Vatican Shuts Down After Liberals, Rad Trads Can’t Come To An Agreement

January 22, 2018 by  
Filed under Politics

Ricardo André Frantz

 

Hundreds of thousands of priests from around the world have either been sent back to the rectory or have been told to not show up to say Masses today as clerical furloughs took affect midnight due to the Vatican shutdown.

Cardinal Robert Sarah delivered an ominous warning to cardinals gathered at the Vatican this morning, saying that “The shutdown is going to get a lot worse tomorrow if the Pope doesn’t act immediately.”

Essential spiritual services such as Confessions, Anointing of the Sick, and Masses will continue, although no public Masses will be allowed.

Still, liberal Catholic cardinals are insisting the shutdown is “not nearly as bad” as the last time this happened under Pope Benedict XVI, but many still see this as a blemish on Francis’ legacy.

It was Francis, after all, who during the 2013 papal conclave famously criticized Pope Benedict, saying, “A clerical shutdown falls on the Pope’s lack of leadership. He can’t even control his Church and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the Pope is weak.”

“Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the Pope’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead,” then-Cardinal Bergoglio said in a radio interview in 2013. “And he doesn’t do that, he doesn’t like doing that, that’s not his strength. And that’s why you have this horrible situation going on in Rome. It’s a very, very bad thing and it’s very embarrassing worldwide.”

When asked what he would do if he were pope, Francis said “Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a basilica. You have to be a leader. The pope has to lead. He’s got to get whoever’s head of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and everybody else in a basilica, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice, and be angry, and be wild, and cajole, and do all sorts of holy things. But you have to get a deal.”

  • Deborah Mullan

    But will the Swiss Guards get paid?

    • There is precedent for Swiss Guards to get back pay, but it’s not guaranteed. Basically, you need a separate encyclical after the furlough is all over for that to happen. It’s always happened before just because of the PR nightmare if it didn’t, but with the contentious state of this current Vatican … well, who knows if it will realistically get done.

      • wlinden

        I thought the rule was “No money, no Swiss.”

        • Veronica

          I think that referred to the infamous Swiss Cheese Closeout of 1968. Very, very, VERY obscure historical event. For reals.

    • Jim Brooks

      Deborah, the Vatican has a fail-safe system on that score. They draft in the 4th Degree Knights of Columbus. It doesn’t matter if we ‘re wearing the new or old regalia, we’re just as stupid looking as the Swiss guards, so no tourist is cheated in taking a selfie with an armed man dressed as a clown. Was that hopeful?

      • HermitTalker

        Those dressed in Michangelo’s colourful regalia are new recruits. The men with the guns are dressed in black. All persons getting in to the Pope’s vicinity are screened for weapons. K of C Fourth Degree swords are confiscated. Beaten into plough shares in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

        • 2ID Doc

          Had a run-in with the Swiss Guard once, they are no joke. Made a wrong turn in Vatican City, a guy in all black, stepped out of the wall, hand on his handgun & informed me I had made a wrong turn. His stance made it clear he was not going to ask a second time or give me directions. I later learned my wrong turn was into the Pope’s private entrance…

          • HermitTalker

            I got lost inside SCV last summer and was treated with courteous respect by the Vatican police who directed me. Perhaps by being on a wheel-chair AND Pope Francis policies may have helped

          • samton909

            I have it on good authority that Pope Francis has personally given orders to the guards to conduct you to a private papal audience should you ever show up in Rome again. He wants to give you a papal knighthood like the Plouwen woman.

        • Famijoly

          Literally was laughing out loud on that one.

    • Brie Pate

      The traditional and canonical way for Swiss mercenaries to deal with not getting paid is to storm the castle, take the signore and his family captive, rape a few kitchen maids, clean out the treasury, take everything of value, and smash what they can’t steal.

      • HermitTalker

        Get a brain MRI B.P.

  • Bill Rector

    Will the Pope have the grotto of Lourdes and other pilgrimage sites barricaded?

  • FatherWagner

    Great… Now I’m not going to get my full lace surplus by the feast of the Presentation.

  • FatherWagner

    I bet they can’t make a deal about what to do about the Anglicans who have already come into the church through the Personal Ordinariate of St Peter. We should have built that wall.

    • FatherWagner

      I realize there’s a lot going on in that comment.

    • wlinden

      And make the Protestants pay for it.

      • FatherWagner

        Exactly. It’ll be ‘uge.

        • William of Orange

          Phenomenal. Just phenomenal.

  • Cminor

    Okay, EOTT, did you fire your copy editor, or something? It’s effect. And Robert, Cardinal Sarah. And semicolons. Grr.

    • Copy editors are so traditional, as are periods

      • William of Orange

        traditionalists insist on grammar an preef-rooding an shizz

        they can’t even.

        • samton909

          Grammar is rules, and Pope Francis is against that, so EOTT is riding the crest of transformation in the church.

  • HermitTalker

    An attractive sight on this thread is a Russian lady posing sexually to tempt me Much more attractive in a weird way than some of the idiotic comments on TEOT

    • Monk

      If only your internet surfing were more pure, you wouldn’t be targeted by the sexy Russian lady ads. You need to exorcise your PC of this demonic possession, and surf no more.

      • William of Orange

        He should avoid the proximate occasion of sin…or at least delete the cookies.

        • Monk

          The problem with expelling cookies from a possessed PC is that seven cookies worse than the first might enter in.

          • HermitTalker

            Like the Apostle Paul I wanna do and don’t wanna do things and that was before the laptop or internet arrived

      • HermitTalker

        I am technologically illiterate. I do not know how to avoid sexually attractive ads. I repeat, they are more attractive that many of the illiterate and non-sequiter posts on this site

    • Heinz

      You should count yourself lucky! I didn’t have russian ladies in quite a while. Instead it’s all about cremes against athlete’s foot or joint pain. These juicy pictures are my foretaste of purgatory.

      • HermitTalker

        Purgatory? The folks pre-occupied with genital activity or fantasy have me and my type in hell. Their only sin is sexual.

        • pat

          Well, most people are not out robbing banks or killing people, but I do admit that there are a lot of air conditioners out there.

          • Wiffle

            Okay, I have to confess it. I have central air. How long in Purgatory, do you think?

          • pat

            Maybe you can buy some kind of purgatorial carbon offset a donation to the Clinton Global Initiative or New ways ministries. “As soon as the bit coin in the SJW group’s coffers posts…”

    • Famijoly

      It’s because Russia hasn’t been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

  • christopherschaefer

    Libs insist on normalizing airplane weddings, trads only will agree if celibate male priesthood retained.

    • HermitTalker

      Right now we have both celibate and married

    • pat

      soon to be a movie on the Hallmark channel. On time for Valentine’s day. Just finished running the Christmas season (all variations on the same theme, busy woman executive finds the true meaning of Christmas without reference to Christ) – Couple finds the true meaning of marriage on a plane with the pope.

      • HermitTalker

        ASH WEDNESDAY is VALENTINE’S DAY in 2018. Time for all of us to REPENT. Including cheap shots at a pastoral Pope.

        • Monk

          Wow! Since abstinence is required on Ash Wednesday, I hope the pastors of the Church remind their flock to observe Valentine’s Day the night before. This could be added to the little Lenten fasting and abstinence instruction in the bulletin, as well as announced from the pulpit.

          • pat

            that’s satire – I mean that anyone thinks that anybody bothers with the fast anymore.

          • Frank Hammond

            The restaurants will be packed on Valentines Day / Ash Wednesday.

          • pat

            I suppose the pope could move it to Ash Thursday to avoid the public embarrassment of all of those Catholics celebrating Valentine’s day… but that would make it look like he approved of forcing people to fast and saying people should do penance, and he can’t have that.

          • Monk

            Restaurants and motels.

        • pat

          Repent? there’s no sin anymore, what’s to repent? Anyway, all these rules and things, so oppressive, so legalistic. Surely, Pope Francis the merciful doesn’t approve of forcing fast and abstinence and labeling people as needing to do penance for their ‘sins’.

          • HermitTalker

            See my comment earlier you cynical crypto anti-papal bull-manure spreader.

        • samton909

          Is a pastoral pope one who is out in the pasture?

          • Famijoly

            No, that’s a papal bull.

      • Frank Hammond

        Only if Candace Cameron Bure is the lead and she is a business executive flying home to rescue her families failing business.

  • pat

    If a Vatican shutdown, kept the pope off of airplanes and away from cameras and in any way impeded his thoughts from becoming public for the duration – then it is a thing devoutly to be hoped for.

    • HermitTalker

      Jesus was hounded until liars had him crucified for trying to teach who His Abba Father is. Curing on the Sabbath was a no-no, the same as Francis blessing a couple’s wedding vows

      • pat

        When will liberals ever get tired of using the “Francis is Jesus” card, or the “Francis is what Jesus would be if He were fortunate enough to have lived in 2018” card?
        Some minor, yet important distinctions:
        1 Jesus is God, Francis is not.
        2 Jesus, as man, enjoys perfect knowledge of God, Francis does not
        3 Jesus has the authority (see point 1) to found a new religion, Francis does not.
        4. Jesus was not afraid to preach the non pc parts of religion
        5 Jesus didn’t say that most marriages are invalid because the spouses aren’t prepared, and then pull a stunt on a plane marrying two people on a whim.

        • HermitTalker

          The Bishops of Rome guarantee the TRUTH of Jesus DOCTRINE and MORAL teaching. As successors of Peter. Promised in the Bible verses Mt 16:18 including th Isaiah quote applied to David as keeper of the Keks; Also John 21, Heretics and schismatic dissidents deny that and undermine the entire fabric. BTW I attended a workshop given by a canonist with several doctorates in canon law, on several Vatican panels who said most marriages are invalid today, given the general culture. Paul V1 was Bishop of Rome.

          • pat

            It is cute isn’t it, how so many people have discovered that part about papal infallibility in the last 4 years?
            Surely, they would have been right there defending the ‘excesses’ of the more ‘easy-going’ renaissance era popes.
            – if the pope has a mistress, it must be what Jesus would have done…
            But, infallibility doesn’t really help when you never make a clear, definitive statement about anything though, or when you call heresies ‘faith traditions’
            I wonder what those canonists would think about a mid-air fairy tale hall mark movie of the week marriage.

      • pat

        A year from now, they can run into him on the Metro and get an annulment with as much effort as the marriage. “It’s what Jesus would have done” say experts.

        • Wiffle

          Jesus was all for divorce, except that one slip up where seems like he was having a bad day and talking about harden hearts or something.

      • samton909

        Abba did not have a father. There are four of them and I believe they are unrelated Nordic types, so they had many fathers.

    • Ethan

      Your arrogance and hatred of the Holy Father have been duly noted.

      • pat

        on his enemies list no doubt.

        • Ethan

          Repent.

          • pat

            If I may paraphrase a 21st century luminary with which we are both acquainted; “Who are you to judge?”

          • Ethan

            You spit on the face of Christ when you twist the Holy Father’s words. Repent of your hatred and arrogance.

          • pat

            You mean I should have used the “breeding like rabbits” or the “more gracefilled than marriage” or something else from Francis’ quotable quotes list?

          • Ethan

            In either case, you clearly do not understand what he meant. Have you even tried to give him the benefit of the doubt? Have you ever sincerely tried to learn from him? Have you ever laid down your pride and asked the Holy Spirit for understanding? Or are you content to think you know better than the Vicar of Christ?

          • pat

            I and all of those gay pride marchers. right? While i’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, the church is heading toward schism, with the pope on the wrong side. – Oh, that’s never happened before… the Holy Spirit, the vicar of Christ, the humility… all of that stuff, right? except that it did…. Have you considered that? or are you just so mesmerized by a few vapid sound bites?

          • pat

            Ok, well than how about this, You come up with a way in which “breeding like rabbits” was not an insult and a potential slogan for PP, or how giving a medal to the pro-abortionist is in the best line pro-life, pro-Christian promotion, or how “As long as he is seeking God” (after 6 years in the seminary) isn’t a “do what works for you” position, and then explain why he never bothered to put those excuses, I mean, explanations out, and do so in a convincing way (I mean not that the internet went down just as he was about to post it) and then you may have covered the benefit of the doubt thing for the past, but we still have the current lack of concern that his words are confirming sin to address.
            But, he does have such a nice smile though, doesn’t he? and those black shoes… that what really matters.

          • pat

            Ah, I see that the German bishops want to come up with a blessing for same-sex ‘marriages’ – predicted, Francis defenders said it wouldn’t happen, but it did. We’ll just have to wait and see if any objection (other than “don’t call it marriage”) comes from the Vatican. When it doesn’t, we’ll have to come up with a benefit of the doubt scenario for that too.

          • Ethan

            Pat, you already know that no explanation will be acceptable to you. No one who speaks like you is ever open-minded, especially on matters of religion. You have a single, monolithic understanding of the Faith, and anyone who doesn’t hew to it is a heretic. Pope Francis could read the full Catechism out loud, and you would criticize him for not using Latin. Just admit that you hate the Pope and are refusing to abandon your own theological hobby-horses.

          • HermitTalker

            AMEN The heretics on here are a total shambles

          • pat

            What explanation would be acceptable to you for creating a religious ceremony to bless a life of sin?
            I do wish pope Francis would read the catechism though, not necessarily out load.

          • Wiffle

            Why haven’t you repented yet of reading, understanding, and applying the catechism and knowing the history of the Papacy yet? Ethan’s arguments, which boil down to, “expecting a Catholic Pope to believe and teach the Magistrium is like spitting in the face of Christ” is pretty compelling. Odd.

          • pat

            never mind teaching the magisterium, at this point I would settle for him not undermining it so badly.

          • pat

            Yes, you’re right, when it comes to sacramentalizing that sinful lifestyle – no explanation will suffice.
            – How about a re-baptismal rite for those who change their names when they change their sex, (or is it gender)?
            or a blessing for pornographic films, and condoms,

          • Ethan

            First, no such rites have been discussed. Second, baptism cannot be repeated if received validly. Nor did Pope Francis say all couples who live in concubinage have more grace than all married couples. He said that *some* couples living together have more grace than *some* married couples. Marital grace is not supreme; it can be resisted. This is at least theologically possible, and certainly didn’t merit the pearl-clutching that followed.

            I’ve long said that the only souls who continue to be “scandalized” by Francis are those who want to be scandalized. It is a spiritual disease.

          • pat

            How can a person in a state of mortal sin have grace? Or has Francis abandoned Sanctifying grace? Face it. He does not walk on water and he is not God. He’s just a bad pope. It has happened before.

          • Ethan

            How do you know they’re in mortal sin? You don’t. You don’t know whether any couple is even married, let alone having sex. In addition, many people are ignorant of Catholic sexual teaching, so it’s entirely possible that those who fornicate are committing only venial sin due to lack of sufficient knowledge. I think both justice and mercy oblige us to interpret the situation leniently, at least in general.

            You are correct that *sanctifying* grace cannot be received while one is in mortal sin. However, actual grace can be received by anyone in the wayfaring state. This is most likely what Francis was referring to.

            So, there is no problem. Yet you, and all the others who hate the Pope, are smart and knowledgeable enough to figure this out. So why haven’t you tried?

          • Wiffle

            “In addition, many people are ignorant of Catholic sexual teaching, so it’s entirely possible that those who fornicate are committing only venial sin due to lack of sufficient knowledge. ”

            Ha,ha, ha! That’s cute. We also have a conscience. I’ve seen joke signs on newlywed cars “Married sex tonight!” (As in, it’s okay now).

            Pretty much everyone gets that it’s not okay to have sex outside of marriage. It’s a big one. Huge. Everyone knows, they just do it anyway because nobody will create a social fuss over it anymore.

            That’s playing a complex line of thinking about sin meant for people who might say, use contraception inside of marriage unaware or genuinely not know Confession is a mandatory at least once a year event or get Eucharist unknowingly as a non-Catholic, etc, etc. for a sin which most people on the planet absolutely know for sure is wrong, without ever stepping foot in a church.

            We’re at epic levels of a Victorian prudishness/childlike attitude towards sex to even argue these types of thoughts.

          • Ethan

            I think you’re vastly overestimating the quality of moral knowledge held by the average person. Most people know that “prudish Christians” believe is celibacy before marriage, but that’s not the same as knowing something is actually wrong. Why is there a huge push to educate the public on Catholic sexual teaching if so well-known already?

          • Wiffle

            No, that’s what a conscience is for. It warns you and causes you pain when you sin big. It’s not there to come up with rationalizations about why what you do know about morality doesn’t apply to you.

            This line of arguments could have it’s own book, really. Pollyanna Explains Sin – Why Absolutely Everyone Does Bad Stuff Accidentally,
            So It’s Not All That Bad

          • Ethan

            You do understand that conscience has to be formed, right? And that it can actually be malformed? Conscience is only infallible if formed by Church teaching. Even then, one would be stupid to go on conscience alone.

          • Heinz

            I guess “conscience” is not well defined.

            Obviously we have a will that will override God’s input. I totally agree with you, that there is a learning/formation process that optimally includes church teaching.

            But is the conscience just a random thought processor that we can program according to God’s word or against it? Isn’t that what the will is?

            Is there behind the will an actual infallible connection to God – only we hardly ever listen to it?
            Using this definition of “conscience”, i.e. the actual infallible connection to God, does make sense. It turns sour, if we think that it were easy to just listen to it. Our will sits before it, will hack the moral output and pretend that it is purely the conscience that said that.

            So I advocate that view that we don’t need to form the conscience. We have to form the will to listen to the conscience – even find that we have one.
            But many people substitute their feelings for the conscience and justify everything by that – so now I advocate that even if the above is theoretically correct, we don’t talk about the conscience as if it were an easy solution for moral questions.

            Oh, are these two cents mine?

          • Wiffle

            This isn’t that hard. When we’re about to do something very sinful, our minds resist. That’s our conscience. Islamic terrorists have to really talk themselves into killing people, most of the time. Once they have killed, that’s broken down, but until the first time their minds are begging them to find a reason why not, most of the time.

          • Heinz

            I’m out of my depth here. I really don’t know what terrorists think and don’t care to speculate.

          • HermitTalker

            I would stay with anti-Bishop of Rome bashers. More dangerous than extremist Islam terrorists. Enemies within

          • pat

            And Trump is Hitler and Pence is Stalin and Hillary is George Washington… so of course anyone who doesn’t admit that Francis walks on water is worse than the guy who just blows up buildings or mows down pedestrians.

          • HermitTalker

            Oremus pro perfidiis Catholici qui sunt contra Episcopus Romae et sunt haereses et schismati qui ad inferum destinantur sine converti sunt

          • pat

            I thought it was Oremus et pro perfidiis judaeis, but hey, it is a brave new world so whatever…

          • pat

            Let us pray also for all those who do not recognize Francis as their God. May he remove the veil from their eyes so that they may bask in the glory of his light with us in the company of the enlightened.

          • HermitTalker

            Magnum excrementum tauri

          • pat

            As ever, the grace and polish of your discourse is only matched by kindness of your words.

          • HermitTalker

            Thank you. I employed Latin to protect the innocent.

          • Wiffle

            Let’s flip this over. Why haven’t you imagined the what dark path would break down your moral fiber and lead you to kill or lie or steal? Seems like an important exercise. It is certainly easier to forgive once the exercise is done. And if you haven’t imagined it, why are you speculating in granted, a significantly uncomfortable manner, that there just might not be any such thing as a conscience?

          • Heinz

            I can speculate as I like. And if you remember, I never said that there were no conscience – quite the opposite. I was speculating on whether it is incorruptible or rather would it make sense to call something corruptible “conscience”? You are talking about the will.

          • Wiffle

            I am talking about what resists the sinful will – the conscience, which indeed can be malformed as any physical body part can. Since it is part of human nature, it will be fallible, along with the will, which is why we need the Church to spread the word about morality. Education on morality is what helps to form, re-form, and maintain consciences properly.

            Literally here you’re saying “I never that there was no conscience” and then putting “conscience” in quotes. “I can speculate as I like.” and then ” I really don’t know what terrorists think and don’t care to speculate.” Well, which is it? Not making a commitment to an idea or changing it’s meaning so it loses all meaning is also a choice.

          • Heinz

            Why so offensive?
            “I can speculate as I like” – here I demand my right in front of you. You cannot tell me that speculating about the conscience (and while doing it talking about several speculative “consciences” and putting them in quotes) were wrong.
            “I can speculate as I like” – I am also sure that I can chose not to speculate about the psyche of terrorists – because the speculating can be done by myself *as I like*.
            Why do you turn that into me chosing to let go of all meaning of ideas? Are you forbidding me to speculate as I like? Are you afraid of quotes? Didn’t think so!

            But if it is so offending to you, I will stop speculating and check the catechism.
            Here are both perspectives:

            1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

            1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

            I find these things difficult to combine. How can the conscience be both corruptible *and* the voice of God?
            If I have this echo chamber in me that absorbs teaching and is able to echo back moral choices, then why is that “the voice of God”? If somebody reads the bible and Luther, he will build a conscience that talks differently than mine on subjects like sin and guilt. Especially his conscience will tell him to avoid reading the catholic church.
            I don’t do special pleading, so I don’t think that mine is right because it’s catholic and catholic is right because my conscience tells me so.

            So I have to go back to speculation, because the catechism did not help me understand what they mean by the word “conscience”. (Yes, I did put it in quotes to irk you! 😉 )

            I’m glad for you, that you understand this so easily, but please don’t attack and insult slower thinkers. Let me do my speculation on conscience, as my conscience actually tells me to do.
            Here you had the choice to help me understand church teaching, and instead you chose to tell me that I’m unable to commit and make ideas lose their meaning.
            Makes me think that you don’t understand it either.

            My approach to internet discussions is very much formed by 1 Corinthians 13:2. Yours?

          • Wiffle

            So…basically I point out that you’re trying to not believe a basic church teaching by changing word definitions and I’m “attacking” you? It’s certainly the spirit of the age. Open disbelief by refusing to be clear and the someone who insists on clarity is insulting you. Hmm…I don’t call that love.

            As for the other, if you really wanted a discussion on why a conscience is fallible let’s have it.

            A conscience, because it is a part of human nature, is fallible, because all of human nature is fallen.

            In a prudent man, it is the voice of God, just as someone who has a nice clean speaker will be able to hear the music sent through it clearly. In other men, whose consciences have been malformed have no such speaker or it’s badly damaged, resulting in distortion or garble. Most of humanity, though, has at least some functional speaker, of some form.

            Did you want to have that discussion, though, where we get to the church is right? Because if the Church is right, then evil would actually exist, the person in the mirror is also fallen, and we’d have to do something about all that. That’s the issue that can’t be solved with more hugs and being nicer.

          • Heinz

            > I point out that you’re trying to not believe a basic church teaching by changing word definitions and I’m “attacking” you?

            Yes, that is about right. I am open to the possibility, that the catechism contains bad wording. Now you could show me, why it is perfectly sensible what the catechism says, or you could tell me that I’m wrong simply because the church is always right.
            Seriously, I’m a catholic and am having a hard time with you. I am well convinced that no non-catholic will want to listen to somebody who does not bother to show *why* the church is right but only insists *that* the church is right.

            I do want a discussion about God, but you simply reiterate what you said before und what the catechism says – in fact what I have said also. It’s as if I hadn’t told you several times that I do not understand it.

            My question is about why to claim that the conscience brings you back to God?

            Let’s take an anti-catholic who hates the church. Suddenly he sees by reason that there might be sense in the church, but his conscience will immediately prevent him from even considering this more. It will tell him that the church is bad.
            Same with God himself. Take an atheist and do the same exercise: His conscience will be a bias back into the current position.

            I wish it were so, that he somehow feels deep inside himself, that God draws him to Himself. I do believe that God does that, but the atheist is deaf to it and there is no fallen or non-fallen part in him that tells him.
            To speculate that the conscience would hear God’s voice if it were not badly formed is just short-circuited logic: He cannot hear because he cannot hear.

            And to say that listening to the church leads to God is special pleading. I do agree with the outcome, but as a logical argument it’s worthless. So why even argue so much about it?

            Take the rainbow! I claim that the rainbow will lead you to God, but only if you have formed your rainbow-eye accordingly. If you have a malformed rainbow-eye, it will not lead you to God. That is about as true as the conscience. In fact the very thing has been said about nature/the world.

            But surely there must be something more to it! Do you know? Can you tell?

          • Wiffle

            “Yes, that is about right.” Yeah, if you’re not seeing the problem here, then it’s why there is a big split already here and forthcoming in the Church. It cannot be that I speak my mind politely and you see it as an attack. The net effect is that any disagreement, no matter how phrased, is taken as a personal insult, completely shutting down any productive discussion.

            “Suddenly he sees by reason that there might be sense in the church, but his conscience will immediately prevent him from even considering this more. It will tell him that the church is bad.”

            His will tells him the Church is bad. His conscience tells him he should not have a chip on his shoulder about any Christian and should sincerely want goodwill within all of Christianity.

            A conscience does not contradict God, or His Commandments, or the concept that God is love, justice and mercy. A fallen human will might and does quite frequently.

            ” He cannot hear because he cannot hear.” He cannot hear because he has destroyed the speaker, not because he lacks ears. It’s difficult, but consciences can be re-formed. He could have the speakers of God back through an act of will.

            “So why even argue so much about it?” Because how you view all of this determines your actions. I’ve stated previously why probably you’re resisting straightforward explanations of the role of conscience and it’s because it creates a great deal more culpability in yourself and those you meet. It’s quite sensible to stay “confused” in the sense it requires no action of you, but if you have claims to the gift of intelligence, I’m not sure that God lets anyone off that easy.

            “It’s as if I hadn’t told you several times that I do not understand it.”

            I’m trying to explain it, but I’m pretty sure you don’t want to understand it, so there it is. You seem pretty smart otherwise.

          • Heinz

            > It cannot be that I speak my mind politely and you see it as an attack.
            So our next misunderstanding is about the word “attack”. You said that, and it’s the reason why I put the “about” into “That’s about right”. Some see something like “eating bananas from that side is wrong” as an attack. Others define attacks as being fully aggressive in nature. I mean that you are much more offensive than is comfortable. I did not forbid you to tell me that I were wrong.
            I would not have chosen the word “attack” for what you do, but it works well enough from a certain perspective, so I did not correct you.

            Example:
            You tell me that I’m resisting explanations. You tell me that I want to stay confused in order to keep doing my actions from which a well formed conscience would prevent me.
            Now you should know that you have near to no idea what I am doing apart from reading EOTT and speculating on the discussion board.
            Deducing from that that I must be shirking the notion that I might sin, is taking the mouth too full. I keep telling you that you should be more charitable, but you keep shooting into the blue, in case you finally hit a sin that I did not yet confess to you.
            You should have seen from other people’s reactions to your words, that however true you are, you just don’t reach them. Or did ever anybody tell you in an internet discussion: You’re right, I have accepted too many sins in my life and you have shown me – thank you!
            If not, then you should definitely think about changing your style.

            See, I agreed so often with you. I keep telling you that I agree that listening to church teaching is paramount, that there is truth in it that cannot be found elsewhere. But still you go ahead and insinuate that I don’t accept my sin.
            You don’t even know how often I go to confession, you just guess that I don’t. And for that the word “attack” is not all wrong.
            Look through your sentences and you will see that you make more comments about me and my spiritual state than about the topic we are discussing. Instead of explaining, you only draw back on my incapacity to understand because of my many inner faults (that you by implication do not have).
            How do you call that? Charity?
            Maybe you are just too quick to identify my soul as the problem here, and in doing so, you are not the merciful teacher that you see in yourself.

            But back to topic!

            Wiffle> A conscience does not contradict God, or His Commandments, or the concept that God is love, justice and mercy. A fallen human will might and does quite frequently.

            And earlier we had:
            Catechism 1786> Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

            Do you not see the contradiction here? In your sentence you nearly agree with me: It’s the will that is fallen but the conscience is in a certain sense incorruptible. It will not contradict God, even if formed really badly. But then again it will make judgements not in accordance with divine law.
            All I am saying is, that while I agree with the general workings of a human (fallen state, necessity to be prudent), I do not understand (and so tentatively disagree with) the contradictory definition.

            Maybe you can give me an example of a typical “erroneous judgment that departs from [divine law]” but at the same time “does not contradict God, or His Commandments, or the concept that God is love, justice and mercy”.

            When an atheist spends years enforcing the notion that all things religion are backwards and harmful; when he believes that humans have a right to live proportional to the function they perform and all others can be disposed of, then his conscience will become corrupted.
            In the worst case, his children will find such a world view absolutely natural.
            And you say that inside of them the conscience will keep nagging that God is love?

            Yes, I agree, but that means that conscience cannot be corrupted. And that is my point.

          • Wiffle

            ” I mean that you are much more offensive than is comfortable. I did not forbid you to tell me that I were wrong.”

            Yes, you’re trying to, because there’s nowhere that I’m actually rude to you, thus there’s no reason to take offense. The choice is to spend volumes on my “style” that will end up, if I even acknowledge it to have any truth, with me shutting up.

            This isn’t a confessional and as long as I have been reasonable and polite, what happens after the ideas get out isn’t something I can control. What I care about is an honest discussion with someone who won’t run away into “But you hurt my feelings” while indulging in the kinds of insinuations I’m being accused of.

            On the catechism, if what you’re going for is the acknowledgement that particular section on conscience is badly written, then yes it is. (There are other parts of the catechism equally badly written.) It clearly confuses conscience with will, which explains why so many modern clergy think that someone’s conscience would lead them to be a homosexual or something. Any discussion of conscience must absolutely discuss the will separately and it obviously glossed over and confused the two.

            “And you say that inside of them the conscience will keep nagging that God is love?”

            Yes, absolutely, which is why atheists tend to go a little kooky after while. The lack of peace many people display is because their conscience nags at them in one form or another because their life and will are not aligned to God’s.

            It’s why as a group, homosexuals are suicidal over the long term and have to have “pride parades” – they know they are addicted and ashamed of their disordered sexuality.

            Atheists have an idea nag at them that if they are just accidents, then there’s nothing worth the living. Living as if they are nothing tends to lead to self destructive behaviors. Interestingly, you’ll find that the children of atheists aren’t consistently atheist and in fact that God’s speaker is quite alive and well in them as well.

          • Heinz

            Ok, it seems we are completely agreed on the subject of conscience now. The Catechism is written by people, just like this whole discussion of ours. And as out discussion contains bad and ambiguous wording, so do other works of people; no reason to worry about that.
            I did not ask, if you were a terrible catholic for noting the above, because that was my position from the very beginning (i.e. that the catechism is not in itself the Word of God, not that you were a terrible catholic), so I hope you will find a satisfactory answer to your question.

            The only point of disagreement is about how to discuss on the internet/how to express oneself. And I guess there is no point in discussing that. So: Bye!

          • HermitTalker

            Ethan You are urinating against shunks.

          • samton909

            Are we switching to number one in our old age?

          • Wiffle

            Yes, a conscience can be malformed and it does have be formed.

            But like children walking, talking, and learning to beat video games, most of the time we get a functional conscience simply in the course of growing up.

            It’s ludicrous and incorrect to say a conscience is only infallable if formed by Church teaching because a)there are only fallible consciences on planet earth and b)it ignores that almost all societies know to be a universal morality.

            Every society through time that wasn’t falling apart says: No adultery (including buggery). No killing. No lieing. No stealing. We all know the big things. People don’t get off the hook for being non-Catholics and indeed they all will feel the effects of contradicting Gods moral laws whether they know it or not.

            So yeah, they know it’s a sin most of the time, even if the system doesn’t perfectly. And they do it anyway, because people are fallen.

          • Ethan

            Wiffle, you have an incorrect understanding of conscience. A properly formed conscience is infallible, and the Church professes this to be true. However, this doesn’t mean said conscience is irresistible. Everyone knows that conscience can be resisted.

            The conscience is not a storehouse of moral propositions. It is the very voice of God in the human person. The still, small voice is easily obscured by the wind and fire.

            And you’re wrong about the formation of conscience. Without being formed according to right reason, the conscience will become warped and become like a compass that doesn’t point north. No one can develop an accurate conscience apart from the Church.

            And you’re also wrong about universal morality. Adultery is widely accepted in many tribal cultures, along with polygamy. Indeed, the Old Testament prohibitions of fornication and adultery were unheard of in their day. The only true universal morality is that there exists *some* code that govern human conduct, but the content of that code varies widely in different times and places.

          • Wiffle

            “However, this doesn’t mean said conscience is irresistible. Everyone knows that conscience can be resisted.”

            So..in real life, practical terms, no conscience is infallible. I’m glad we agree.

            “Adultery is widely accepted in many tribal cultures, along with polygamy. ”

            Cultures that are falling apart and aren’t attached to the word “civilization”, sure

            ” Indeed, the Old Testament prohibitions of fornication and adultery were unheard of in their day.”

            Romans were a solid civilization until their Old Testament style sexual morality fell apart.

            Have you noticed a pattern here yet?

            ” No one can develop an accurate conscience apart from the Church.”

            Wow, God must really hate people or least non-Catholics.

          • Ethan

            Indeed. Romans held slaves, committed war crimes, and practiced infanticide on a massive scale. All the hallmarks of a solid society.

          • Wiffle

            LOL – You’re not “getting” it, at all. Early Romans were very Old Testament in their thoughts on sexual morality. Infanticide is a later stage that develops after they become wealthy and their sexual morality loosens. One of the reasons at their disgust at Carthage was the reports of infanticide as sacrifice.

            Thought crime: Jesus knows the Romans are about ready to destroy Jerusalem after his death in a horrific way and predicts more than once. He does not stop them, nor does He seem to think it’s wrong.

            Plus, the slavery bit…it’s easy to say slavery is wrong after the development of modern money and the industrial revolution. Not so much in a different world. Late stage Romans would sell themselves into slavery to avoid the high taxes of being a citizen.

            In the antebellum south, free day laborers were often preferred labor for dangerous work because they were “disposable”, ie, nobody cared if they died because nobody had anything invested in them. There are mass graves of Irishmen around New Orleans because slaveholders refused to “rent out” their slaves for the diseased ridden work of building canals.

          • Ethan

            I see. Rome practiced the good kind of slavery, so they’re alright.

          • samton909

            ” A properly formed conscience is infallible”. No, not unless Father James Martin was declared Pope while I wasn’t looking. No, to be infallible, your conscience must be speaking from the chair of Peter and it must be about faith and morals. Only a few things have been declared infallible in the history of the church, and your conscience was not one of them. See Vatican I, where your conscience was thoroughly discussed.

          • HermitTalker

            Conscience builds on Paul’s teaching in Romans that God’s law is written on our hearts. Fallen nature creates a tension hence the Catholic Church has built on that Natural Law, assisted by Greek-Roman Law. Including Hippocrates’ famous Oath that abortion is intrinsically evil- 250 centuries B.C. outside the Jewish monotheist biblical Tradition. Certain rights, presumption of innocence, due process and others built into the English Common Law, US Constitutional Bill of Rights. Moronic attacks on this site unjustly and unfairly heretically accuse the current Bishop of Rome of violating some tenets of the RCC and the Tradition. Pygmy brains attempting to explain away his clear application of their pastoral application. Why I l stopped duelling with the blind, deaf and in-thinking.

          • pat

            Where is the huge push to educate the public. All I see is on the one hand most of the church’s leaders embarrassed by the church’s teaching, and on the other a church who can’t make up its mind about what its teaching is in the first place.
            Now, just to add to the fun, we have the pope muddying the waters as much as he can, and undermining the work of good pastors, (by his tendency to misunderstood by many and his lack of concern for that, and also by his calling them animals and Pharisees). And the common idea that the church’s teaching are just suggested starting points around which one must come up with a God that works for him.

          • Ethan

            Your diocese doesn’t have pre-Cana, theology of the body seminars, chastity speakers in parochial schools? Are you unaware of the many dedicated websites and apostolates that focus exclusively on sexual ethics?

          • pat

            are you serious?
            no, really, are you serious? wait, I can’t stop laughing.

            Now, wait, are you serious? pre=cana. for sexual ethics?

            Here’s a thought – will same sex couples have to go to pre-cana before they can have their unions blest? or should they just bump into the pope on a plane?

          • Ethan

            Pat, what are you talking about?

          • pat

            it’s just amusing how you think that local dioceses and schools almost all of which are run by rabidly feminist women, some of whom still call themselves nuns, actually offer solid formation on anything in that area at any level from nursery school through seminary, university or pre-cana. But in case your confused, it’s 2018. Those apostolate you speak of are largely regarded as crackpots by most of the church, those websites are obscure and probably listed by SPLC as hate sites… so…

            But to answer the inquiry.. Do we have (wait I can’t stop laughing again… alright l have to try…) Chastity (it’s too funny) speaker in the schools. NO. We have openly gay ‘married’ teachers in the schools., as do many other cities.. but of course what’s wrong with that… right? It’s all part of teaching the church’s sexual morality….isn’t it?
            The part that comes under “in the end… it’s your call what’s right and what’s wrong”

          • Ethan

            Pat, you seem like a very angry and bitter person. Why do you condescend to and mock people who disagree with you? It’s extremely unchristian. I’ve actually worked with Catholic parishes and schools, so I have firsthand knowledge that things are indeed slowly getting better. Where’s your proof? Assertions from a bitter culture warrior who “knows how things really are” count for jack shit when it’s obvious you don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about.

          • HermitTalker

            Ethan I repeat my admiration for your persistence. pat is either seeking attention or an abject heretic. Or both.

          • pat

            “things are slowly getting better?” – that means there’s a problem, what are they getting better from? Is the pope helping their getting better or frustrating it?

            I don’t really have such a problem with people who disagree with me. I have a problem with people who disagree with the church having positions of influence in the church, with people undermining the church from positions of power in the church. But, the church doesn’t know what it thinks anymore so how can they know who disagrees with them anyway?

            but, we are back to that position from which there really is no getting away from – “let each one decide for his own who God is to him” that’s why none of that is really dangerous. Who is the church, after all, to tell people what’s right and what’s wrong, as I have been reminded.

          • Ethan

            Pat, which is more important: the First Commandment or the Sixth Commandment?

          • samton909

            Which came first, the chicken or the leg? And why did the chicken cross the road? Which is bigger, a square or a triangle? Can God create a rock so big that Hulk Hogan cannot lift it? These are the questions that we want answered.

          • Ethan

            Which is more important: the First Commandment, or the Sixth Commandment?

          • pat

            You’re right of course, it’s the core that matters. The rest is minutia, trivial points for experts. Same with the commandments i suppose. All this unknowable stuff, like what adultery means in the first place… just so much angels on the head of a pin stuff.

            Maybe Luther was right, maybe he wasn’t, maybe both he and the church are wrong, but it was all silly little trivia. Everyone agrees God is cool. That’s all that matters. Same with morality. Maybe divorce is bad maybe it’s not, maybe ss marriage is bad, maybe not, we’ll never know, right? that’s why we all get to play the “I’m serving God in my way, don’t judge me” game, Just as long as we all agree on the important stuff, it’s cool to be a good person (what ever that means to you) and of course diversity. And that’s really the message that the pope is trying so hard to spread, isn’t it? “Don’t hassle people about the little things, that don’t matter, and hey, if some time in 10 or 20 years 1 or 2 of them come around to see it the way the church does…. well that’s just fine.” If it’s not, it sure seems like it is. All the new allies he’s won for himself among those less inclined to traditional mores seem to think it is at any rate.

            Although, I seem to recall someone asking Our Lord what the most important commandment was and His answer might have made it look as if they all were important, but as you say… I don’t know anything so…

          • Ethan

            I’m gonna be honest, mate. I don’t think you actually know what “being Catholic” is, or even means. Of course people who die in mortal sin go to hell, and of course sins against the sixth commandment are grave matter. Pope Francis has never said otherwise. The Church continues to affirm all of her traditional teaching on marriage and family. No one is saying that sexual ethics is some obscure field of theology; what’s being said is that sexual matters are not the source and summit of the faith. Jesus explicitly affirmed that prostitutes were entering the Kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees.

            Furthermore, you don’t seem willing to understand the Francis approach, nor to acknowledge the good will of those who agree with him. Where are you getting your information? Do you interact with any Catholics outside your bubble of conservative Francis-haters? Or do you go around judging people who are less than perfect, without lifting a finger to help them understand what is true? No one who actually wants people to understand the truth speaks about others the way you do. Our Lord was never snide or sarcastic about the unbelieving Gentiles, nor did he mock them with bitterness. Do you actually want sinners to be saved? Or would you rather sit on your ass and complain about them while they tumble into the pit? Your contempt for your fellow men comes through loud and clear, and it is a sin. Repent of it.

          • Wiffle

            “Jesus explicitly affirmed that prostitutes were entering the Kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees.”

            The prostitutes that repented and changed their lives, not all of them because they were downtrodden sex workers. Remember that “Sin No More” part?

            “Our Lord was never snide or sarcastic about the unbelieving Gentiles, nor did he mock them with bitterness.”

            “Get me behind me Satan” was what he said to Peter of all people. I guess it was okay that he was snide and sarcastic to Pharisees? That makes it okay somehow, because they “deserve it”. Really?

            “Or do you go around judging people who are less than perfect,”

            I’d say given the screed in this post, there’s a heavy amount of projection going on.

          • Ethan

            Jesus was not being mean or sarcastic to Peter. And while you chafe at the implication that the Pharisees “deserved it,” wasn’t that true? Perhaps I struck a nerve. Most sinners do not puff themselves up as superior to others on the grounds of their religious knowledge and authority. Jesus put the Pharisees in their place *precisely because* they were abusing it. This is what I see in the Francis-haters. They usually know more about Catholicism and right reason than the rest, and yet instead of using these blessings to instruct and be Christ to their brethren, they instead act as armchair theologians and spend their time bitching about the Pope and the dismal state of things. In addition, those who demand mercy for themselves while refusing it to others will be dealt with most harshly by Almighty God.

          • Wiffle

            “Get behind me, Satan” is not the ultimate insult or even mean by the Son of God? Come on. Don’t even go there.

            You’re complaining about some legitimate criticisms of Pope Francis by insulting anyone who disagrees with your insanely high opinion of him, which in and of itself comes dangerously close to idol worship.

            Posts like this one are mostly just ad hominem screeds that if we don’t all take the kool-aid and pretend everything is just perfect in the Catholic Church there’s something wrong with us.

            No, there’s nothing wrong with wanting a Pope to be unapologetically Catholic, nor wanting Catholic institutions to be unapologetically Catholic, nor wanting the majority of Priests, with the exception of the usual assortment that always comes through the cracks, to be unapologetically Catholic.

            I’m sorry you’ve got issues that you’re projecting on others, but I would recommend working through them, rather than continue to push them away.

          • Ethan

            I don’t think you know what ad hominem or screed mean.

          • Wiffle

            Think about the concept you might be projecting what’s bothering you most about yourself, because it’s highly likely.

          • Ethan

            Wiffle, I think it’s more likely that you’re the one projecting.

          • Wiffle

            Except you ran out of arguments. I just got bored. 🙂

          • pat

            No one has given you any reason to accuse them of mistreating those outside of the church. Complaining about the conditions of the church is done precisely out of concern for them, but it is a different thing. I have not used derogatory or insulting words about poor sinners or despaired for them. I have not said the doors should be locked to keep them out. What restrictions are, or were, in place are not for punishment, advising people against sacrilegious communion for example is not mean or exclusionary or a means of forcing conformity, but a way to avoid making things worse for them.

            As to the pope – He is not God. He is not Christ, He is not here to found a new religion. Popes can be wrong. It has happened before, It can happen now, even with Francis. St Paul was not wrong or sinful for rebuking St. Peter. St Athanasius and St. Nicholas were not sinful for resisting Liberius, St. Cahterine was not wrong or sinful for calling on Gregory to do his duty and return to Rome. The good bishops who were investigating the possibility of deposing Alexander were not sinful, though they would have been if they had just gone around saying to everyone “It’s not scandalous at all that the pope lives the way he does, no one could ever get the wrong idea, and if they do, it’s their own fault anyway”

          • samton909

            No, I am pretty sure that all prostitutes, murderers, drug abusers, gang members, criminals, and every one else who commits sins goes to heaven first. Jesus said so.

          • Wiffle

            If they had had better catechesis, they’d know it was sin and totally just stop, so luckily for them the modern Church mostly offers platonic (we think) hugs, ensuring their path to Heaven. Heck, what am I saying? Everyone gets into Heaven, Jesus said so.*

            *Except for Francis-Haters. He explicitly excludes them.

          • pat

            Ah… the Francis approach! It is amazing isn’t it that the church managed to survive for 2000 years before Francis. I know grumpy old men like St. Jerome, and nattering busy-bodies like St. Thomas may have found a home, but how did the average guy, like Augustine, ever make it, without Francis there to not judge them?
            No teaching has changed. Of course we know that Francis meant his “who am I to judge” in the most catholic way possible, because, obviously it was a Tuesday and it was raining and the moon was waxing and he had his fingers crossed behind his back, but the big bad anti-Francis media doesn’t report all of that to people who don’t know the secret codes anyway so unfortunately the fact that nothing has changed is the best kept secret in the church. Even some bishops don’t know it. I mean, obviously blessing gay marriages and having cohabitating people into the Vatican to baptize their children, is just another way of affirming traditional teaching, what else could it be, right? But, what if the great unchurched masses don’t know that? Is it the old bait & switch — “We came for the gay wedding, and they tried to make us celibate, but when we saw the felt banners with their ‘God is love’ and heard the folk music, we just had to stay……the celibate thing, well…..”
            No, all we have now is a church afraid or embarrassed by the truth. I don’t mean that the pope and others have to talk about sex everyday. I mean that when they do things that undermine the church’s teaching, then they are implicitly obliged to at least remind everyone and/or explain how that isn’t a change and must be understood in a way which is in harmony with all those teachings that didn’t change.(and not pout and call people names)
            And how do we bring people back to the church who have fallen away over issues like this. Well, traditionally we pray for them. We sacrifice, we have tens of thousands of religious dedicating their lives in sacrifice and prayer in convents and monasteries for them (well that’s all gone now isn’t it?) but that’s what we do, along with good example and the ability to expound the Faith when the situation requires it. Imagine St. Monica saying “Oh, if only the pope were more merciful…” But, hey, the Francis approach is cool too. It lets us feel good about ourselves, how much more kind we are than all those who came before us, and it makes life easier for us if we don’t have uphold any kind of standards. No more of that old “I can’t go to your wedding because…it’s against my faith” Now you can actually go to the gay wedding in the Methodist church and say it is because of your faith… what a brave new world.

          • samton909

            Jesus explicitly said that prostitutes go to heaven. This is the sum and substance of your understanding of the scriptures. Congratulations.

          • Wiffle

            If you weren’t so angry and bitter, it wouldn’t have taken you so long to see the sheer brilliance of the “Who am I to judge?” ;p

          • GregB

            The Sixth Commandment against adultery is closely related to the First Commandment. The relationship between Christ and His Church is spousal. Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride. Idolatry is spiritual adultery committed against God.

          • Ethan

            Yes, but idolatry is not an actual violation of the sixth commandment.

          • GregB

            In the book of Hosea, Hosea married a prostitute, and idolatrous Israel is called a harlot. You also might want to read Revelation 19:6-9 about the marriage supper of the Lamb. It is all about image and likeness. Human marriage is supposed to image the life of spousal union that God wants to have with His Church.

          • Wiffle

            It is of the first, which is why Jesus never said that one commandment is more important than other.

          • Ethan

            Except for when he gave the two Greatest Commandments *facepalm*

          • Wiffle

            Except you have to do all 10 + the other 2 greatest commandments

          • Ethan

            No way, I had no idea.

          • pat

            Neither do a significant part of the clergy and hierarchy, apparently.

          • samton909

            What’s a commandment?

          • Wiffle

            It sounds kind of harsh, whatever it is. I’m glad that I know all I need to do is be nice everyone.

          • Wiffle

            ” I have a problem with people who disagree with the church having positions of influence in the church, with people undermining the church from positions of power in the church. ”

            It’s the same here. It’s like a world gone mad. If you’re not on board with the Magisterium, don’t be a Catholic Priest/Bishop/Pope/lay person. I don’t mind people disagreeing with the Catholic Church and there are many points upon which reasonable people could.

            But don’t be some sort of crazy in place Protestant, pretending to be Catholic. I’d rather drive for miles to have a good Priest, comfortable with the teaching than this sort of shuffling embarrassment about it. When I want black coffee, I don’t want watered down soda. What exactly is so hard about the concept?

          • Wiffle

            I actually attend a large, wealthy, Francisian parish with attached school. I don’t know what they teach at the school, but I do know in the last 5 years, I’ve never heard the word “abortion” on campus, let alone anything that even referenced sex. I’m pretty sure that every parishioner there had storks bring their children to them, given the lack of interest in the subject.

          • Monk

            I never realized all those “mile high club” members I’ve heard about were consummating their airplane nuptials.

          • pat

            only those who were fortunate enough to share their flight with a camera crew and a ‘flighty’ prelate.

          • samton909

            Not a sin, either. How can joining a popular club be a sin? Who am I to judge.

          • samton909

            Large numbers of inner city gang members have no idea that murder is wrong, because they do it all the time. These pure souls will go to heaven, because they do not know it is wrong to murder someone.

          • samton909

            Yes, I routinely have sex outside of marriage and I have no idea what I am doing, so it’s OK, it’s just a venial sin, like snarfing down too many oreos at once.

          • Rose Lincoln

            You’re joking aren’t you? Aren’t you?

          • Ethan

            Nope.

          • pat

            Wake up.

      • samton909

        Who does this duly noting?

      • HermitTalker

        I quit talking with pat

        • pat

          What’s all the fuss, let’s all join hands, sing a rousing chorus of Kumbahyah or Let it Be and just let the devil have his day.

          • Rose Lincoln

            No, no, By the Rivers of Babylon.

  • samton909

    The big concern in the Vatican is that with the small crowds that now come to the Noon Angelus, no one will even notice there was a shutdown.

  • LionelAndrades

    JANUARY 26, 2018
    Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/hilary-white-and-massimo-faggioli.html

  • Patrick O’Brien

    Ah, the promise of Vatican II has finally come to fruition!

    • pat

      But, the good news is that confessions won’t be affected. -Good news for the 3 people in each parish who still go now and then.

  • pat

    I would have suggested a story about the pope seeing his shadow on Candlemas resulting in 6 more weeks of Lent, but then I thought, what’s the point, no one under 50 knows what Lent is.