forgiveness when we stumble and fail.</i><br /><br />Yes, that is absolutely true, but there is a big problem. Many of the people who need this grace the most don't even know they need that grace, or how to obtain it if they do know how they need it. <br /><br />Fallen man, of and by himself, cannot fulfill the Law of God. That is where the sacraments come in which supply us with the grace we need to obey the law, starting with baptism. But what do you do when someone who needs grace cannot obtain it because he is denied the sacraments he needs? That is a real Catch-22.<br /><br />Those who think like you think it is enough to say "go and sin and no more." If only that were true.<br /><br />Pope Francis has said we need to work closely and pastor these people on an individual basis, bringing them to the saving faith of Jesus Christ. <br /><br />I truly believe everyone who is fighting against Pope Francis is fighting the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />As far as your comment on Bishop Barron - you focus in on one thing and completely ignore the main part of his message? And as long as you are going to focus on semantics, please note that St. JPII wrote that "it would be a very serious error to conclude that the Church's teaching is <i>essentially only</i> an ideal". Bishop Barron is by no means saying the Church's teaching is "only" an ideal. But for those on the outside, saying it is an "ideal" is the best way of describing the teaching.<br /><br />The question is, what did you think of the main message of Bishop Barron - that yes, God's law must be obeyed, and we must teach it, but we must show mercy and compassion to those people and realize that they need help, they can't do it on their own. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-89071692098193555982017-01-12T16:57:48.406-05:002017-01-12T16:57:48.406-05:00One quibble on the video (thanks for the link, I w...One quibble on the video (thanks for the link, I watched it): Bishop Barron says: "[The Church] holds up a very high objective moral ideal." <br /><br />I'm hoping he just misspoke here - I don't want to hold a video clip up to the same standard as I would a monograph. But it's not correct to characterize Christ's Law on Marriage as an "ideal." As Pope St. John Paul stated in <i>Veritatis Splendor</i>: "“It would be a very serious error to conclude that the Church's teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question.” But what are the “concrete possibilities of man”? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence." (VS 103-104)Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-86512945814384337582017-01-12T16:50:52.869-05:002017-01-12T16:50:52.869-05:00You see the law and demand strict adherence to it....<i>You see the law and demand strict adherence to it.</i><br /><br />I do. And so did Christ. His stance on the indissolubility of marriage against the Pharisees was unwavering, so much so that it shocked them. <br /><br />But He is also there to offer grace, and forgiveness when we stumble and fail. "Go, and sin no more."Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-63991406090928085532017-01-10T14:12:41.960-05:002017-01-10T14:12:41.960-05:00This is a better link to the video
https://gloria...This is a better link to the video<br /><br />https://gloria.tv/video/mXa1xKuYt7664yYSzimZ2iWDYCatholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-980713037405219502017-01-10T14:09:58.581-05:002017-01-10T14:09:58.581-05:00Your entire comment here shows just how "blac...Your entire comment here shows just how "black and white" you really do see everything. You see the law and demand strict adherence to it. You admit that it takes the grace of God to fulfill the law, especially in this situation, yet you do not see that those in those situation, by themselves, do not have access to this grace. It is like asking a man with no legs to walk. <br /><br />Pope Francis wants to help people gain access to the grace they need to obey the law. You, and the cardinals and all who think like you, feel that just telling people what they need to do is enough. <br /><br />Please watch Bishop Barron's video on this subject. My comment is to this video is "what he said."<br /><br /><br />https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/video/bishop-barron-on-pope-francis-amoris-laetitia/5181/<br />Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-80229631718803140552017-01-10T13:18:03.824-05:002017-01-10T13:18:03.824-05:00Those two statements seem very contrary to me. Whi...<i>Those two statements seem very contrary to me. Which is it? Is the Church saying leave your family, or stop doing that which comes most naturally to a husband and wife - stop having sex? </i><br /><br />In the first place, they <i>are not husband and wife</i>. They're not! Nor can they ever be, so long as the lawful spouse is still alive. That's the whole problem, insn't it? So why would we privilege anything about what "comes naturally" to husbands and wives in regards to two people who barred from beng such?<br /><br />In the second place,: Both of my statements are simultaneously true. It *can* be hard to abstain from sex in such a situation - in terms of human nature. But grace *can* supply the deficit (Summa Theologia, I-II, q. 109 a.4). As St Jerome says: "they are anathema who say God has laid impossibilities upon man."<br /><br />That said, I'll be honest: The Church's traditional praxis on this seems soundest to me: The unlawful couple really *ought* to separate if that is at all possible. Why subject yourself to the temptation? Why risk the scandal to others - especially to your children? How can such parents have *any* credibility in forming their children as disciples of Christ if they're openly and willingly violating one of the Ten Commandments on a regular basis - or even giving the impression that they might be? Yet John Paul II apparently wanted to keep the option of remaining under the same roof open for the very hard cases. <br /><br />But what about the children? As you ask: <i>"I know that you understand that if you are not living in the same house as your children, that means you are separate from them."</i><br /><br />You're correct that the removal of one of the unlawful partners will, in some way, separate one of them from the children in the household (whether they are the natural parent or not). To which I must respond: when it *is* necessary, the Church has considered it to be a lesser price to pay than to risk the temptation of sin, and the consequent leading of others (the children, especiallY) into sin, let alone into hell. The children *should* appreciate that a sacrifice is being made, for the parents' souls as well as their own; that <i>they prize their well-being, and devotion to God's law, over their own sexual satisfaction.</i> And that this is as much for the good of the children as it is themselves. <br /><br />I can't speak to what Pope Francis sees or has seen, and I am reluctant to speculate. I think there's an obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of motivations. I do know what the Church has always taught in this regard, up to the present, and I refuse to believe that that the Church has been acting unjustly and without compassion, as a matter of doctrine and discipline, toward Catholics in these situations for the past 2,000 years! And given that Pope Francis himself declines to ever state in express language that he is overturning these teachings in <i>Amoris Laetitia</i>, I have to believe he supports them, too - and recognizes that he cannot change them. The Pope cannot err in formally teaching on a question of faith and morals. And the teachings on *this* question of faith and morals are clear, and go straight back to the Apostles.<br /><br />If we could line up the past 264 popes before us, all the evidence we have is that every single one of them would answer this question in the same way that John Paul II did in <i>Familiaris Consortio</i> 84: these couples are in objectively evil situations, and they cannot receive communion so long as they remain in them. That's the simple reality. And we have no proposition in <i>Amoris Laetitia</i> to overturn that understanding. <br /><br /><i>"You see everything in black and white."</i><br /><br />Human beings are not black and white. But the law of Christ is. Fortunately, He supplies the grace needed to conform our wills to it. Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-18583426341141274592017-01-10T12:07:36.034-05:002017-01-10T12:07:36.034-05:00This is what you wrote in your previous comment:
...This is what you wrote in your previous comment:<br /><br /><i>Actually, I don't think anyone imagines that it *would* be easy to undertake. Which is why the normative expectation has long been that the (unlawful) couple should and must separate. Because the temptation to fall into sin would be, for many (most?), quite powerful.</i><br /><br />Now you write:<br /><br /><i>The Church is telling them they must stop having sex, not that they must walk away from their families.. And with the power of grace, that is certainly a bearable burden.</i><br /><br />Those two statements seem very contrary to me. Which is it? Is the Church saying leave your family, or stop doing that which comes most naturally to a husband and wife - stop having sex? <br /><br />You also write:<br /><br /><i>. . . Separation from the unlawful 'spouse' . . . Has generally been normative as the solution (contradicting your first statement]; but even this does not necessarily mean separation fro your children.</i>\<br /><br />You are a very intelligent person, so I know that you understand that if you are not living in the same house as your children, that means you are separate from them. Once again, your statement makes no sense. <br /><br />Everything taught by former popes is, of course, absolutely correct. Marriage is a life time deal to one person, and we are free to re-marry only if our spouse dies. <br /><br />But we live in a world that has completely lost sight of this fact. Serial marriage is completely accepted in our fallen world. And sadly, many, many Catholics have fallen into this trap. <br /><br />Pope Francis has looked at this situation, and has decided we can't just leave these poor souls out there to fend for themselves. We need, as Christ talked of the good shepherd, to go after those lost sheep and try to bring them back home. That is the radical step he is taking which was not taken, to as large a degree, by previous popes. <br /><br />As the Argentine bishops explained, no one is giving blanket permission for divorced and remarried couples to partake in the sacraments. Pope Francis is calling for one-on-one counseling and journeying with these couples to bring them back to Christ and the Church. If you read the document from the Argentine bishops - which was given the stamp of approval by Pope Francis - that fact becomes abundantly clear. <br /><br />Jesus Christ did not come to condemn the world but to save it, as He said more than once. The purpose of His Church is not to condemn the world but to save it. That is hard, hard work, and it means being with people every step of the way, not just pointing out what is right and wrong, and then leaving people to sink or swim on their own.<br /><br />i am sure you and I are never going to agree because we are just not seeing the same thing. You see everything in black and white. You see sinners who must be told they are on the wrong path and then you feel that the job is basically done.<br /><br />Pope Francis sees fallen people who are in desperate need of a Savior and those who can bring them to that Savior. <br /><br />Which do you think is more Christ like?Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-66360352302544646692017-01-10T10:55:25.377-05:002017-01-10T10:55:25.377-05:00Telling people that they have to walk away from th...<i>Telling people that they have to walk away from their families should tear the heart out of all of us.</i><br /><br />The Church is telling them they must stop <i>having sex</i>, not that they must walk away from their families. And with the power of grace, that's certainly a bearable burden. Or at least the Church has always taught that it is.<br /><br />It is true that separation from the unlawful "spouse" (to avoid both occasions of sin and scandal to others) has generally been normative as the solution; but even this does not necessarily mean separation from your children. <br /><br />But if this is an unjust burden, it's an unjust burden which the previous 264 popes have apparently laid on such Catholics. Will you, then, criticize Benedict XVI, St John Paul II, and all of their predecessors for being uncompassionate? <br /><br />Whatever Amoris Laetitia says - or however ambiguous it is at various points - it never mounts such an argument against the Church's longstanding teaching as you seem to be presenting here.Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-37982070023986300082017-01-09T14:07:31.369-05:002017-01-09T14:07:31.369-05:00It is so easy to make judgments when the situatio...It is so easy to make judgments when the situation involves other people. We pass by homeless people on the street and justify not helping them because it's their own fault they are homeless. We look at a drunk and say it's his own fault he can't control his drinking. Etc, etc. etc.<br /><br />Did you ever notice in the Gospels that Our Lord never criticizes or condemns anyone EXCEPT the religious? He met the woman caught in adultery, and refused to condemn her. Yes, yes, I know, he told her to sin no more. But please don't overlook the fact that he refuses to condemn her, that is the whole point of the story. <br /><br />Telling people that they have to walk away from their families should tear the heart out of all of us. It should not be something that just rolls off the tongue, as I see over and over again. Pope Francis is filled with the same kind of mercy and compassion that is shown by our Lord in the Gospels, and it is that love and mercy that caused him to write Amoris Laetitia. Anyone who reads it without his mind made up and asking for the guidance of the Holy Spirit will see that. <br /><br />Pope Francis has not and will not change doctrine. What he is attempting to change is the pastoral attitude towards those caught in this terrible situation. He says these are people who need to be guided each step of the way. <br /><br />The first thing is not to separate from their families, but to first find Christ. I think it can safely be said that anyone who has gotten him or herself in this situation is someone who has lost or never found Jesus Christ. <br /><br />To ask anything of them before they have found Christ is to most certainly put the cart before the horse. To accomplish what they need to do absolutely requires the Grace of God. It cannot be done by human strength alone.<br /><br />Pope Francis understands that. I truly hope and pray the four cardinals, you and everyone else who is so quick to condemn will finally begin to understand. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-2022100886460170352017-01-09T08:28:44.110-05:002017-01-09T08:28:44.110-05:00That is so easy to say
Actually, I don't thin...<i>That is so easy to say</i><br /><br />Actually, I don't think anyone imagines that it *would* be easy to undertake. Which is why the normative expectation has long been that the (unlawful) couple should and must separate. Because the temptation to fall into sin would be, for many (most?), quite powerful. <br /><br />This is why it is important to recognize that the provision Pope John Paul II permitted in <i>Familiaris Consortio</i> "when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate" is a limited, last resort option, one which had traditionally been frowned upon by the Church. It's a path with its own level of sacrifice involved. These Catholics have made certain (bad) choices, and choices have consequences. Fortunately, the grace of God is available to give us the strength to cope with them, and still cooperate with grace to attain salvation. <br /><br />But it's a false and potentially lethal compassion that would indulge such Catholics to engage in what amounts to a very grave sin - actually two very grave sins: to engage in acts of fornication, and then to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist in an unrepentant state for such sins. And it's why the Church has never admitted this possibility as licit - not in <i>Sacramentum Caritatis</i>, nor in <i>Familiaris Consortio</i>, nor in <i>Cast Connubi</i>, nor in any past canon of the Church going back to the Apostles. "[T]he Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist." (John Paul II, <i>Familiaris Consortio</i> 84) There's no exception in that under any law of gradualism or any other theological praxis. And John Paul II was so adamant on this point that he even had the CDF release a later clarification in 1994 to refute the idea (which had gained purchase in some locales) that FC 84 admitted of any such possibility that divorced and remarried Catholics engaging in sexual relations could under any circumstances be admitted to communion. Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-23662347508328205712017-01-09T00:20:26.202-05:002017-01-09T00:20:26.202-05:00That is so easy to say - just live like brother an...That is so easy to say - just live like brother and sister, Two people who are obviously so attracted to one another that they got married, have been invovled sexually, probably have kids together, and now they must live like brother and sister while being with each other every day. It's like telling an alcoholic he can't drink while he must work in a tavern. <br /><br />The divorced and remarried are in one of the most difficult situations imaginable, Pope Francis understands this and that is why he is trying to work with them with compassion and mercy. It is a lesson we could all try to imitate. Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-46073793434565946062017-01-08T16:29:44.311-05:002017-01-08T16:29:44.311-05:00"Divorced and remarried Catholics are in an e..."Divorced and remarried Catholics are in an extremely difficult situation in that they can't just walk away from their sin like an alcoholic or someone involved in sexual sin. They are being told they must walk away and turn their backs on the greatest responsibility one can have in life - our families - in order to remain loyal to the Church."<br /><br />My understanding of Church teaching is not that they must walk away from their families, but that they must abstain from sexual relations with a person to whom they are not validly married. Just as single and widowed laity must remain chaste, so must those who are divorced. If they've committed the sin of adultery by remarrying outside the Church, it's not charitable and pastoral to condone the continuance and compounding of that sin by advising them that it's OK for them to receive the Eucharist while not in a state of grace. They must repent, confess and abstain from sexual relations....just as anyone else who commits sexual sin.<br /><br />It's not always easy to give up our sins. It requires discipline to resist sexual urges but it's hardly an impossible feat as many single, widowed, and religious can attest to. Christ was very clear in His teaching about adultery. If priests, bishops or even the Pope attempt to mitigate the sin under the guise of being pastoral and drawing people back to the Church by taking the easy path, they are guilty of leading the laity astray. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10609771699908232777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-816270553577820672017-01-06T10:59:01.709-05:002017-01-06T10:59:01.709-05:00As I have written before, I don't think any Ch...<i>As I have written before, I don't think any Church document since Humanae Vitae in 1968 has produced as much controversy and outright rebellion in the Catholic Church as we have seen from Amoris Laetitia.</i><br /><br />The <i>sturm und drang</i> over A.L. is still not at the level of <i>Humanae Vitae</i>, though this is probably in part due to the fact that academia and secular media are not hostile to it in the way they were to H.V., and so critics of A.L. rarely have access to those bullhorns. <br /><br />But part of the problem is that, contra Fr VF, it's hard to say just what A.L. clearly teaches, at least in terms of moral propositions. Attempting to say it does is a bit of an exercise in nailing jello to the wall, however edifying or passionate some observations in the early parts of the exhortation might be. I cannot say with certainty that it teaches error, though there are two footnotes, at least, which might imply it; likewise there are some statements which, as German Grisez has pointed out, seem to suggest that human nature is too weak, even with grace, to follow God's commandments. But there is nothing with the clarity of (say) <i>Humanae Vitae</i> 14. <br /><br />That being the case, there's nothing in the way I live that can alter, or or will alter, how I live my life as a Catholic, nor in what direction I will give others, confirmed or catechumens. If you are not a Catholic in a state of grace, you cannot receive communion. And if you are having sexual relations with someone not your lawful spouse, and are unwilling to repent and amend your life in this respect, you cannot be in a state of grace. We must adhere to the perennial teaching and discipline of the Church handed down to us from the Apostles, then, and have our confidence undiminished in so doing, regardless of what some theologians and even bishops might desire to the contrary. Athelstanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346012062816580296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-50580831267207258532017-01-06T04:57:06.814-05:002017-01-06T04:57:06.814-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fr. VFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14879996737991671701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-65610737249601887592017-01-06T04:53:02.292-05:002017-01-06T04:53:02.292-05:00Your entire column condemns Jesus Christ, who DID ...Your entire column condemns Jesus Christ, who DID give a "rigid," "pat" answer to the question of divorce. He said it is impossible--and those who divorce and then live as if married to another are committing adultery.<br /><br />Nothing you quote from the Argentine bishops or from the Pope even comes close to answering the Five Dubia.<br /><br />The Argentine bishops and the Pope emit vast clouds of meaningless argle-bargle, whereas the correct answers to the Five Dubia are: No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.<br /><br />If the opposite answers are given, then, logically, Catholic moral teaching collapses; the teaching of Jesus Christ is denied outright; and the Catholic Church ceases to have any purpose.<br /><br />The Pope taught heresy in Amoris Laetitia, and by his refusal to do his job--i.e., promote unity in the Church by answering doubts about the Faith--he is continuing to teach heresy.Fr. VFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14879996737991671701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-53856806902772354722017-01-05T04:24:52.219-05:002017-01-05T04:24:52.219-05:00The Church teaches that the See of Rome cannot los...The Church teaches that the See of Rome cannot lose the faith under the Pope. So either a Pope Francis is not a Pope, or you're wrong in thinking he is contradicting doctrine. And if he isn't the Pope, who is, and should the Pope disagree with you on doctrine, shall he still remain Pope. We have an obligation to obey the Vicar of Christ, Wh ois the Rock the Church is built on.<br /><br />Please read on the spiritual life to see how the Devil uses false zeal, to stir up disobedience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-76286344077998776762017-01-04T20:38:44.220-05:002017-01-04T20:38:44.220-05:00You have a sense of irony I see. Christ told the P...You have a sense of irony I see. Christ told the Pharisees that divorce was allowed under the law of Moses because of the hardness of (Pharisaical) hearts. Jesus then said that, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."<br /><br />I guess, according to you, Jesus, is just about the rules and regulations. The words of Christ, Church tradition and two millennia of constant Magisterial teaching are on the side of the four cardinals. You are on the side of the Pharisees. John the Madhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899858119936750764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-58187570863352324442017-01-04T14:34:24.592-05:002017-01-04T14:34:24.592-05:00Yes,
It all seems like moral relativism to me. M...Yes,<br /><br />It all seems like moral relativism to me. Marriage should be taught as a lifelong sacrifice, either chaste, or for procreation. <br /><br />The gate is narrow and we all die alone.<br /><br />Jesus was against adultery, clearly and often, he elevated marriage to a sacrament. <br /><br />This issue literally puts the Eucharist and Marriage in conflict. Symbolically this puts Christ and his Church in conflict.<br /><br />The Church is Holy and it is against moral relativism.cassius diohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984498942034986905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-29970588626972025242017-01-04T13:46:24.842-05:002017-01-04T13:46:24.842-05:00Sadly, all of the reasoning from your post and the...Sadly, all of the reasoning from your post and the Argentine bishops letter could be used to justify abortion. Some things are black and white. Jesus' saving of the woman caught in adultery ends with him saying "sin no more", not "go ahead and continue to sin if you think it is ok".<br /><br />There is great confusion on the contradictions in Amortis Laetitia vis a vis Familiaris Consortio and other magisterial declarations. We do need the see of Peter to clarify the confusions in this document. If Pope Francis' encyclical can obliterate prior papal encyclicals through footnotes where is the magisterial continuity in that? What is to keep subsequent popes from obliterating Pope Francis "teachings" through footnotes. This is a dangerous path. This time of great confusion in the church is indeed another great crisis in the church. Fidelity to Christ is fidelity to His teaching.<br /><br />I will pray for you and the pope, Catholic in Brooklyn, and ask you to pray for me. May Our Holy Mother cover faithful Catholics in her mantle and pray for unfaithful Catholics to return to the true faith.Vivat Cor Jesuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999159688001571709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-57378395376238597072016-12-12T19:20:25.873-05:002016-12-12T19:20:25.873-05:00Bishop Gracida wrote the foreword to Judie Brown&#...Bishop Gracida wrote the foreword to Judie Brown's 2012 book "The Broken Path."Christopher Stuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17477722106362926482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-40571621960164357132016-12-12T15:54:49.396-05:002016-12-12T15:54:49.396-05:00I don't know anything about him except that he...I don't know anything about him except that he is a defender of Michael Voris. He also defended Father Corapi.<br /><br />http://www.sanctepater.com/2011/04/bishop-rene-henry-gracida-comments-on.html<br /><br />Lots of warning signs there. <br />Catholic in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02714284710110785019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5636389828900724226.post-10336718859102539112016-12-12T09:53:13.044-05:002016-12-12T09:53:13.044-05:00Catholic in Brooklyn, what do you have to say abou...Catholic in Brooklyn, what do you have to say about Bishop René Henry Gracida?Christopher Stuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17477722106362926482noreply@blogger.com