Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
“I believe what the Catechism teaches us”

Speak for yourself.
General Catholic Discussion / I could have written this article myself
« Last post by Acolyte on November 19, 2018, 10:07:09 PM »

Exactly how I feel.

"We, as Catholic laypeople, are just going to have to be better stewards of our donations. That means being more alert and aware of what’s going on in our Church. YES, there are some good parishes and dioceses out there, and they deserve to be funded! But here’s the deal. If you’re giving money to a parish, diocese or organization that is corrupt, you’re a very big part of the problem. You’re financing corruption with your money and you’re doing it willingly. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you. Rather, you are underwriting the rape and corruption of teenage boys, along with a plethora of homosexual liaisons between priests and others, coupled with all the financial malfeasance that goes along with it. You’re funding it — voluntarily! This has got to stop. So what we need to do is start looking at our parishes and dioceses very closely. If something smells fishy, even just a little fishy, it probably is. Like the saying goes; where there’s smoke there’s fire! If something is smoldering in your parish, don’t fund it. Give your donations to another parish instead. If something is smoldering in your diocese, don’t fund it. Send your money to a different diocese instead. If it’s not clean, don’t fund it! Be responsible with your donations for heaven’s sake! Finally, don’t give a dime to the USCCB or the CCHD. These organizations have proved to be Leftist front groups that confuse the faithful and back things the Church opposes. If you want to fight poverty, give that money to a local Catholic soup kitchen instead. At least there you’ll be able to see the results.
Lastly, this leads me to the final step. Once you know who to not fund, you’ll also know who to walk away from. It’s time to walk out of corrupt parishes and corrupt dioceses, and yes, there is a canonical way to do this. You can leave the corruption without leaving the Catholic Church, and this is where so many former Catholics have erred. You don’t need to leave your baptismal birthright as a Catholic to be relatively free of those Judas clergy corrupting the Church. There are canonical options available to you, and if you’re smart (you need to be smart in times like these) you can make use of them. I cannot give you a checklist for how to find a good parish and bishop. That’s not how it works. But as the Scriptures say, you shall know them by their fruits. There are certain outward signs that a parish and diocese will display that indicate a strong Catholic identity, and less of a likelihood for homosexualist corruption. It’s not a guarantee (nothing is), but it does radically improve the odds. I’ve outlined them extensively here.
My last post was an open letter to the US Catholic Bishops which I wrote to them the week before the Baltimore Conference. I didn’t expect any kind of response from that, but what we got was even far worse than what I imagined. We literally got nothing — a great big fat zero — along with plenty of hints from both the Conference and Rome that cover-up will continue to remain the status quo. I ended by saying this would be my last letter to them, and I have no desire to communicate any further. I meant it. As the title of this essay says, I’ve lost faith in them entirely. So that open letter was the last they’ll ever hear from me.

This post, directed toward my regular readers, is likewise intended to be my last essay on the subject of homosexual abuse and cover up. This is mainly because I really have nothing more to say. I’ve already said everything I can on the matter. I may update my social media feeds with some of the latest current events on this topic, but I really don’t have any more essays to write or recommendations to make. This whole mess will soon play out with law enforcement, and perhaps a little divine intervention along the way. So there is nothing more that I can add.

We have been burdened to live through the saddest era in the history of the Catholic Church. What has happened is worse than the Arian Heresy, and I believe future generations will acknowledge that. For the Homosexualist Heresy, and all the sexual sin that accompanies it, especially the sexual abuse of minors, is a challenge to the very nature of Christianity itself. If homosexuality (sodomy or “gay sex”) is not a sin, then there is no such thing as sexual sin at all, and the entire 2000 years of Christian teaching on the matter has been one big lie. If sexual sin does not exist, then the sacrifice of Christ’s crucifixion is cheapened. The need for the gospel is lessened, and the disciplines of the Church are irrelevant. The entire Christian faith hinges on this matter. For if there is no sexual sin, then most people don’t sin at all. The average person doesn’t murder, or steal, or slander others. The average Catholic goes to mass on Sundays, honors his parents, and rarely ever uses the Lord’s name in vain. What is adultery when a man can “marry” another man? What is adultery when a married woman can have a fling with her girlfriend on the side? If all of this is to be made permissible, against the Scriptures and Catechism, as the homosexualists desire, then the Church itself becomes nothing more than a social accessory, totally optional to the Christian who can define his “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” any way he likes. Jesus himself becomes just another Buddha or Krishna for the modern man to choose at his personal discretion. I have no desire to be part of a “church” that looks like this. Either there is such a thing as sexual sin or there isn’t. Either what the Scriptures tell us is true about homosexuality (sodomy or “gay sex”) or the Scriptures are false. Erase the condemnation of homosexuality from the Bible, and you erase the sacrifice that atoned for it on the cross.

I know the truth. I believe what the Scriptures tell us. I believe what the Catechism teaches us. I believe what the Catholic-Christian faith has always taught us. I will not support those who deny these things, either by word or deed, and they won’t get a dime of my money, nor will I regularly attend their parishes and cathedrals. I have lost faith in them. I’ve decided to move on now, strictly to orthodox parishes and bishops who are accountable and transparent. I’ve checked out of the corrupt-mainstream Catholic Church. There is nothing more I can do or say. If you’re reading this, and you’re ready to leave the corruption behind, this is how you do it legally and properly."

Arts and Leisure / Re: Last movie you saw?
« Last post by Heinrich on November 19, 2018, 09:42:26 PM »
Anyone jacked up for Creed 2?
General News and Discussion / Re: Fire Burns Porn Industry
« Last post by dymphnaw on November 19, 2018, 08:16:23 PM »
On the other hand a lot of people in Paradise are poor and or elderly who came for cheap living in the trailers.  These people weren't pornographers and neither were most of the residents.
Arts and Leisure / Re: Last movie you saw?
« Last post by Jacob on November 19, 2018, 07:48:17 PM »
The Nun's Story, because Audrey.

The Last Voyage, with Robert Stack, Dorothy Malone, Edmund O'Brien, Woody Strode, and George Sanders.
Arts and Leisure / Re: Last movie you saw?
« Last post by Pon de Replay on November 19, 2018, 07:35:35 PM »
Leave No Trace

Beautiful, touching story.
Rated PG but could have been G.

I saw this movie over the weekend, and I agree with Maxmilian's summation of it as a "beautiful, touching story."  It has a genuinely naturalistic brilliance to it.  There is even a scene of liturgical dancing (of all things) that rings as true as you could imagine.  I would rate it as one of the best films of 2018.
General News and Discussion / Re: Fire Burns Porn Industry
« Last post by Geremia on November 19, 2018, 07:20:08 PM »
I knew of someone who placed a Green Scapular on the doorknob of a porn shop, and it burned downed the next day…
The Trump Regime Secretly Indicts Assange for the Crime of Truth-Telling

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman) [November 16, 2018]

Julian Assange is an investigative journalist/whistleblower, publishing material supplied by sources believed to be credible, unidentified for their protection.

WikiLeaks is not an intelligence operation. Nor it it connected to Russia or any other country. Claims otherwise are fabricated.

Assange earlier explained that WikiLeaks has the right “to publish newsworthy content. Consistent with the US Constitution, we publish material that we can confirm to be true…”

Notably since the Bush/Cheney regime, the US has been at war with individuals revealing dirty secrets about the imperial state.

Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers doing their job honorably than all his predecessors combined.

Trump considers leaking vital information everyone has a right to know a threat to national security.

He had senior White House staff members sign lifetime nondisclosure agreements, barring them from ever revealing so-called confidential information about their government service – violating their fundamental First Amendment rights, especially when it comes to revealing state-sponsored wrongdoing.

Since the 1970s, Congress repeatedly affirmed the right of civil servants to report what they believe are abuses of power, government corruption, rule of law violations, dangers to public health and safety, as well as other wrongdoing.

Journalism the way it should be is protected by the First Amendment. It’s the most important freedom. Without it all others are threatened.

Truth-telling in America today is endangered. Exposing government wrongdoing is courageous and essential. Obama waged war on press freedom and whistleblowing. Trump continues his outrageous practices.

When governments consider truth-telling independent journalists and whistleblowers threats to national security, tyranny replaces freedom.

In 2012, the Obama regime declared Julian Assange an enemy of the state, forcing him to take refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy to avoid unjust arrest, extradition to America, prosecution, and imprisonment to silence him – for the crime of truth-telling.

At the same time, a secret grand jury reportedly convened. A sealed indictment followed, allegedly accusing Assange of spying under the long ago outdated 1917 Espionage Act, enacted shortly after America’s entry into WW I.

It prohibited anyone from interfering with US military operations, supporting the nation’s enemies, promoting insubordination in the ranks, or obstructing military recruitment.

It remains the law of the land, used to charge, prosecute, convict and imprison Chelsea Manning unjustly, along with other unjust charges against her.

Assange faces the same fate if extradited to America. Anyone exposing US high crimes and/or other dirty secrets Washington wants suppressed is vulnerable.

Before elected president, Trump called Assange’s WikiLeaks “disgraceful,” saying the “death penalty” would be OK against its actions.

President-elect Trump said information published by WikiLeaks “had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.”

John Bolton once said Edward Snowden “should swing from a tall oak tree.” He urged waging cyberwar on WikiLeaks.

Mike Pompeo earlier blasted Assange, calling WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” adding:

“We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us” – a flagrant constitutional violation against anyone if enforced.

Trump’s Justice Department reportedly updated charges against Assange early last year. At the time, WikiLeaks tweeted the “US admits it has charges to arrest Assange according to CNN.”

On Friday, US media reported that a sealed indictment charged Assange with undisclosed criminal offenses – even though no evidence suggests he committed any.

Assistant US Justice Department Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer revealed the indictment, saying it’s sealed “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case,” adding:

“No other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” The indictment “need(s) to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.”

US Attorney’s office in Eastern District of Virginia spokesman Joshua Stueve said “(t)he court filing was made in error. That was not the intended name for this filing.”

FBI and special council Mueller spokespersons declined to comment on the issue. Precise charges are unknown, most likely similar to some against Chelsea Manning, including violations of the outdated 1917 Espionage Act, possibly aiding the enemy, a charge Manning avoided.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump regime may intend using charges to get Ecuador to expel Assange from its London embassy.

His lawyer Carlos Poveda believes a deal may have been struck between Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno and the Trump and Theresa May regimes to extradite Assange to the US, saying:

“There has been a rapprochement between the United Kingdom, the United States and Ecuador,” adding:

“I believe that (the US and UK) have reached some agreement, and that is exactly why the special protocol (on home rules) was introduced, which is to justify Julian’s withdrawal (from the Ecuadorian embassy) to accelerate the process of ending his asylum and hand him over to the UK authorities” – for extradition to America.

Major unjust charges await him, Poveda saying “(i)t will not be a death penalty, but he may get a life sentence” – maybe without the possibility of parole.

Horrific US mistreatment of Chelsea Manning, other whistleblowers, and countless others wrongfully charged in America show the imperial state wants everyone in its crosshairs denied constitutionally and international law protected due process and equal protection.

Due process is constitutionally guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, stating: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Equal protection applies to government at all levels, as required by the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee.

The protection applies to everyone within the borders of America. Presidents, Congress, state and local authorities cannot legally deny these rights to anyone.

Yet breaches of fundamental US and international law happen with disturbing regularity.

Assange committed no crimes. Yet he may end up another victim of egregious US injustice – the way all totalitarian states operate.
Many would welcome this, and much more, even going back to the 1958 conclave..
alas, laypersons have no say in the Church hierarchy. Aldo Maria Valli is a lay person.

Nothing can happen until there is another Pope, or some bizarre proclamation by Benedict XVI.

It is strange. Benedict is 'Pope Emeritus' and wears the Papal cassock. There is only meant to be one Pope. If Benedict started to opine on the Swift payments and other shenanigans, he might find himself with more than the bruise he got.

Although this new particular title is novel to the Bishop of Rome, it is long-standing in diocesan parishes.
For example, I'm sure you can think of plentiful 'Pastor Emeritus' retired parish priests, often listed in church
bulletins and living in retirement facilities.
The Sacred Sciences / Re: What is St. Thomas saying here?
« Last post by John Lamb on November 19, 2018, 05:04:47 PM »
Can somebody explain what he's saying exactly? It sort of sounds like he's saying that God is constantly giving grace to everyone.

Yes, God is indeed constantly giving grace to everyone, just as the sun shines and constantly gives light to everyone. The reason that sinners are accountable for their sins is precisely that they are hardening their hearts and resisting the grace which God is constantly offering to them. If this grace was not being constantly offered then they could rightfully plea that they did not have the means to avoid sinning.

Quote from: james03
Yes.  This is Actual Grace.   Obviously He does not give Sanctifying Grace to all.  Also, I don't know about "constantly", which would imply every second of every day.

I think it is more or less every second of every day, or at least every moment that the free-will is active. I suppose during sleep and during actions which are not fully conscious or deliberate there is not need of an actual grace; however, habitual grace is still active even at these times (e.g. one still has habitual or sanctifying grace in the soul even while sleeping).

Quote from: Daniel
What's the difference between "actual" grace and "sanctifying" grace? Are the virtues of faith, hope, and charity to be classed as "actual" or "sanctifying"?

Faith, hope, and charity are both actual and sanctifying/habitual. You need the habit of sanctifying grace in order to perform particular, actual acts of faith, hope, and charity. Think of it like bodily health. You need the habit of health in order to walk, run, or play football; but in addition to the habit of health, you need the particular or actual movements (e.g. of the muscles) in order to perform these actions. Likewise, in order to perform an act of faith, hope, or charity, you need to have the habit of sanctifying grace in the soul, and on top of that you need the actual graces to move the healthy/sanctified soul to those particular actions. If you lack the habit of bodily health (i.e. if you are sick, or let's say paralysed) then you can't perform the actual movements described above. Similarly, if you lack the habit of sanctifying grace, then you can't perform any act of supernatural faith, hope, or charity. This is why it's said that "in a state of mortal sin, the soul can do nothing meritorious of eternal life", that is, the soul is so sick that it cannot do anything in a healthy manner, in the way that a sick or paralysed body cannot. But just as the habit of health does not leave you when you are asleep and not actively "using" it, so the habit of sanctifying grace abides in your soul even when you are not "using" it. In fact, in the case of infants, they are unable to perform any particular act of faith, hope, or charity, yet if they have been baptised they still do have the habit of sanctifying grace in them regardless.

Some might say that souls in a state of mortal sin can still perform acts of supernatural charity, e.g. a sinner can still, for example, give money to the poor. But I would argue that they cannot do this from a truly supernatural motive without simultaneously entering a state of sanctifying grace. So if a sinner truly did give to the poor out of supernatural charity, then at that same moment it would imply a perfect contrition for his sins and the return of supernatural life / sanctifying grace to this soul, as there would be an implicit sorrow for his own sins and a motion towards God contained within his supernatural love for the poor man.

Also, some would cite St. Thomas who says that a soul in a state of mortal sin can still have the habit of faith. But I would clarify my own statements to say that sanctifying grace refers primarily to charity, and mortal sin relates primarily to the loss of habitual charity; so there can be souls who have the habit of faith and can perform particular acts of faith while still remaining in a state of mortal sin, but this is what the scriptures call a "dead faith". Still, this "dead faith" is a grace of God and is ordered towards that supernatural charity which would make it a "living faith". An habitual faith without habitual charity is still a habitual grace, it's just that not a living one enlivened by charity, and so it is not what is usually called "sanctifying grace" (which is foremost characterised by habitual charity).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10