I can't go back and respond to every point and question point-for-point. But I can say this:

All of billnewbie's spiel here, including 'grace' and the 'sovereign god', is just a bunch of made up stuff. It doesn't apply to the real world. It's only a way for him and others to separate themselves from everybody else. It's primitive tribalism.

It's their own tribalism and all their other primal instincts that they can't face and come to terms with. They live with that inability to face the truth by projecting their darkness onto non-believers. Non-believers have come to terms with the full nature of their existence and have the intelligence to reject the childish but dangerous fantasies of judeo-christian-islamic belief.

Believers allow this stuff to stunt their intelligence. They reject the science of evolution and then attempt to counter and destroy that science with junk-science. This is barbaric. Believers have continually stood in the way of scientific and medical advancements and in so doing have delayed those advancements by centuries. Whenever they belatedly accept advancements they claim those advancements are a gift of god.

They are taking a free ride on the backs of all humans who are intelligent and courageous. Shame on them!

I grew up in St. Jude's Parish. Ruth has been a part of my life through my Brother Dutton days, high school days, and up to the present. I have always looked up to her as a devoted Catholic. I have worked alongside Ruth working with youth. She helped my development of the Vacation Bible Study at St. Jude, I have gone on several service trips and retreats where I was a chaperone for her, and she has helped me even as a teacher at Brother Dutton. Ruth has always respected the Church and I have never heard her preach anything that goes against the Church. Because of Ruth, many youth have grown into the Catholic faith with love and understanding. She has been a rock that many look to for support and guidance. I am saddened by this decision. So many youth will go without the wisdom and compassion of this wonderful individual.

Belloc wrote:

>>St. Jerome’s writings here are compatible with the Church’s teaching today taking into consideration the proper principles of organic development of doctrine. If Jerome had denied the goodness of marriage altogether, then we’d have a problem.<<

But that is exactly the problem you do have, because that is exactly what Jerome says: "'It is good,' [St. Paul] says, 'for a man not to touch a woman.' If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness." How much clearer does it have to be? In Jerome's view, marriage has "only a slight degree of goodness"--and that goodness, as he says elsewhere, is because it makes new virgins. Apart from that, marriage is an "evil" which is "pardoned" only to prevent the "worse evil" of fornication.

He goes on to say that an active sex life renders the married unable to pray and unfit to receive the Eucharist, because "so long as I do the husband's part, I fail in continency". From this he draws the conclusion that Christians should "never be in the bondage of wedlock"--that is, they should not marry at all. And if they are already married he says they should stop having sex entirely, "to know only as a sister, not as a wife". He even says that to have sex with one's wife is an insult to her: "If we abstain from intercourse, we give honor to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honor." That's pretty twisted, but that's what the man says.

>>Why is it Sardath, that my soul leaps for joy when I read the words of these saints and contemplate the truths they are articulating<<

Probably because you have become an expert at the Catholic mind-control game of not seeing what's actually there, and instead rearranging reality to suit your preconceived notions. We see you doing it right here--missing the plain meaning of the words of Jerome and Augustine and turning them into something else entirely, something which you falsely imagine is "completely compatible" with the radically different teaching of the Church today.

>>If I had more time, I’d pull another thread, probably the one regarding Professio Fidei.<<

Please do. I backed you down on that one in the WSJ forums, when you were claiming that the CTA were "heretics", and I'd be glad to do it again here.

Belloc wrote:

>I really don’t know where you get all of this, but it can’t be within a solid faithful graduate level theology program.<<

True. One might, however, get it in an *honest* graduate-level program--one which doesn't define "faithful" as "explaining away all the magisterium's mistakes". As to where *I* got it, you already know the answer to that, but you don't know that you know because you don't pay close enough attention and haven't connected all the dots. So you'll just have to keep guessing.

>>You submit many rapid fire jests against the Church<<

"Jests" is hardly the right word. This is serious business, not a celebrity roast.

>>with a tone of great authority and precision<<

I claim no authority; I simply present facts, which anyone can verify by looking them up. That's why the "precision" is so important.

>>(including the implicit claim of wisdom and discernment greater than the Vicars of Christ)<<

I have made no such claim, but frankly a lot of people have more wisdom and discernment than many of our bishops these days. Most people, for example, would know better than to return serial sex abusers to situations where they have access to children and could abuse again. How is it that our supposedly wise and discerning bishops took *decades* to figure this out, and only did anything about it when the harsh glare of media exposure shamed them into it? And many people had more discernment than the Pope when it came to Fr. Maciel, the founder of the Legion of Christ, who was widely known to be sexual predator even as JP2 was holding him up to the rest of us as "an efficacious guide to youth". How did the wise and discerning Vicar of Christ screw this up so badly, when so many other people had already figured it out?

>>every time I pinch any one of these little jests and pull the thread, just a little bit, I find misinterpretation or misrepresentation.<<

No, what you find is an inconvenient truth which you then twist around into some kind of "faithful" pretzel so it doesn't upset your tidy little worldview. Big difference. For example:

>>The other night the thread was Augustine. Augustine’s quote was perfectly compatible with Church teaching today, in no place contradicting it.<<

This would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Augustine said that anyone who has sex in marriage with even the *desire* that conception might not result is engaged in a crime equivalent to adultery or prostitution. Are you telling me *that* is the teaching of the Church? And if it is, how can you justify NFP, which is used (with the Church's blessing!) precisely for that purpose and with that hope?

>>May I ask you, do you even have a higher degree in theology?<<

May I ask you, what do you do for a living, and who do you do it for? That might be very interesting information for you to share with the rest of us. In fact, it might change the whole tenor of this discussion ...

Other questions come to mind about this situation. Why was this not addressed some years earlier? I know that people who had left the parish had complaints about non-Catholic stuff being taught, went to Ms. Kolpack about it, and the situation was not corrected. Minor liturgical abuses have been witnessed by myself and we have to wonder why the priest allowed them to continue?
In reading Partisans of Error by Pope Pius X, the Church has been dealing with this kind of dissent for a century. It is sure to continue, but the Church will survive. Jesus promised that He would be with us until the end of time and the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church until He comes again. Modernists and Liberals are beating their heads against the Rock, founded by Christ on St. Peter.

I am not surprised that many leave religion entirely, just sick and tired of the disobedience and hyposcrisy of a few, trying to make every decision into something political. Lord have mercy on us all.

(Continued from the previous post ... )

The second allegedly incriminating quote of St. Jerome is on the same web page at the paragraph toward the bottom marked “7.” It is from a scriptural commentary on 1 Cor. 7: 1-9. There are several issues here. First, St. Jerome is again, emphasizing the superiority of virginity, consecrated life, to that of marriage, again, as a state of life. Within the section you omitted (“…”) he concedes the “goodness” of marriage with, yet a heavy emphasis on the superiority of virginity, comparing the former with eating barley and later with eating wheat. I would argue that with acknowledging the goodness of marriage, St. Jerome’s writings here are compatible with the Church’s teaching today taking into consideration the proper principles of organic development of doctrine. If Jerome had denied the goodness of marriage altogether, then we’d have a problem.

Why is it Sardath, that my soul leaps for joy when I read the words of these saints and contemplate the truths they are articulating … truths completely compatible with the mind of the Church today … and yet you see material to launch accusations at the very foundation of the Church and her divinely instituted authority, the Pope and the bishops united with him? Why do you see and not understand? From where does the angst come against Christ and His Church?

If I had more time, I’d pull another thread, probably the one regarding Professio Fidei.

Have a good day.

God Bless,

Belloc

P.S. There are also issues of translation. Below is the RSV translation of the pertinent passage from Corinthians that St. Jerome is commenting on in the second quote. The reader may wish to compare it with the translation provided in translation of St. Jerome.

1 Cor. 7:1-9
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Sardath,

I really don’t know where you get all of this, but it can’t be within a solid faithful graduate level theology program. You submit many rapid fire jests against the Church, with a tone of great authority and precision (including the implicit claim of wisdom and discernment greater than the Vicars of Christ), and every time I pinch any one of these little jests and pull the thread, just a little bit, I find misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

The other night the thread was Augustine. Augustine’s quote was perfectly compatible with Church teaching today, in no place contradicting it. You seem to implicitly acknowledge this yourself saying I was “reading the present teaching back into Augustine.” Well, if this is rationally possible, finding no contradiction, it certainly indicates compatibility.

May I ask you, do you even have a higher degree in theology? I’m starting to believe you are an intellectually gifted person who has studied history, but not theology. And take my word for it, I’m no academic, but I notice so many of these misinterpretations or misrepresentations, yet there is no way I could or would have the time to unpack them all … especially on an anonymous message board.

This morning, the thread pinched is St. Jerome. Your first submitted quote, intended to discredit the saint, and the Church, is absolutely beautiful. And I encourage any third party who is bored enough to be reading this correspondence to click on it and read it yourself: http://www.fordham.edu:80/HALSALL/source... (the paragraph numbered, “20”). St. Jerome is here, almost like a poetic lover, musing the beauty and excellence of virginity, that is, the consecrated life. In so doing, he rightly makes the case and defends the position that consecrated virginity is a more perfect STATE OF LIFE than marriage. This doesn’t mean that consecrated PERSONS are more holy than married persons; just their state is a surer way of reaching perfection. This is COMPLETELY COMPATABLE WITH THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH TODAY.

(Continued on the next post ...)

leogen66 wrote:

>>I think it's pretty similar with any religion, social club membership, business affiliation, or whatever. ... Why is this so difficult? ... And the protesters... they obviously don't like the Catholic church. Why not leave? ... For those of you who aren't Catholic, I don't expect you to "get" this argument.<<

The problem with this argument is that it is not Catholic. The Catholic position is that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, founded by Jesus Christ, outside of which (with some exceptions) there is no salvation. At Vatican II the Church taught: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." From the Catholic standpoint the Church is not a consumer preference, or a social club, or a business affiliation, or even a denomination in the same sense that other churches are. It is *the* Church, the place where the Body of Christ is most fully expressed, different from all the others and absolutely unique in that difference--and if you know that, and leave anyway, then you have damned yourself. So when you tell someone, "If you don't like it, just leave," by the Church's own standard you are quite literally telling them to go to hell. I would hope that's not your intent, but that's the practical effect.

For at least some disgruntled Catholics, the reason they remain in the Church is that they really do believe the Church's claims for itself at this very basic level, however much they may disagree with other things. And they disagree with those other things not because they simply don't "like" them, but because they believe those things are objectively *wrong*--untrue, unjust, unhelpful, an obstacle to salvation, an offense against God, a betrayal of the Church's own teachings and mission and reason for being--and they want the problems fixed, for their own sake and everyone else's. In this sense Catholic dissenters are not like Pepsi salesmen who prefer Coke (as Belloc so crudely and inaccurately put it) but more like scientists who discover an error in another scientist's work and insist that it be corrected for the sake of science itself. They are not trying to ruin the Church or twist it to their own preferences or make it something other than what it ought to be; they are pointing out what they see as flaws that need to be corrected so the Church can more fully be what God intended it to be. Whether or not they are right about any of those things is of course another question; but at least do not reduce their concerns to a matter of taste or consumer preference, because that is *not* what it's about for them. And if you are serious about being Catholic, that shouldn't be what it's about for you, either.

Bucky Belloc wrote:

>>the Call to Action organization publically rejects the Church’s teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone. This teaching has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church ... It thus belongs to that category of teaching which is “divinely proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals”<<

But the very document you are claiming as one of your authorities for this explicitly denies it: "A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. ... in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."

If the consciousness of the Church has not yet progressed to the point where the teaching could be defined as divinely revealed, then it cannot yet have been defined as divinely revealed. It pertains rather to that body of "sort of infallible" teachings which JP2 and Ratzinger invented: "teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed."

That's the problem with these alleged "secondary objects of infallibility"--even those who think they are fully submitted to the Magisterium find the whole thing so confusing that they can't keep it straight. There is also the problem that the Church has never infallibly defined that there *are* "secondary objects of infallibility"; it's a theological opinion, nothing more, and could turn out to be wrong. (In fact it directly contradicts the teaching of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, if anybody actually cares about that.) So we're going to throw people out of the Church for denying the infallibility of teachings which are claimed to be infallible on the basis of a theological opinion which itself may turn out to be wrong? Where is the sense, or the justice, in that?

Belloc, to the degree that Madoff and I are not in the same club, Mahoney and Morlino are inversely and proportionally in the same club.

You should check to see if there are any newly transferred priests in this area from the Los Angeles area -it's possible- those LA priests had to end up somewhere.

And god bless yourself, I don't need it.

Bucky Belloc wrote:

>>since I cannot review the context of St. Jerome<<

Jerome, "Letter to Eustochium", ch. 20: "I praise wedlock, I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins."

Jerome, "Against Jovinian", ch. 7: "If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. ... Let him have and use his own wife, whom he had before he became a believer, and whom it would have been good not to touch, and, when once he became a follower of Christ, to know only as a sister, not as a wife unless fornication should make it excusable to touch her."

Both are at "http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/source/jerome-marriage.html".

>>or Gregory the Great (I don't have the book)<<

Online at New Advent: "http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3601.htm".

>>I did look up Tertullian and St. Augustine and see no "consensus" whatsoever.<<

None so blind as those who refuse to see.

>>First, Tertullian is not a saint for a reason<<

But that reason has nothing to do with his stand on sex and marriage. St. Cyprian--a bona fide saint and martyr who is memorialized in the Roman Canon--was formed by the teaching of Tertullian, and even as Bishop of Carthage (and de facto pope of all north Africa) he referred to Tertullian as "the Master".

>>Second, St. Augustine is simply saying that couples must be open to life, and yes, since concupiscence in marriage is the result of the fall (this is specified in the greater context of the book), there is an aspect of venial sin if physical pleasure is the primary motive. Purity must be pursued inside and outside of marriage.<<

Again, this is all very nice, but that isn't quite what Augustine said. You are reading the present teaching back into Augustine, rather than letting Augustine speak for himself.

>>You propose a consensus, when there is none.<<

The consensus is there, but you refuse to see it.

>>Too bad you obviously received your education from prideful dissidents who have an ax to grind against Christ's Church ... most likely due to some sin of theirs they wish to justify.<<

You have no idea what education I received--and you couldn't be more wrong.

>>Every heresy begins below the belt<<

Hogwash. What "below the belt" failing prompted Donatism? Origenism? Apollinarianism? Again, you are reading your obsession with pelvic issues back into the history, instead of letting the history speak for itself.

>>ask Henry VIII. Same old story.<<

One example does not establish a rule beginning with "every" unless there is only one example to be had.

Thank you Mabuse,

What was so extraordinary about the fact that God revealed himself in masculine terms (and thus “the big three” receive it this way), is the fact that in all the pagen religiouns surrounding them, this was not the case. The Canaanites had the female goddesses as did the Greeks and Romans. This male desgination was thus not tied to culture but the express will of God.

And Gazettefan,

Bishop Morlino is not Cardinal Mahoney anymore than your Bernie Madoff.

Ya’ll have a great day and God Bless,

Belloc

Cardinal Morlino's fellow Cardinal in Los Angeles is being investigated by the FBI for transferring pedophile and pederast priests to to new parishes. The parents and children of the new parishes are not told that the new priests are pedophiles and pederasts. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have determined that pedophilia and pederasty is incurable. Therefore new victims are made available to the transferred priests.

Erratum: "incalcitrant" in previous post should be "ankylotic." Sorry.

Belloc-

You seem like a nice person, but oh so behind: Putting it in historical perspective, can you name ANY document coming out of the middle eastern religious origins of the "big three" - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - from the Renaissance back, and even toward our times, that was stated in non-masculine terms or conceived by non males? Very few: The male role in social control was a cultural reality, archaic remains from a time and tribal places of potential physical vulnerability. God's will? Good gravy, girl: He must still have wide berth, and especially in the more backward kitchens of Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims from deep in the dunes and barren mountains of Islam.

Your fervor is admirable, though so sadly incalcitrant and wrong-minded, and I hope your "30 seminarians" turn out to be good community thinkers, leader, and comforters, even with the perverse demand of absolute celibacy: no wonder women have to be constrained; the male religious leaders must have alternative (power-based) reinforcements to compensate for the loss of the joys of making, knowing, giving physical love with them.

Sardath wrote:

>>(1) Tertullian, "Exhortation to Chastity", ch. 9. (2) Augustine, "On Marriage and Concupiscence", Book 1, ch. 17. (3) The quote from Jerome I got from a (very orthodox) Church historian, but I can't find it now. Sorry. Go ahead and call me a liar if you want to. Oh, that's right, you already have. Never mind. (4) Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book 3, ch. 27.
If a consensus among Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome, and especially Gregory the Great does not establish something as authoritative teaching in your mind ... <<

Thanks for the citations, since I cannot review the context of St. Jerome or Gregory the Great (I don't have the book), I did look up Tertullian and St. Augustine and see no "consensus" whatsoever.

First, Tertullian is not a saint for a reason, nor, if the Vatican gets a hold of these correspondences of yours, when your time comes around, will you be either.

Second, St. Augustine is simply saying that couples must be open to life, and yes, since concupiscence in marriage is the result of the fall (this is specified in the greater context of the book), there is an aspect of venial sin if physical pleasure is the primary motive. Purity must be pursued inside and outside of marriage.

You propose a consensus, when there is none. And any competent Catholic theological scholar who is not willfully aggressive toward the teaching of the Church could have showed this to you.

Too bad you obviously received your education from prideful dissidents who have an ax to grind against Christ's Church ... most likely due to some sin of theirs they wish to justify. The same old story, of course. This is why Ms. Kolpack got polluted with error in the first place ... her graduate school in Milwaukee was stacked with faculty by an aggressive homosexual Archbishop who was apparently subverting the Church and Her teaching in order to simply justify his filth.

Every heresy begins below the belt ... ask Henry VIII. Same old story. The alternative is simple repentance, and Praise Jesus Christ for His Mercy.

God Bless,

Belloc

Bucky Belloc wrote:

>>Sardath: Believes he is more competent than the popes, and the bishops when it comes to faith, morals and the discipline of the Church.<<

I never said that. I just expect these people to follow their own rules and make at least a good-faith effort not to tell lies or contradict themselves. For some reason many of them seem woefully unable to meet even that minimal standard, which I think should be troublesome to anyone who actually cares about this stuff.

So you tell me: Just how much competence did JP2 display when he changed the traditional rules for canonizing saints so that Josemaria Escriva could get over the bar without opposition? Or when he "discerned" an apostolic "charism" in that fruitcake Maciel? And what inspiration of the Holy Spirit was it that impelled two thirds of America's bishops and their minions to protect and enable child molesters for decades? If these guys are all such great shakes, with succession from the apostles and hands laid on them and the anointing of the Spirit and all the rest, how is it that they screw up so badly, and so often?

Cardinal Newman once said that a single allegedly infallible act of the magisterium which turned out not to be infallible after all would bring down the entire system and cause him to leave the Church, because it would have demonstrated itself to be a fraud. Given the claims the Church makes for itself, I think that's a reasonable standard. But if so, then there had better be clear criteria for what counts as "infallible", and people should have the freedom to examine things that are allegedly infallible to see if they stack up to reality. Inventing semi-infallible "secondary objects of infallibility" which are sort of infallible but not really isn't quite kosher. And telling people that they have no right to even question such things because they have already been decided by higher authority doesn't suggest the hierarchy has much confidence in the correctness of their own judgments. What are they afraid of?

>>Sardath draws hard conclusions against the teaching of the Church without properly recognizing his own limitations in knowledge, wisdom and interpretation on these issues … again, another manifestation of the sin of pride.<<

And Bucky Belloc is violating one of his own prime directives, namely that those who are not tasked with the care of souls should not attempt to judge the state of another's soul. Bad doggie. Go to confession.

>>BTW, what’s your sin? What do you consider the Church “wrong” on that you just won’t give up?<<

You don't know that there is any such sin in my life, and it is rude and presumptuous for you to even bring the subject up in a public forum. Bad doggie twice over. Go to confession again.

>>And I know of no Saint who ever treated the ambassadors of Christ with such distain.<<

Then you need to read more saints.

Bucky Belloc wrote:

>>Sardath provided: 1) a litany of teachings from "Mirari Vos" of Pope Gregory XVI, dated 15 August 1832, all of which must be understood in the cultural context of the time along with the intention of the Pope and what exactly he was addressing in the culture in order to be properly understood.<<

All you have to do is read Mirari Vos--just type it into Google, it's not hard to find. It's pretty clear what the intention of the Pope was, and it's exactly as I said. But if you want to argue that he didn't really know what he was doing, and you understand better than he did what he "really" meant, be my guest.

>>2) another litany of quotes on sexuality from Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great …. without any proper citations or references so others could study the context. Further, none of these quotes, even if accurate (which I completely doubt) necessarily qualify as authoritative Church teaching, nor has Sardath established them as such.<<

With a 3000-character limit on postings, footnotes get displaced by other things. But now that you've brought it up, here they are: (1) Tertullian, "Exhortation to Chastity", ch. 9. (2) Augustine, "On Marriage and Concupiscence", Book 1, ch. 17. (3) The quote from Jerome I got from a (very orthodox) Church historian, but I can't find it now. Sorry. Go ahead and call me a liar if you want to. Oh, that's right, you already have. Never mind. (4) Gregory the Great, Pastoral Rule, Book 3, ch. 27.

If a consensus among Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome, and especially Gregory the Great does not establish something as authoritative teaching in your mind, then you are free to provide a counterexample from someone you deem to have greater authority anywhere from AD 300 to 1300. Good luck finding one.

>>3) another small argument regarding the quote from Pope Pius XI regarding NFP then states, “Catholic traditionalists argue strongly that this prohibits NFP.” The fact is, traditionalists are wrong on this point. How do we know? The Pope Paul VI taught as much in Humanae Vitae in 1968.<<

So the apparently infallible teaching of Pope A is known to be fallible after all when it is subsequently contradicted by Pope B. OK, I'll buy that. But then of course that means that Pope B's allegedly infallible teaching could just as easily be subsequently contradicted by Pope C--we won't know until it happens. So if Casti Connubii can be overturned by Humanae Vitae, then Humanae Vitae could some day be overturned by something else, and contraception would then turn out not to have been sinful after all. Good grief. As one of the members of the Birth Control Commission said, "What of all the souls we sent to hell with the old teaching?" Yeah, too bad about them, but progress marches on. The trick is just to whistle a happy tune, and NEVER look back.

Sardath:

Believes he is more competent than the popes, and the bishops when it comes to faith, morals and the discipline of the Church. This qualifies him for the same sin of pride that caused many other schematics to leave the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Should a pope, the Vicar of Christ, do something which Sardath disagrees with, they are “monkey[ing] around with Canon Law.” This monkeying around Sardath refers to here is in a document called “Protecting the Faith,” (apparently from the likes of Sardath) and can be read here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2.... Readers can decide who they follow in this matter, John Paul II or His Holiness Sardath I. But should you choose to follow Sardath I, I suggest you help him rent out some space in an abandoned strip mall so you can hear him construct his own interpretation of the history of Christianity and how the Vicars of Christ, whom Jesus promised to be with till the end of the age, got it all wrong … as did, therefore, at least apparently, Jesus Christ the Son of God Himself. (Perhaps Sardath is the true messiah!)

He can expound for you with little unsubstantiated challenges to Christ’s Church that he presumes cannot be explained simply because His Holiness Sardath I doesn’t quite understand them himself. Sardath draws hard conclusions against the teaching of the Church without properly recognizing his own limitations in knowledge, wisdom and interpretation on these issues … again, another manifestation of the sin of pride.

It’s OK Sardath to not understand some things. It’s not OK to say, at least for a Catholic (are you Catholic?), that the Church is “wrong,” and Sardath is right.

BTW, what’s your sin? What do you consider the Church “wrong” on that you just won’t give up?

And I know of no Saint who ever treated the ambassadors of Christ with such distain.

God Bless,

Belloc

Bucky Belloc wrote:

>>Sardath wrote: An entire dissertation on the minutia of Bishop Bruskewitz’s excommunication of members of Call to Action<<

... providing details and context which you conveniently omitted ...

>>all it proves is my point that the excommunication STANDS. Duh.<<

Well, "duh" indeed. Nobody was disputing that. But you see, *I* thought you were making some kind of argument that what Bruskewitz did was *right*. If your only point is that bishops have the raw power to do whatever they please to their subjects, and further that Rome will generally let them get away with it no matter how ill-considered, unjust, uncharitable, illicit, counter-productive, or downright idiotic their actions may be according to scripture, tradition, civil law, canon law, and/or simple human justice and rationality ... well, I can't dispute that.

>>Further, I repeat, in formally and publically rejecting the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone, the members of Call to Action are dissenters who reject an infallible truth of Catholic doctrine and are therefore NO LONGER IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and subject to excommunication, when after being warned by their Ordinary they do not retract (Canon 1371).<<

That could be, now that JP2 and Benedict have monkeyed with Canon Law to add a whole new class of "definitive" teachings which haven't been formally defined as infallible but are now held to be "kind of infallible" anyway, just because they say so. Among these, we are told, are "the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff", "the celebration of an ecumenical council", and "the canonizations of saints". Never mind that at one point the Church had *three* Supreme Pontiffs at the same time, whose legitimacy the allegedly infallible magisterium was never able to sort out. Never mind that the official list of ecumenical councils includes the so-called "Eighth Ecumenical", all of whose acts and decrees were suppressed and invalidated by a subsequent Pope. Never mind that among the canonized saints celebrated in the old Roman liturgical calendar was a certain "St. Josaphat", who turned out to be none other than Gautama Buddha. Now we are being told by certain highly placed people that the act by which Rome discerned the "charism" of the late Fr. Maciel, the founder of the Legion of Christ, was also one of these supposed "secondary objects of infallibility" and hence can never be reversed--despite the fact that Maciel has now turned out to be a liar, drug addict, embezzler, child molester, and all around con-man and sociopath.

Oh, joy.

>>Sorry Sardath, it is not hunky dory to reject infallible Church teaching.<<

Neither is it hunky dory to just make stuff up as you go along, which is what Rome seems to have been doing for the past thirty years or so. But what the heck--the rubes will keep slurping it down anyway, and the rest of us can just go to perdition.

Leogen66,

You rock.

If one is working as a Pepsi salesperson they shouldn't be selling Coke. Or, better yet, if they run the finest restaurant in town, they shouldn't serve four-day-old rancid, cold Big Macs that can make you sick ... and perhaps even cause death. If they do, they should be fired.

God Bless, ... and I too LOVE BEING CATHOLIC! PRAISED BE JESUS CHRIST NOW AND FOREVER!! THANK YOU BISHOP MORLINO ... YOU'RE OUR HERO. WE LOVE YOU!

Belloc

Sardath provided:

1) a litany of teachings from "Mirari Vos" of Pope Gregory XVI, dated 15 August 1832, all of which must be understood in the cultural context of the time along with the intention of the Pope and what exactly he was addressing in the culture in order to be properly understood.

2) another litany of quotes on sexuality from Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and Pope Gregory the Great …. without any proper citations or references so others could study the context. Further, none of these quotes, even if accurate (which I completely doubt) necessarily qualify as authoritative Church teaching, nor has Sardath established them as such.

3) another small argument regarding the quote from Pope Pius XI regarding NFP then states, “Catholic traditionalists argue strongly that this prohibits NFP.” The fact is, traditionalists are wrong on this point. How do we know? The Pope Paul VI taught as much in Humanae Vitae in 1968.

The Church’s teaching does not change, but develops organically.

Sardath, here in Janesville Ave Maria University is offering a Masters Program in Pastoral Theology with a new class beginning in the Fall. I suggest you enroll.

God Bless,

Belloc

Sardath wrote:

An entire dissertation on the minutia of Bishop Bruskewitz’s excommunication of members of Call to Action … all of which is completely irrelevant, because all it proves is my point that the excommunication STANDS. Duh.

Further, I repeat, in formally and publically rejecting the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone, the members of Call to Action are dissenters who reject an infallible truth of Catholic doctrine and are therefore NO LONGER IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and subject to excommunication, when after being warned by their Ordinary they do not retract (Canon 1371).

Sorry Sardath, it is not hunky dory to reject infallible Church teaching.

Nice try.

Belloc

Momof5 wrote:

>>Catholicism states that one shall only partake in sex with one's married spouse for the purpose of procreation.<<

Belloc wrote:

>>this is erroneous ... Married couple have to open to life, but sexuality has a unitive purpose as well communicating total self-gift and reception between the spouses (as an image of Our Creator, the Holy Trinity).<<

That's nice, Belloc, but it's not the traditional teaching of the Church. According to the traditional teaching, "Momof5" is correct: Sex is "for procreation, not recreation." In fact, this is a perfect example of how the supposedly unchanging teaching of the Church sometimes does change. Tertullian (3rd cent.) said that marriage was nothing but legalized fornication. Augustine (4th/5th cent.) reluctantly permitted spouses to have sex for the explicit purpose of procreation, but added that if they did so for any other reason (say, because having sex with your spouse is fun) it was at least a venial sin, and if they did so while actually hoping no conception would result--even without resort to contraceptives--they sinned mortally and in fact would "retain no vestige of true matrimony, but use the honorable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct." Jerome (also 4th/5th cent.) agreed, calling marriage a "sewer" whose only justification was the creation of new virgins. Pope Gregory the Great (6th cent.) taught explicitly that matrimony was *only* for the production of children--once you had your quota of them you should never have sex again, and even while you were attempting to procreate you should strive not to "foul the fair form of conjugal union with the admixture of pleasure." And despite a few wobbles along the way, and the doubts of some good-hearted saints, this remained the official Catholic teaching on the subject for the next millennium or so.

Of course this is not what the Church teaches today; somewhere along the way the traditional teaching died and was quietly buried. Now the Church even gives its encouragement to Natural Family Planning, which Augustine considered a mortal sin and a crime against nature. Even as late as 1930, Pope Pius XI wrote: "Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." Catholic traditionalists argue strongly that this prohibits NFP, and they are probably right--but no one else cares anymore. All that officially remains of the original teaching is the prohibition on *artificial* contraceptives, and the overwhelming majority of Catholics no longer pay any attention to that, either.

That's the history. How to reconcile all this with the current teaching of the Church is (fortunately) not my problem--but I must admit I don't envy those whose problem it is.

There is no way I can "compete" with the intellectual arguments going on here. I just wish to offer my 2 cents worth, and I will try to spell everything correctly, since that seems to matter.

I belong to the Catholic church for several reasons. I was raised a protestant, and willingly joined on my own. And I am a woman. I do not find my faith to be a matter of "convenience," or what is "popular." Yes, the Catholic church has rules and regulations, which are primarily laws of man. I choose to follow them. If I didn't, I would become a Lutheran or Methodist. I choose to follow these laws and do not want my Church to be "watered down." If someone professes to be a Catholic, there isn't much room to pick and choose what they believe. I profess the Creed and believe it with all my heart. I don't think there's much room to water anything down. Do I say, "oh Jesus, it's great you died for me, but it obviously wasn't that big of a deal. I don't feel like believing in everything." No. I don't. If that's how I felt, I'd leave this church and find one that better fit me.

I think it's pretty similar with any religion, social club membership, business affiliation, or whatever. In my career, I follow a set of rules. I don't walk in one day and decide I don't think the rules are fair, or that I don't feel like following them. If I do, it's not my company's fault; I'm the one who changed, and I'm the one who should move on.

Why is this so difficult? This fine woman obviously doesn't believe everything in the church. Catholics are pro-life. That's who we are. Woman can't be priests. That's how it is. If I don't like it.... it's time to change churches. And the protesters... they obviously don't like the Catholic church. Why not leave? I see my church filled every Sunday (3 services) with kids, young adults, middle agers and elderly. We all like it here. And we don't WANT it to change.

There, 2 cents worth from a normal, ordinary person. No theological background, just a love for my faith. I think we're lucky to have Bishop Morlino. He's keeping our Church from being watered down, convenient and socially (in)correct.

For those of you who aren't Catholic, I don't expect you to "get" this argument. (unless maybe you are a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran like I was.) That's OK. We Catholics may seem weird, but trust me, we're OK with it =)

Del wrote:

>>It has been many years since the parish received honest catechesis on the hard Catholic truths:<<

I absolutely agree with you on this point, although not necessarily on the exact list of which truths should be foregrounded. In fact, I (and many others) have been arguing this point with parish and diocesan officials for years, to absolutely no effect. It's like talking color to a blind man; they just don't get it, even when they say they do. "Oh, sure, we're going to do something about that," they say, and then nothing happens.

My own list would include why Christians should not:

- chase after material wealth
- participate in nationalist idolatry
- oppress the poor and downtrodden
- seek vengeance against their enemies
- give their support to torture and unjust wars

It's been a long time since I've heard any homilies on these topics, either. The fact is, the Church has become assimilated to the surrounding culture at both ends of the political spectrum, not just on the "liberal" side of things. And it should be noted that of the "sins that cry out to heaven" (CCC 1867), not one is a "pelvic" sin--not even the "sin of the Sodomites", which is not "sodomy" as we currently use that term but rather sins against the poor and the stranger. ("This is the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49) Shedding innocent blood; hardheartedness to the poor; inhospitality to the stranger; forced labor; exploitation of the helpless; oppression of the widow and the orphan; injustice to the wage earner--these, we are told, are sins so grievous that they rise up to the very throne of God himself demanding retribution. The pelvic sins don't even make the list--which suggests that by putting so much emphasis on these to the exclusion of everything else, we have managed to invert God's own sense of priorities.

>>Instead, there is a risk that our children will learn that calling God "Our Father" is somehow damaging to girls and their "self-esteem."<<

It is a fact, amply documented, that *something* happens to many girls' self-esteem along the way to adulthood. I seriously doubt if calling God "Father" is part of the problem, but the problem itself should not be dismissed out of hand. Historically, the Church *has* had a problem with "patriarchal" attitudes toward women, and this has often given social support to grievous oppression that runs exactly contrary to Jesus' own tenderness toward women and St. Paul's teaching that "in Christ there is neither male nor female". Radical feminism is not the answer, but neither is the misogyny that one frequently finds among conservative Christians, including some Catholics. We can do better than that, and the Church should be leading the way.

Del wrote:

>>Hello Sardath! Where you with the Janesville protestors? I might have seen you.<<

No, I wasn't there. Not my cup of tea. In fact, I hadn't even heard of this whole controversy until I logged in this morning.

>>Truth is, the Catholic Church is still the same Church that Jesus founded. Everything that was true before Vatican II is still true.<<

I would agree that it is recognizably and essentially the same Church, but it isn't quite true that there were no changes in its teaching at Vatican II. For example, the teachings of Mirari Vos that I outlined previously were all repudiated by the Council, sometimes emphatically; in fact the "liberty of conscience" which was so thoroughly condemned by Pope Gregory ended up enshrined in the current edition of Canon Law and the new Catechism as "the teaching of the Church". A more accurate statement would be that nothing which was dogmatically defined before Vatican II ceased to be dogma after the Council, and nothing which was not dogma before the Council became dogma as a result of the Council. And that is exactly what the highest teaching authority Church itself says on the subject.

But there *were* many changes in non-dogmatic teachings, some of them quite significant; and many of these caused a great deal of dispute and even rancor among the bishops at the Council precisely because they *were* changes, which many of the more conservative bishops (especially in the Curia) vehemently opposed. This is, in fact, at the root of the SSPX's refusal to accept Vatican II as a legitimate Council, because the SSPX insists (quite correctly!) that the Council *did* change Catholic teaching on a great many points, and they don't think that should have happened. Where the SSPX went wrong was in how they viewed those changes; from their standpoint the changes were a heretical deviation from infallible and therefore irreformable dogma, whereas to everybody else the changes constituted either legitimate doctrinal development or else the repudiation of errors and misunderstandings. This is why it is so important to be careful about sorting out what is infallible dogma and what is (possibly fallible) doctrine. If we call everything infallible then the Church can never change, even for the better; if we call everything fallible, then everything is up for grabs and we have no solid foundation on which to build anything at all. Neither position is that of the Church itself.

Belloc wrote:

>>For a Catholic to "disagree" or reject Church teaching, merely demonstrates pride, ignorance and a rejection of the One Who sent us the Church, Jesus Christ Himself (“those who hear you hear me”). ... Authoritative teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church have developed, but never changed (from the apostles right down to today).<<

How about these authoritative teachings:

(1) that "liberty of conscience" is an "absurd and erroneous proposition" and "a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other" which inevitably leads to the corruption of youth and the downfall of civilization;

(2) that freedom of the press is a "harmful and never sufficiently denounced" evil, that those who defend it are "depraved", and that the Church has not only the right but the duty to "exterminate the deadly poison of so many books" by seeing to it that "the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames";

(3) that monarchy is the only Christian form of government, democracy being nothing more than "treason and sedition" and "detestable insolence" against "the unchanging subjection to princes" which "necessarily proceeds from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion";

(4) that separation of Church and state is an error of "the shameless lovers of liberty" who desire to "break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood ... which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order";

(5) that those who hold to any other religion or even adhere to a schismatic sect (e.g., Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) "will without a doubt perish forever", and those who believe that it is even possible for non-Catholics to be saved are guilty of a "perverse opinion" and "deadly error" which is "spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked".

All of this is from the encyclical "Mirari Vos" of Pope Gregory XVI, dated 15 August 1832. An encyclical, it should be noted, is traditionally considered the highest form of papal teaching authority short of an ex cathedra definition, so this can hardly be dismissed as "just some Pope's opinion". It was, quite simply, "the teaching of the Catholic Church" at the time it was given, and for the most part it remained so until the mid-20th century. So how is it that the "authoritative teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" never change, yet somehow, in the course of a hundred years or so, these authoritative teachings were not only repudiated but stood on their heads?

Hello Sardath! Where you with the Janesville protestors? I might have seen you...
--------------------------
What do SSPX and CALL TO ACTION have in common?

- Both have swallowed a false belief that the Catholic Church "changed" after Vatican II.

The SSPX rejects this supposedly "new church." CALL TO ACTION hopes to advance this "new church," which they imagine is run by the laity.

Truth is, the Catholic Church is still the same Church that Jesus founded. Everything that was true before Vatican II is still true. All the sacraments after Vatican II are still valid.

And Vatican II clearly says the church is still run by bishops: priests & laity must still be obedient. (see Lumen Gentium, paragraph 18 ff.)

Actually, protesting the bishop in public with signs and jeers should incur an automatic excommunication. Accusing the Bishop before the pagans is exactly what St. Paul warned against in I Cor 6. Catholics lodging public protests are on very unsteady ground morally.

Sadly, we are losing the poignant tragedy of this story. This is not at all about Gallileo, Marxism, or Pope John XXIII.

This story is about a beloved parish employee who doesn't believe what the Catholic faith teaches.

Ms. Kolpack is two things to the Catholic Church in Beloit:

a) She is beloved community leader, with a large gathering of friends and followers in Beloit. By all accounts, she has done a great deal of good work with other churches, the poor, and various ethnic communities.

b) She is also an active participant in various dissident and anti-Catholic groups, such as CALL TO ACTION and pro-abortion groups. She holds a feminist theology that insists the Catholic Church is unfair to women somehow.

It has been many years since the parish received honest catechesis on the hard Catholic truths:
- why priests must be men,
- why homosexuality is a mortal sin,
- why contraception is a mortal sin,
- the issues of chastity, fornication, and divorce

Instead, there is a risk that our children will learn that calling God "Our Father" is somehow damaging to girls and their "self-esteem."

After long, quiet discussions and chronic inaction, our bishop was finally forced to take action... and then CALL TO ACTION came to protest.

The real tragedy... the honest victims here... are the people of Beliot Catholic parishes.

What we really deserve is for Ruth Kolpack to explain why she is not suitable for leading a Catholic parish. This is her story to tell, and no one else should tell it for her.

CALL TO ACTION should stay out of this parish's private and painful business.

Belloc wrote:

>>Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, formally excommunicated members of Call to Action in his diocese, for such membership, he stated, “is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith."<<

More accurately, he stated that such membership is "most often" totally incompatible with the Catholic faith, without specifying in what way or to what extent that might be true in the case of the CTA. This is especially important to remember because CTA was not the only group to be thus excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz; the same decree also banned membership in eleven other organizations all across the theological spectrum, including the very conservative SSPX--the same SSPX whose leaders' excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict earlier this year. Does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing?

>>After Call to Action appealed the excommunication to Rome, it was upheld by the Vatican.<<

Not quite. Bruskewitz's action was personally approved (ten years after the fact!) by Cardinal Re, the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; but apparently this was only done by way of an informal letter and not by a formal juridical act of the Congregation, which makes it unclear how much authority (if any) was actually being exercised. One should also note the grounds for Re's disapproval of the CTA: "the activities of Call to Action in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint". This is so vague as to be meaningless; apparently the CTA is not guilty of actual heresy, but only of advocating views which are, in the Cardinal's opinion, "doctrinally unacceptable"--which could be almost anything. It is especially disconcerting to see that part of the Cardinal's disapproval of the CTA pertains to their views on "disciplinary" matters, which by definition are neither infallible nor unchangeable. Are we now going to excommunicate people merely for asking the hierarchy to reevaluate its position on matters which, by the hierarchy's own admission, are based not on divine revelation or its authoritative interpretation but on mere prudential judgment?

In any case, CTA appealed the Cardinal's "decision", such as it was, to the Apostolic Signatura (the Church's "Supreme Court"), which rejected the appeal not on its merits but for lack of jurisdiction. This can hardly be considered a ringing endorsement of either the logic or the justice of Bruskewitz's action, especially when one of the other groups he excommunicated is now being personally courted by the Pope for readmission to full communion, even though their positions on the issues--positions which got them excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz--have not changed one iota in the meantime.

Hi Momo,

Sorry, I will definitely pray for you. And please pray for me as well ... especially since you are such an advocate of charity.

Second, this is erroneous: "Catholicism states that one shall only partake in sex with one's married spouse for the purpose of procreation." Married couple have to open to life, but sexuality has a unitive purpose as well communicating total self-gift and reception between the spouses (as an image of Our Creator, the Holy Trinity). This is one reason contraception is a lie. When it is used to mutilates this generous body language to one of each person being selfish, thus encouraging mutual disrespect instead of mutual love. This also helps explain how the divorce rate climbed in proportion to the distribution and use of contraception in the culture for the last few decades.

Third, though you state, "I also hope you are donating 20% of your income to the Church," tradition, based on Abraham giving 10% of all he had to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20), proposes we should give 10% to the Church and / or charity as well. I would say half of this could be used for the Catholic education of one's children as well.

God Bless and prayers for you ... please pray for me as well. I am in need much conversion.

Belloc

Instead of trading barbs back and forth over thesis this and thesis that and doctrines up the wazoo, read this article: http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/mar/15/......

A 92 year-old woman is being much more loving and living a life full of Christianity than you Sunday preachers are on here!

And, if anyone wants to call another person a hypocrite, look no further than your own mirror. Catholicism states that one shall only partake in sex with one's married spouse for the purpose of procreation. I also hope you are donating 20% of your income to the Church.

Don't pray for me, Belloc. Save that for your own redemption.

Browneyes and Co.,
I'm a seminarian, one of Bishop's "crons" as you so charitably called us, even though I have nothing to do with the situation. So thank you for insulting me even though I have nothing to do with this. I love my Bishop and my Diocese so I guess that makes me a cron and a woman-hater so thanks a lot. Thanks, NOT, for insulting my Bishop too. You must stop your disobedience and the insulting to the Bishop and the Diocese right now. Don’t you realize that by insulting him or any other priest or bishop, you are insulting Christ Himself and His Mother, our Mother? And even worse, God the Father? Pray for our beloved Bishop instead, that is what you should be doing if you really want unity, if you want division, keep doing what you are doing. Ask the Lord to help you to resolve and express your anger in a different way and to understand what He wants for all of us.
It saddens me to think that for some people, who I will be serving in the future, God willing, it is more important to please the people of a community, the un-democratic party, and un-planned parenthood than to obey the Church and our Beloved Bishops who have existed since Christ established them and have the privilege to stand in persona Christi. We should be concerned on pleasing God by celebrating the Eucharist correctly, helping our neighbor, the poor, and evangelizing the culture rather than letting the culture evangelize us, rather than trying to change what is not up to us to change (because the language and everything in the Eucharist is Scriptural) so who really dares to change Scripture? I certainly do not. So read the Scriptures, if you don’t know them, you don’t know Christ, if you do not know Christ you do not know His bishops and priests.
I pray that CTA's actions may stop immediately.
May the Lord bring unity to our community.

Browneyes,

Further you ask, "’If it were up to John XXIII, we'd be worshipping in Latin.’ Are you not aware that this is the direction that Bishop Morlino is taking this diocese?” Precisely! See? Bishop Morlino, is a “John XXIII Catholic”! :-)

Actually, yes, there is an attempt to emphasize the CONTINUITY of the Second Vatican Council, and it’s interpretation with the rest of the history of the Church … and this includes, centrally, the Liturgy. Pope Benedict has spoken about this many times. He has also said that “the Marxist interpretation of the [Second Vatican] Council caused chaos” in the Church. As shown below, Call to Action is part of this.

Every one of us is called to be a saint. As Christ demonstrates, this requires obedience to the Father, to Jesus Christ, His Church and his vicars, in all the legitimate respects. If you can find an example of Bishop Morlino requesting obedience in an illegitimate way, the day is yours.

Intimidation? Hardly any priest has even been moved since he arrived here. He hasn’t touched them … why? Because he loves them, and wants them to be happy, as he should. In my view he has shown incredible forbearance with them.

As for the CD homily, Bishops have right to address their flock anytime they wish. Each pulpit in the diocese is his. This has always been the case. If he required a CD every week, chances are mass attendance would rise due to his solid preaching.

As shown above, I think Bishop Morlino simply wants all teachers of the Faith to “be on board” with the Church, assenting to all of Her beautiful and life giving teachings. After all, the stakes are high … heaven and hell. Especially for a bishop, whose responsibilities are so great. In ensuring sound Catholic teaching in his parishes, Bishop Morlino is also working to save his own soul.

Finally, “conservative” and “liberal” are political terms that don’t apply in the Church. In the Church we are “faithful” if we assent to all Her teachings, or “unfaithful” if we reject them. Due to their rejection of Catholic doctrine, the members of Call to Action are the later. It only makes sense that Bishop Morlino would ensure the former category represents the teachers of the faith in his parishes.

Peace to you my friend. Let’s pray for each other.

Belloc

Browneyes,

First, with regard to Call to Action not being Marxist, please see my previous post.

Secondly, the Call to Action organization publically rejects the Church’s teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone. This teaching has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADT..., CDF, Doctrinal Commentary, 11). It thus belongs to that category of teaching which is “divinely proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfoat..., Professio Fidei). “Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths,” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADT..., Commentary,6-7).

Thus, in formally and publically rejecting this teaching regarding priestly ordination being reserved to men alone, the members of Call to Action are dissenters who reject an infallible truth of Catholic doctrine and are therefore no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church (Commentary, 6). In addition, they are subject to ecclesiastical penalty, not excluding excommunication, when after being warned by their Ordinary they do not retract (Canon 1371).

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, formally excommunicated members of Call to Action in his diocese, for such membership, he stated, “is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.” After Call to Action appealed the excommunication to Rome, it was upheld by the Vatican.

Therefore, any priests or religious who are members of Call to Action, and thus attend their national conference, indicating their dissent on this teaching regarding Holy Orders, are dissenters who reject an infallible truth of Catholic doctrine and are therefore no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church (Commentary, 6).

And thus, it would make perfect sense, that a Bishop would terminate the service of a person who, with this point of view, was teaching in one of his parishes. Fair enough?

God Bless my friend,

Belloc

Mabus,

I think you're mistaken. There WERE few vocations around here until Bishop Morlino showed up. Now we have 30 seminarians. I wonder why? Could it be that he is committed to fulfilling his duty of teaching the entirety of the faith. As the Lord said, “by their fruits you shall know them” ! :-)

Call to Action rejects the infallible teaching of the Church that Holy Orders, by the will of the Son of God, is reserved to men alone. Obviously, the Almighty had a reason for doing this ... as he has a reason for revealing himself in masculine terms in the Old Testament as well ... as the Bridegroom or Father to Israel (the prefigurement of the Church). And it can't be because men are superior to women, because we know they are not. It is due to His communicating with us through symbol. If you noticed, men and women are called to COMPLIMENT one another in mutual TOTAL self-giving, covenantal love. This image represents the model of what we are called to in our relationship with God ... including in the liturgy, as I explained below (the priest represents Christ the Bridegroom, etc.).

What does this have to do with Marx? Call to Action wants to toss out this infallible truth regarding Holy Orders being reserved to men alone using the Marxist method of "class conflict." In this case, the "oppressed" class is women who have a difficult time being symbols of a bridegroom. In doing so, Call to Action maligns the loving communion of the Church as Jesus Chris the Son of God created it to be.

This is why altar girls (an absolute non-essential aspect of the liturgy ... like choosing whether or not to have a communion song) are to the Call to Action crowd THE most important aspect of the Liturgy. For Catholics, it is the Eucharistic Prayer and Jesus Christ becoming substantially present Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. For Call to Action (who have inherited their worldview from Marx, whether they know it or not) it is the fact that it is permissible to have altar girls ... and maybe, just maybe, they hope, now being closer to the altar, girls will one day be able to be Bridegrooms too!

So, the point is ... Marx, Lenin and Stalin used a deceitful ideology of "class conflict" to overthrow the Christian order in Russia, and Call to Action is using the same IDEA, that is, IDEOLOGY to achieve their ends here. Got it?

And I propose to you that Catholic Churches are not packed, because the faith has been watered down, and the mass in most places is a pale image of what it should be ... in teaching and reverence. But Bishop Morlino’s 30 seminarians will change all that in due time.

God Bless you, Belloc

This discussion is hilarious. If one does not want to be a Catholic, quit being one. I saw the hypocrisy in the Catholic church already in the second grade when I was taught in a Catholic grade school. I remember raising my hand and asking "Sister Celeste" to run that theory of the trinity by me one more time. A mystery. LOL! Even a second grader saw through that. I learned many years ago --- Falsehood can have a little truth mixed in but truth can have no falsehood. God has spelled out how he wants to be worshipped. Problem is so many don't get it and certainly the turmoil in the Catholic church should wake a few people up.

sannio- ?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

Dear Belloc,
Who are 'YOU?' Call To Action is not "Marxist" and it is not out to destroy the priesthood. I suggest that you attend a national conference sometime and see how many priests, sisters and parishioners attend or are presenters at the annual conference. I read several of your comments..."If it were up to John Paul XXIII, we'd be worshipping in Latin." Are you not aware that this is the direction that Bishop Morlino is taking this diocese? Visit St. Mary's Parish in Pine Bluff, WI, west of Madison where you'll see a line of male only altar servers, along with a Mass by Fr. Rick Heilman that is clearly a return to pre-Vatican II. Your attempt to Catechise the Janesville Gazette readership is fruitless. Attend some of the parishes in the Diocese of Madison where the people in the pew no longer have a say in their parish. Staff at the diocese cannot dialogue with the Bishop,either. He won't listen. He's usually never there and when he is: there is FEAR. Fear of job loss. It's a stain that Bishop Morlino is spreading across the Diocese of Madison. And it is done via intimidation of his priests, parishioners and through diocesan and parish staff. Look at the Bishop's homilies and writings in the Catholic Herald. The word "Obedience" is repeated over and over again. His pastoral effectiveness has diminished and is overridden by intimidation of parish and diocesan staff and his priests. (Remember the mandatory homily we all had to listen to a few year's back?) Again, look what has happened to a pastoral associate at this Beloit parish, who has made her life's vocation working for the Church. I can guarantee that her firing won't be the last as it will continue until the Bishop and his staff of cronies are satisfied that 'everyone is on board' with him. Control and greed doesn't just happen in the corporate world....it happens within the Catholic Church, too. This is very sad and I'm sure this saddens the Lord, too. Controversy over whether one is a conservative or liberal in the Church...doesn't matter here. It is all about how you treat people and accept your fellow man. Ruth was treated unfairly. Please support your parish priest. And, by the way, peace my friend, you need it.

Belloc - Boy you're a beaut: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and a recasting of Galileo. It's about the reference to God in gender terms, here. Nothing to do with the Russian revolution, who has priority when killings go on (Russian losses just to the czars and Hitler are staggering by comparison with allegations anti Stalin and Lenin, and far beyond all ours overall, even in all our wars fighting on behalf of murderous superiority-idiocy like yours); or with any of your other brain-dried Tail-gunner-Joe-University hokum. It' a simple semantic question of subordinating our concept of God to (middle eastern-originated - look at the Church's beginnings) sexist teminology, which in turn foments the very inequality Christianity purported for centuries to address. Paul is hardly a pillar of progressive magnanimity in the world's view, and have you done the counting of how many of us are at masses these days? how many masses are even offered on Sundays? how many priests we produce? (Never mind nuns - there are none. Ever wonder why?)

Newsreader,

John XXIII was far more conservative than Bishop Morlino. If it were up to him, you'd be worshiping strictly in Latin today. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Secondly, a little distinction is in order to help you with your point of view: there is an essential difference between not understanding a teaching, and rejecting it. To be Catholic means that one accepts the radical notion that "someone, somewhere just might be smarter than me." Who is smarter? God. What did God do? He became a man and founded a Church and gave to that Church everything that he himself is ... including his authority. One can certainly be a faithful Catholic not understanding all the teachings, or even having 1,000 questions about them (which they are best served and encouraged by the Church to pursue answers to). But when they say "the Church is wrong" on a teaching (presuming relevant authority to the particular teaching), there is now a much different problem. And the fact is those who pursue authentic answers to their questions, find them, and the joy that goes with finding the "pearl of great price" ... realizing that God has not abandoned us to the whims of our own ignorance, but provided a Church that is indeed “the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) we can count on to teach us the truth. Have a thousand questions, and pursue them ... you will find answers which are virtually futile for the intellectually honest to reject. For a Catholic to "disagree" or reject Church teaching, merely demonstrates pride, ignorance and a rejection of the One Who sent us the Church, Jesus Christ Himself (“those who hear you hear me”).

As for tradition, the Catholic Church is easily the most committed institution in the world of drawing distinctions between divine revelation and man-made interpretations ... between divine authority which the Church can never change, and the precepts of Church authority, which can be changed.

Authoritative teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church have developed, but never changed (from the apostles right down to today).

And the people you identify as "true believers" are simply those who want all Catholics to be who they profess to be ... and discover the richness and joy of this faith they profess with complete freedom during the Creed at Sunday Mass. And this joy is merely a foretaste of the eternal joy of heaven.

The "true believers" also recognize the dreadful consequences of not accepting and practicing the faith: broken families, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, AIDS, broken hearts, broken lives, gangs, drugs, violence, crime, war, depopulation, cloning, killing human embryoes for experimentation, totalitarianism, death of a people and nation ... that is, a foretaste of hell.

I highly recommend Newsreader, your becoming a "true believer."

Thanks Worldlove.

What makes people think she was fired for being a woman?

That's simply the way Marxists think. Some group (but just their favorite) is always being oppressed. But this is not the case for all groups ... like the clergy for instance can never be oppressed ... as it was OK for Lenin and Stalin to butcher them with millions of other believing Christians because they were arbitrarily classified as the "bourgeoisie" by the powerful butchers. Or, like the preborn children today, who are classified as "non-persons" by the powerful in our society, and thus left exposed as fair game for butchering.

But instead of these real oppressions (the daily killings going on in our midst), the Marxists Call to Action types devote their attention to how the Marxist / feminist agenda regarding altar girls is going to be pushed back by the fact some priests exercise their lawful right to enhance the "bridegroom" symbolism at Holy Mass (and with the mass, symbolism is of central importance) by implementing the preference of the Church for male altar servers. (Look Gina! That is one sentence! Just like St. Paul would write!:-)

For the ongoing attempt of these types to destroy the priesthood, and thus the Church Christ founded (which can and will never happen, btw), is far more important to them than the ongoing killing of children in their midst. Hmm. I think that tells us all we need to know about these folks. They are either ignorant or malicious. Let's hope the former ... and let's hope and pray they repent.

If the Catholic Church wishes to become a much smaller group consisting only of "true believers" (defined by a self-selected group), continuing on the path of Morlino will get you there. If it wishes to welcome those who appreciate the Catholic faith, but have disagreement with the interpretations provided by humans (and the interpretation has changed over the years), it needs to take a deep breath and realize that different does not mean wrong.

Unfortunately, I think the "true believers" are winning out right now. It is the Catholic equivalent of fundamentalist Christians (if I think it, it must be God's will). John XXIII must be turning in his grave.

what makes people think she was fired for being a woman? maybe it was for certain reasons and not the sex of the person. I am a woman and yes women do get treated differently at times but this is not one of those times. Belloc: right on with the virgin mary comment!

Yes. And one's refutation of an argument is non-existent when all they have to address is a misspelled word (on a message board).

One loses the strength of argument when one repeatedly misspells words.

Excellent. Thank you Gina for reading it so attentively. And I presume you concede the rest of the argument.

Vegetarian (sp) lol not vegitarian

Browneyes (is this your real name?),

This is hilarious! Just prior to writing a serenade of groundless accusations against Bishop Morlino, you say with regards to the accusations against this woman, "these accusations are written by some coward, some unknown person or persons."

Who are YOU? A coward?

The world capital of embryonic stem cell research is certainly complimented by a courageous Catholic bishop who happens to have a doctorate in bioethics. And thank God he is here. They're building their enormous multi-million $$ ESCR mill in Madison right now. I suggest you focus your energies on a more worthy cause than your marxist agenda when it comes to the non-essential, non-important issue of altar girls. Altar girls are AN OPTION, and altar boys a PREFERENCE according to the Catholic Church. Why? For the symbolic value ... Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is the bride, the priest stands in the person of Christ the Bridegroom and the altar boys contribute to this male symbolism serving the feminine Church. Sorry, Jesus Christ founded the Church, not the hero of you and Call to Action, Karl Marx.

BTW everyone, no clergy or bishops are a part of Call to Action anymore. The group was hijacked ... and in Lincoln, NE, formally excommunicated. Why don't ya'll have the courage of your convictions and leave?

I see no problem with her being a Catholic and feeling conflicted over the fact that women are marginalized by the church. Obviously, that language is not accepted in secular society, so it would be pretty ignorant not to question it in another context. Every Catholic should question why that aspect of their religion doesn't jive with the society they accept being a part of on a day to day basis. I think if someone professes to think of women as equals Monday-Friday then they should not be hypocrites on Sunday and just ignore a clear contradiction in their lives. She is clearly more honest than others because she admits to the contradiction.

SarahB1,

Does your pronouncement include the Blessed Virgin Mary whom the Church venerates with hyper dulia? That is, with greater honor then any other Saint? Including the entire heavenly host? Indeed we call her, a mere human creature, "Queen of Angels," for even Angels, who have an almost infinitely greater nature than we, exult in obeying her.

Is that what you mean? Or, have you been contaminated with Marxist / Feminist ideology that looks upon the Church with the method of interpretation of Karl Marx ("oppressors vs. oppressed") ... instead of the communion of complimentary love instituted by Jesus Christ on the Cross?

BTW, if it were not for Jesus Christ and His Church, you'd be somebody's property right now.

Who needs to wake up?

Zippy,

Galileo's problem was not in his commitment to the theory of heliocentricity. The Church had already accepted this scientific theory (as a perfectly legitimate THEORY) two decades before Galileo was even born when it was advanced by Polish monk Nicholas Copernicus. As you may know, modern scientific method and inquiry originated and was developed in the Catholic Church, of course (for true faith and reason [i.e. science]) can never authentically contradict one another.

Galileo's problem was insisting upon the assent of the Church to theological conclusions that had not yet been adequately supported, considered, or developed. He wanted the authority of the Pope to make theological pronouncements, infallibly, without the authority Christ had given to St. Peter and his successors, of course.

This is virtually what every new protestant denomination does as well ... along with members of Call to Action. They all want to be their own little pope to make their own little pronouncements about what they consider to be true or false, good or evil ... just as the serpent promised them in the garden, "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" ... that is, creating your own good and evil, your own little universe, etc. Some may wish to do this (by, say, professing it is OK to slice and dice preborn boys and girls in the womb, etc.) but you can't do this and be a sincere Catholic at the same time. To be a Catholic means to assent to the teachings of the Church from the Apostles all the way down to the teaching of their successors the bishops today (which is all perfectly consistent). And people are free to believe in this way, or not to. Accept it, or reject it. One cannot have it both ways (like being a "meat eating vegitarian"). Fair enough?

So, you guys believe whatever you want. But Catholics believe Jesus Christ the Son of God founded the Catholic Church on the rock of St. Peter and promised to be with the Church till the end of time ... "those who hear you hear me," etc., and ensuring this clear message of teaching is readily available to the people of Beloit is Bishop Morlino's responsibility before God. He is simply exercising that duty. And who can really fault him for that?

This bishop and his anti-Ruth crowd need to wake up to reality. The Church is wrong to treat females like second-class members.

Sannio, Disagree all you want. But if someone professes to be Catholic, they should be Catholic. Right?

If someone professes to be a vegitarian, they shouldn't eat meat. Is that too much to expect? And, such a meat eating "vegitarian" shouldn't be teaching students in "vegitarian" class that one can be a perfectly good vegitarian, even if they eat bacon burger dogs every day.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

I applaud Call to Action's response to Ruth Kolpack's dismissal. It is an unfair and an unreasonable firing, particularly because these accusations are written by some coward, some unknown person or persons. How ridiculous for Bishop to fire a church worker based on accusations by unknown parties. Ruth had no chance to defend herself. I do know that other parish and diocesan employees, particularly women, have met with a similar fate via harrassment, bullying and intimidation by this Bishop's 'right hand staff.' Catholic women are marginalized by the hierarchy in this diocese, and it is done by the cronies who have surrounded the Bishop. It's sheer cronyism. There are approximately 6 parishes in our diocese that I know of where the priests won't allow girl's as altar servers any longer. What is this telling our daughters? Please support and believe in Call to Action's efforts as the organization, (originally formed over 30 years ago by priests, bishops and laity)stands for the good of all of the Church. This nationwide Catholic organization seeks fair and just reform of our Catholic Church. We need CTA's local and national support now more than ever in this diocese. Bishop Morlino is a henchman; a wolf in sheep's clothing and he has mesmerized his flock into thinking he can do no wrong. Call any Catholic in the Diocese of Helena, Montana where Morlino came from. They will let you know what a financial wreck he left their diocese in. It took 3 archbishops on the west coast to dump him in Madison. There is more to this mess at our diocese than anyone could imagine. I recommend that you all stay tuned as there is more ugly news on this bishop that will be rearing its ugly head in the days ahead! Pray for his removal by the Vatican... and please write to the Papal Nuncio in Washington D.C.

sannio - Aren't you being a little harsh? The Catholic church apologized to Galileo 600 years later for arresting him when he said the Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Belloc - You're right. The Earth is the center of the universe, Earth is only 4800 years old, and if people disagree with these things they should be arrested, and burned at the stake..

The Catholic church would be better served going after a few more pedophiles instead of this woman.

Bravo to Del!

When a person enters a Catholic Church or Catholic education program, they have a right to expect correctly presented Catholic doctrine, and not a mix of politically correct, radical feminist, and even anti-Catholic ideology. Unfortunately, this is what Mrs. Kolpack was serving up. She should thus have the courage of her convictions and renounce her errors or take her "protests" to a "Protestant" church ... and this goes for every member of Call to Action as well. They should all just end their hypocrisy.

If one goes to a fine restaurant, they have a right to fine cuisine that the establishment is famous for. They would rightly be disserved if they received, instead, a rancid four day old Big Mac.

Congratulations to Bishop Morlino for maintaining proper quality control.

Belloc

so continues more of an overall dispute over a theological political correctness......

The firing of Ms. Kolpack had very little to do with her 2003 thesis about how she believed Catholics were praying the Mass wrong.

That was merely a symptom of her long history of disagreeing with her Church.

She donated money to pro-abortion groups, even listing her affiliation with St. Thomas Catholic parish on the list of donor/credentials.

She is deeply involved with dissident Catholic faction "Call To Action".... it was "Call To Action" who organized the protest. Faithful Beliot parishioners were unable to ask the Bishop questions, because the Call To Action protesters were jeering and insulting our the Bishop, and shouting their protests about WINSEC and such.

The Beloit parishioners had to wait until Call To Action left.

Our bishop has suffered numerous complaints from Beloit parishioners about Ms. Kolpack. And even though she is beloved by many in Beloit, we need to have faithful Catholics serving in our parishes.

Wow. For once, commotion WITHIN the church. You don't see that every day!

I remember Ruth from my high school days going to confirmation at St. Thomas. We also sang in the folk group together. She's an amazing woman. I hope things turn out for the best where she is concerned.