Nicely Done Mark. Well balanced. Well said.

They aren’t just “celebrants” - they are ordained priests- an ordination that makes them different not in degree from those with the priesthood of the laity, but different in kind- even Vatican II says this.  The ordained priest and only the ordained priest acts in persona Christi in re-presenting the sacrifice of the cross to the Father.  And that is in persona Christi as Head of the Mystical Body.  Liberals have tried for decades to denigrate the priest’s role and thereby render it doable by anyone by calling him a mere “celebrant” - and of course their next error in logic and doctrine is that “anyone could celebrate, you don’t need testicles to do this and ......drum roll for dissent….anyone including women!”

“There was precedent for opposition to slavery in the tradition (“in Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor free”).  There was precedent for “Jesus is consubstantial with the Father” in the Tradition (“The Word was with God and the Word was God”).  But there is not precedent in the tradition for any sexual expression that is not “one man and one woman in holy matrimony”.  Sorry but there just isn’t.” 
Just for clarification, because I have experienced a similar problem, not with a priest, but with a friend (with credentials), I’m assuming there is, also, no precedent for women’s Ordination in the tradition as well?

A LOT of good advice on how to correct someone with loving concern. Some people think one should be kind rather than truthful, some think one should be thuthful rather than kind. As you point out, Truth WITH Kindness is wise. It’s harder to do than it seems- and it does take courage. The steps you outline here are right-on.

I object to this advice in this article. It is intellectually dishonest. It assumes that the faithful lay man has a problem and must examine his own conscience first before speaking to a priest about his errant ideas. It also implies that in order to speak to such a priest, you must first go to confession, offer to work in his ministry and even invite him to dinner, in order to correct him. With those stipulations, very few faithful will ever call out a priest who has done something wrong. Perhaps that is why the sex abuse scandal persists to this day?  I prefer a more direct approach. Talk directly to the priest about his disconnect with church teachings: calmly, politely, sincerely but do not mince words. Don’t offer him dinner or volunteerism if you truly don’t intend to do those things. Listen to his reply, and if he is stubborn, remind him of the truth of church teachings and that you’ll pray for his obedience. If he persists with heretical sermons, I’d correct him two more times like this. After that, it’s time to find a new parish. Contacting the archdiocese does no good if it protects the priest in his heresy.

A couple years ago, when H1N1 came out with all the media hype attached, the bishop of our diocese told all the parish priests that EVERYONE must receive the Body of Christ on the hand.For my Dad (who converted shortly after marrying Mom), this was really hard because he had always been taught that because the Body of Christ is so holy, that only the priest should touch it (we never had Eucharistic ministers in our parish). Anyways, after this announcement was made, Dad got up, walked out of the church, and sat in the car while the rest of us were at Mass. I understand his reasons, and that was the only time he has ever done that.

Mark, as a priest, I appreciated your balanced approach in offering advice on this problem.  I find it has not infrequently happened with my own homilies that people either mis-heard or misunderstood me, and were up in arms about my supposed teaching of heresy, which, I assure, is the last thing I would EVER do.  Luckily I record my homilies for just such occasions - perhaps the priest in question did as well?

As a theologian, though, I have a small qualm with your comparison of any sister to St. Athanasius.  Athanasius (as I’m sure you know) was the patriarch of Alexandria, the second highest position in the Magisterium at the time, and tantamount - as would be seen in the later case of St. Cyril of Alexandria - to being what would today be called the head of the CDF.  As such, he was no private theologian, but was himself a leading member of the Magisterium. So I don’t think we can say he held out against the Magisterium,  but rather that he stated (with Pope St. Damasus) the position of the Magisterium elucidated at Nicea, and that dissedent bishops came in-line with him (and others).

Also, I think if we look historically, it was not really Athanasius and the pope against everyone else, though many (including myself) have used that very dramatic telling.  It is apparent that there were many faithful bishops in Gaul (Hilary of Poitiers), north Africa, Italy, Egypt, Palestine (Cyril of Jerusalem et al.), and Cappadocia (Basil and the two Gregories), just to name a few.  These were all contempraneous with Athanasius, and the named saints (except Gregory of Nyssa) are all Doctors of the Church.  Just a heads up.

It is always wise, as Mark points out here, if you truly want to rectify
the situation for the benefit of all, to come from position of truth and charity. There are however many different approaches depending on the person(s) and the particular situation. I see nothing wrong in what The Hat Lady suggests. As a single woman, I would not feel comfortable in inviting the priest to dinner at my home. The point is not to *attack* the priest and question his motives before establishing a solid rapport. The point is not to “take down the priest” by an “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude but to resolve the situation with a beneficial outcome for all, including the supposedly errant priest.
I am blessed with a reverent and faithfilled
pastor. But I have had the experience of a visiting priest’s homily suggesting that current chestnut involving the miracle of the feeding of the thousands being reduced to the simple charity of the members of the
crowd opening their picnic baskets. I let it pass as I was both stunned
and stimied how to approach him. I wish I had read this article previous
to the occasion. Fortunately I later found out that most of the congregants I discussed this with were asleep that Sunday and failed to catch his *drift*. God works in mysterious ways!

I think I would just drop off a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with a marker for the section regarding the magisterium. The priest might be years removed from the seminary and could maybe benefit from some reading.

Like Christ, slam him over the head with a frying pan and force them to follow? NOT. Dinner invitation is an example of charity; if he fishes, invite to fish, loves music, share yours, etc. I would only add that I would use several tasty baked goods before and after the meat in the sandwich!

I’d take the ‘sandwich advice’ and incarnate it (heh, just kidding) and actually take the priest out for lunch (i’ve done this on several occasions).  It’s tough to really be angry with someone with whom you are sharing a meal (and possibly a pint) and it’s a lot easier to discuss an issue on a full (or filling) stomach.

In short, when you have any Priest who states anything against the Pope, Magisterium or anything in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, immediately send a letter or email to the Diocese Bishop.
Provide written documentation when possible.
Include the following if possible:  Name of Parish, Date of Mass or Activity, Name of Priest when available, as much information on the offending issue as possible.
The Diocese Bishop has full authority over parish Priests in his own Diocese.  The Priest will have to listen to the Bishop, and the Bishop can explain things better than most of us. The particular Priest in question was both heretical and schismatic and needs higher help.

Let us remember that the person responsible for Parish Priests is the Diocese Bishop, not us.
Since the Bishop does not know which Priests are Heretical or Schismatic, be sure to contact the Bishop will all the info needed for him to make a decision and “teach” his Priest properly.
The Diocese Bishop should not be kept in the dark in regard to heresy, schism, scandal or sacrilege.

It is difficult to accept Mark Shea’s recommendation for diplomacy and the parable of sandwich. A Catholic priest is not just a person like us He is
” Persona Christi” He should be well versed with the teachings of the Church. There may be doubts in certain cases. But the priest should study more instead of airing his views, especially on matters like Magisterium.  Once a Protestant minister in his sermon in England said ” The resurrection and ascension are all not to be taken factually, but only allegorically”  Can a Catholic priest say things in a similar way from the pulpit or from anywhere ? A Catholic priest is fully loyal to the teachings or he is not at all faithful to the Church. In the case of LCWR, there is no need for any diplomacy. When those sisters air wrong views on abortion, gay marriage etc in opposition to Church teachings, they should be excommunicated

Why bother when my input seems to be rejected by censorship. Shame on you Mark. I was actually supporting you this time. I’ll correct my error.

In response to Elestethane’s question about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the ordination of women:
The simple answer is no - there is no precedent in scripture or tradition for the ordination of women. In fact, quite the opposite, both indicate that, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) puts it, “the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”

You can find that quote and a thorough explanation of the position at the link below which gives the full text of the CDF document “Declaration Inter Insigniores on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood”:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

Sorry, my last post was poorly worded. It should say:
In fact, quite the opposite is true, so that, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) puts it, “the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”

After you have reported a heretical, schismatic, or scandalous Priest to the Diocese Bishop, if nothing is corrected within a few weeks, send your information to the US Papal Nuncio in DC and to the Vatican.
ALWAYS give the Diocese Bishop the ability to correct the situation within his Diocese first.

Mark, When Jesus addressed the teachers He spoke to them differently than He spoke to the laity.  They were held to a higher standard and He was quite blunt and straightforward with them when He saw they were leading souls astray or when He knew the backward things they were thinking.  He had great patience with sinners, but not so much with false teachers. So I believe you are setting too high a standard when someone is clearly making statements that are against Church teaching.  Requiring promises and meals and the skills of a career diplomat is more than most of us have to give.  The priest is a Spiritual Father and should be able to lead the discussion in a more positive direction if it takes a bad turn.  The onus should be on him, not the parishioner.  Although it surely isn’t your intent, to require what you ask is a form of censorship and to make the issue how the message was delivered is silencing the message itself - kind of like changing the subject when someone has made a good point.  Certainly we all need to take a deep breath and pray before we approach a priest and remember Christian charity, but how do we know that it isn’t God’s will that the priest face an angry parishioner?  Jesus, Himself, showed his anger(tossing over tables, calling them a brood of vipers) or disgust(talking about how they laid snares or circumvented the heart of the law) to the scribes and pharisees to the point they wanted Him dead! As to women priests, there actually may be some openings.  Paul names Priscilla as the head of a Church and Jesus said, “no male or female” just as He said “no slave or free”.  Also there were men and women in the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit descended.  If we are truly focused on things above, one’s sex is not what we are worried about in our leaders.  In humility and truth we need to find God’s will, but at this point the Church says Jesus did not intend women to be priests.

The “Hat Lady” got it right.

(re: Posted by That Hat Lady on Friday, Aug 3, 2012 8:20 AM (EST)

I hope my “article” gets published - I worked really hard on it…here we go.

To cut to the chase, it wasn’t until I joined and became active in the Knights of Columbus that I realized that I and many Catholics have(or had) no backbone with regards to defending The Faith and holding one another accountable - that includes Priests and Nuns. Many laity (non-Priest or religious) are also sadly lacking in the understanding of Church Teaching and the tools provided by Roman Catholic Apologetics.

We Catholics need to quit snivelling and “apologizing” for our Beliefs / Doctrines. Christ was Crucified for our sake not His - there have been thousands of martyrs who believed this and in the Church, the “Whole Church” - the least we can do is speak - thoughtfully, clearly, firmly and with great confidence.  More so, we should act - “Rome is burning” before our eyes - it’s time to get with the program, i.e., embrace the Faith or do our damndess each day to try - AT LEAST TRY to embrace the Faith not our desires- with its accompanying suffering and all - it’s not easy for any of us.

If you are actively, willingly, openly or deliberately working against the Faith, whether laymen, Priest or Nun, it’s time to change your ways or exit the Church until such time you have a new conversion - you are dragging down the faithful !

“We” are not THE Church, “We” are PART of the Church.  The Church has many pieces - the main ones being, well, God, the flock -“We”, the Magisterium and the Pope as its teaching Authority as guided inerrantly by the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals, the clergy at large and the religious, Tradition and of course Scripture - the Bible and of course again God - God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Do Priests slip-up, make mistakes etc., sure, but…barring mental defect/ illness, demon possession or dementia, Catholic Priests have no excuse for not CONSISTENTLY defending the Faith - they are ALL bright, well educated and have taken a Vow of Obedience.  There is no doubt in my mind that the Clergy know exactly what the Church teaches on all major issues - none. For Pete’s sake, my teenage/twenty something year old children (five of them) who debate at the drop of a hat know what the Doctrine is on any major present day issue - whether they agree completely with it or not ! We must demand as much from our Clergy and Religious.

Do all Catholic Priests or can all Priests believe without doubt all Church teachings, especially details about the “big” issues, e.g., marriage, sex, contraception, ordination, IVF, abortion, the Sacraments, what is scandal…Catholicism being the one, holy catholic (universal) and apostolic Church as established by Jesus Christ here on earth and taking an active political role in the world to protect and defend the Faith, e.g., public demonstration against Planned Parenthood, public Defense of Marriage (getting petitions signed etc)reducing the need for capital punishment,protecting neighborhoods from “gentlemen’s clubs and bookstores”, evolution, the big bang theory, whether the Yankees are over-paid, Starbucks is a monster etc. ??? By my experience and the tales of many current news headlines - absolutely not ! They are only human, but they are OBLIGATED to Teach the Faith, not their views, musings or desires.  When Priests are not behind the pulpit ( and only Priests should be reading the Gospel and givings sermons - my old parish has completely lost its mind in this issue), say in a local Northwest brew pub,without their garb or collar they can spew their thoughts all night long - I have listened to them. Life is tough, Priests have a difficult job to do - we need to help them if possible to be true to the Faith, many people in the pews don’t want to hear the Faith and tempt Priests to capitulate, become fearful or lonely abandoning the tough sermons - everyone would prefer to be popular, priest are no different. 

Note however, that some Clergy ( and Religious)have clearly chosen their own error filled path. I can tell you first hand that the Knights of Columbus are not welcomed in all parishes because they are “too” conservative e.g. antiabortion zealots, homophobic, narrow minded, too “1950s”, militant with those swords and attire (... some councils admittedly have gone off track from time to time with to much “fraternizing” - this is not the norm or the issue I am am addressing - such behavior is stamped out when discovered because it is unacceptable in the Knights - I apologize for such behavior - most of us are doing our best to balance socializing with active faith filled lives - unfortunately there is plenty of poor behavior to go around in the Church and the world - we Catholics need to hold ourselves to a higher standard).

Participation in Social justice as it is commonly defined these days “in the Church” is absolutely necessary, that is, to help the poor and down trodden, the imprisoned, helping alien residents find security etc.,  but it is generally speaking safe to do these these things in a secular world - you have the company of Heretics, non-Catholics, proponents of Planned Parenthood and abortion, the LGBT, communists, atheists, agnostics, etc.(I have friends in each of these categories plus friends who are liberals, Democrats and those who subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post, but I digress) and would go to their aid in a crisis BUT I would also “go to battle against them to Defend the Faith” and they know it. Most decent people of any faith or lack there of want to help those in need - this MUST absolutely be done by Catholics as well, but it does not uniquely define us in a secular world. The previous mentioned items much more clearly define us as Catholics and put us in the public eye subjecting us to persecution and ridicule such as “only a fool wouldn’t use artificial contraception or even sterilization”, “keep your Rosaries off my ovaries”,  “illogical love affair with the fetus - fellow Catholics who say there are equally important ‘prolife” issues besides abortion,euthanasia,IVF, surrogates, cloning,stem cell research… - “I choose to work on the “other ones” which are JUST AS IMPORTANT” ???, e.g. saving the whales, becoming a vegan, the environment, carbon footprints, buying a Prius, eating organic food, etc” all note worthy I might add, some commendable and many required by us all to some degree, BUT clearly missing the big picture of PROLIFE.  The death penalty is allowed by the Church - but at this point in civilization should be rarely needed by the STATE to protect society. Although innocent people have been executed there is no comparison to the Holocaust of the Innocents - abortion.  The unborn are by definition innocent - no human justice system is required - no judge , jury or lawyers - no possibility of error.

Many Priests (nuns e.g. LCWR and laity)are on the verge of being modern day Martin Luthers - they renounce PUBLICLY the Teaching Authority of the Church.  Rather than struggle with the Faith, they want to change the Doctrine to suit their beliefs and personal development - a new Catholic Church - it is called Protestantism and it is old news. They continuously dismiss the Magisterium explicitly or through veiled comments (like we would like to dialogue / negotiate with the Vatican…on matters of faith and morals from a lay, religious order point of view).

I cringe at the potential for Spiritual scandal. Do people make mistakes and sin sure, do people usually know what they are doing - if they are adults - absolutely.  Can people slip-up and reveal their beliefs rather than the Churches - sure - we are all human. Just like loosing weight, it’s not what you do now and then (falter, sin, eat too much in one sitting etc.), it what you do on a consistent basis that defines you - we sin, all of us, it’s part of being human.  It is, however, very clear that the questioner is referring to habitual behaviors and expressions of personal beliefs by the clergy - quite possibly being presented as “ok” per Vatican II - such lies are purveyed often by those who claim that Vatican II permits such things as “following ones conscience” - the battle cry of relativist who have corrupted the beauty of Vatican II.

Church teaching can be learned by reading the Catholic Catechism and doing some serious reading of Catholic Apologetics - Catholicism is truly a thinking person’s religion and a very adult religion.

I have unfortunately rattled on - but my final comments are these. I need support from Faithful Catholics, most Catholics of any “flavor” with whom I have spoken have the same desire of fellowship - we need each other to fight what is a raging battle of moral relativism around the world. We need - each of us - to be on the right side of the war. Priests can’t do it all - some are even working against the Faith.  Go to mass. Pray. Speak up, stand tall and be counted.

PS: I wrote a novel - my first time writing a comment like this, maybe a few sentences will get posted.  It’s been a battle for me.  I am 53 years old and am just starting to grasp my Faith. God Bless. We are all tougher than we think - trust me on this; St. Alphonsus Liguori is my Patron Saint for a reason. Vivat Jesus.

I disagree with Mark.  It is not the lay person’s responsibility to talk to or correct a priest.  Most lay people are not theologians and have no theological training such that they could discuss issues like this with a priest.  If you happen to have such a background, then go for it, but the vast majority of us don’t.  What the average person should do is write a polite and just the facts letter to the diocesan bishop and the let it go (other than prayers for the priest are always a good idea). Let the bishop rry about it.  More than likely, the bishop has already heard complaints about the priest, and if he hasn’t he will eventually.  The priest will be on a kind of watch list until the bishop has heard enough to do something.  So no, you don’t need to invite him to dinner or get in a theological debate or approach him at all.

Lay people do not need to be theologians. They need to know their faith. All Catholics should know that the magisterium is the definite teaching of the Church. Priests have a duty to defend and protect the truth of the Church. They are not to dispute the teachings during homilies or raise up those who have already been censured by the Church.  Making a mistake is one thing, but providing misleading information to the faithful during Mass is completely different. It is not up to us to judge the priest, but it is our duty to point out to them that they are in error. If doing that in person is too difficult, send a letter the the priest and gently point out what the error has been. If there is no cessation, then send a letter to the Bishop.  Ignorance of ones own faith is no excuse, for a priest or a lay person. You do not have to be a theologian to read and understand the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How can anyone profess the creed if they don’t know their faith?

“It is difficult to accept Mark Shea’s recommendation for diplomacy and the parable of sandwich. A Catholic priest is not just a person like us He is ‘Persona Christi.’”

Whoa, careful there. That’s a big embellishment of the priest’s vocation. The priest acts “in persona Christi” while effecting the sacraments, but not in his everyday life, or even when giving his homily. Yes, there is an ontological change that comes with Holy Orders that deserves our respect, but his ordinary persona is not necessarily Christi.

“I object to this advice in this article. It is intellectually dishonest. It assumes that the faithful lay man has a problem and must examine his own conscience first before speaking to a priest about his errant ideas.”

Actually, I think it is prudent. Mark is only hearing one side of a story here, after all, and is being cautious instead of telling his reader to crucify his pastor. He is encouraging the reader to purify his intentions and then do the right thing.

Something something “beam in your own eye, then you can see clearly enough to remove the speck in your brother’s.” It was good advice then, it’s good advice now.

Dear MM: I disagree with you re “responsibility to talk to or correct a priest.” Post Vatican II Canon Law codified this right and gave us all this duty:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which [the laity]
possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of theCh urch and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence towardtheir pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” (Canon 212 §3).

It has been my sad experience that if you act according to this Canon, and talk to or write a dissenting or heretical priest, you will get no response or you will be asked to exit his parish. When that happens, you re-send your kind missives and you cc all of these: his bishop, heads of various congregations in the VAtican, and the Holy Father. For good measure, if he is a member of an order, you also cc his superiors here and wherever their world headquarters are located. Note well-these wheels turn slowly, sometimes imperceptibly and you do not think they are even moving. but keep it up - each time he refuses to say “for us men” during the Creed, each time he says from the pulpit the Church is studying the Scriptures on the sin of Sodom and current scholarship says it was a sin of inhospitality, each time he uses an outlawed Bible translation [eg ones from Canada] at Mass, each time he tells the children at the Christmas Eve children’s Mass that he longs for the time when a woman will be celebrating this Mass for them, each time he raises money fraudulently ostensibly for an education building and then uses it to bulid an ampitheatre in the round for his performances——each abuse write again and cc everyone. It will take several years, you will be shunned, he will eventualy be gone. Sadly, he will drive off many good people…...and they will have to rope off part of his arena and not allow any of the faithful to sit there because so few now go to worship there.  guy mcclung , rockport, texas

The responsibilities and rights of the laity to participate in the work and mission of the
Church are based on Scriptures and tradition, formulated in Church teachings—especially
those from the Second Vatican Council—and codified in Canon Law.

Dear Mark,

As a priest I encountered a very similar situation.  I had been trained, as so many of my brother priests, in seminaries that were not—so I see now—entirely in conformity with Church teachings.  Years and years of subtle indoctrination showed me how to “go along to get along” with oh so many things.

This left a deep and lasting impression on me, which overflowed in my ministry.  I was zealous to explain my view of the Church at every opportunity—especially in homilies.

There was obvious evidence that something was not quite right with my views.  Sadly, we had to close our school after 100+ years; the sisters who were so helpful had to retire and there were no young vocations to take over for them; attendance at Mass continued to decline.  I took all of these failures as an even greater encouragement to implement the “new ideas” of the 60’s.  The problem was not the ideas, but the fact that they have not yet been really tried.  Or so I thought, in all my zeal.

Then one day a very nice parishioner came and talked to me.  She said that I was very helpful in my ministry.  (First piece of bread.)  I thanked her, and told her the very good news that our food pantry was again voted the most popular in the entire county—three years running!  She then gave me the “meat” of her message, that she thought I was misrepresenting the Truth about the Eucharist.  I don’t know how I managed to keep listening to her, because I have shut out these “complainers” by smiling and thinking about what I’ll be having for dinner.  At that moment, she invited me to dinner with her family.  I had heard that she makes a wonderful marinated chicken dish, so how could I resist?

Long story short—at her house she pointed proudly to her bookshelf.  She pointed out the documents of “the council” which turned out to be not VII (or even VI) but some place called Trent.  She offered it to me to browse.  Let me tell you, once I got home I started reading it, and it was as if scales had fallen from my eyes.  So much truth, so clearly pronounced.

I got a few complaints from the “regulars” who did not appreciate the messages of my new-fangled homilies.  (Though they did admit that they liked the fact they were much shorter now!)  For every one of them that drifted away, it seems three or four other new regulars came in.  (With children!)

We shut down the food pantry after hearing stories at a Funeral Mass that the dearly departed had worked—when he was 8 years old—with HIS grandfather to build a small chapel which was used for perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.  This had been converted in 1978—after a few years of neglect—to the food pantry.  Imagine my surprise when we removed the drywall to uncover wonderful hand-crafted stone work.  The chapel is a bit small for the crowds of Adorers, but so far none of them have complained.

We renovated the back of the church, too, by removing the wall that created a larger “gathering space” and recovered its use as worship space!  And those odd little side-by-side closets have a grill in the walls and are nice confessionals.  I have one that I sit in most of the time now (when I am not golfing—one miracle at a time, please) and have offered the other to local priests.  I trick them by saying it is a nice quiet place to sit and read where nobody would think to look for for them.  Ha!  It turns out they did not realize how wonderful it is to witness God’s mercy over and over again.  I got my first “complaint” from a brother priest that when he came to visit another priest had taken the spot.  Need to build another confessional! 

The woman with the marinated chicken has two grown daughter, both professing to a teaching order.  They are looking for a place to start a new school.  It turns out they have a very long list of families interested, and we are talking about how they can renovate the old school building for use.  The only demand they are making is that I do not become too directly involved in the day-to-day management of the facility.  They want me to not worry about the plumbing and such, so I can worry about the souls.  (And have time to golf, they joke.  Blessed be God!)

I did a little math in my head, and realize that her youngest son, who desires to be a parish priest, would be ordained a year before my 75th birthday.  He told me that if I behave (!) he’ll let me stay in the rectory.  He’ll even drive me to the golf course.  As long as “we” make it back in time to hear confessions!

Yours Truly,

Fr. A

PS—in case you think this story is too good to be true, it is.  Mark’s naive assertion that a nice friendly smile and a chicken dinner will unravel years of satanic indoctrination is dangerous!  We are not talking about whether to order sausage or mushrooms on a pizza.  We are fighting for souls.  A smile and marinated chicken might help, but we need Exorcisms large and small, not excuses.

Mark, When did you convert from the protestant religion?

Mark - thank you for encouraging us to practice charity with our priests:)

The Church is in a state of crisis. There is rampant dissent. Good people are hurting and the weak are led astray. It’s important not to be nieve. My advise: write to the Nuncio/Holy See. They are the ones who need to know.

I became a Catholic in December 1987.  I have been being converted to the Faith ever since.  God willing, I’ll be fully Catholic some day.

Would it be tacky to say we did not have these problems before the Second Vatican Council?  When I converted in 1949, doctrine and discipline were unassailable. You could tell by the way they dressed and acted that every Catholic believed Jesus was truly there in the Eucharist.  The priest acted in the person of Jesus and only consecrated were allowed to touch His body. Even the elect were deceived by the council. Pope Paul VI was right –  The council did indeed allow the smoke of Satan to enter the sanctuary.  Why didn’t they try to bring the modern world into the Church instead of bringing the Church into the modern world to corrupt it?  After the council dissidents were allowed to go about undisciplined seeking whom they could deceive with great success. CDF attempts at discipline have been so often ignored or suppressed by national bishops organizations.  This is the atmosphere leading to the cause of dissident priests like in this case and nuns like the LCCW.  Mark has some good suggestions, but trying to be nice about discipline may be counterproductive.  If the Catholics that voted for abortion don’t correct their mistake in the coming presidential election and get rid of our Socialist President, the American dream will become a nightmare and religious freedom will be gone for good.  The 75 percent apostate Catholics that don’t believe in the Real Presence had better wake up if they are interested in salvation.

Dear Frustrated Reader,  Your question brings back memories.  For years my friends and I grappled with why are disrespectful homilies allowed and disrespectful activities by laity allowed.  We searched for answers.  I discovered these kinds of questions are feared by priests ordained before 1969.  They would literally get very busy.  They had things to do, had no time nor interest to answer difficult questions, nor even attempt to soothe our troubled hearts.  Frustrated Reader, I dare to say this is not the first time you have sensed a wrong homily.  I sense that this time it was the last straw and you’ve decided to get answers.  Your Catholic sense has been stirred.  Protect your God given sense and do not compromise it!  I believe you heard correctly in the sermon that the Magisterium is no longer the only legitimate teaching authority because that is the way it is with the ‘changes’ of Vatican II.  Please let me explain.  Fr. Karl Rahner had major input in the Vatican II document “Lumen Gentium”.  Paragraph 8 in that document states that the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church.  The Church of Christ ‘subsists in’ versus “IS” and somehow it includes other “Christian” denominations.  Yes, undoubtedly, that is contrary to Catholic Teaching.  Karl Rahner was never corrected, in fact, this document with the paragraph intact was approved and is having a major effect.  This new concept laid the ground work for a “super church” in which protestant ministers will share the pulpit.  Have you seen lay people give a homily?  I have.  Yes, I walked out and did not always return when they were done speaking.  Even in my charitable inquiries, I was told I was Pharisaic.  For quite a few years I read the newsletters of The St. Joseph Foundation, Texas in order to get answers to difficulties arising in parishes.  The canonist at SJF’s job is to advise the laity how to handle issues such as you’ve presented and they would also be the instrument to bring the problem to a higher level if one wanted to do a lot of prep work and have oceans of patience.  The SJF canonists are bound by new laws and they cannot change what you have experienced.  They give false hope.  I would be more specific with the issues I raised with the SJF and other organizations if there was space.  According to Karl Rahner,  who BTW is heralded as “Catholic Down to His Toes”, maintains that “subsists in” is the ground work for inter-communion with other faiths.  Theological Tradition calls them ‘heretics’.  Rahner states that the pope would still be the head of this new construction but only as a sign of unity. Rahner wrote in his book, “Unity of the Churches:  An Actual Possibility” that new doctrines would come only with an achieved consensus of the churches within the Church.  (YIKES!!)  The Magisterium has never taught that heretics can influence Christ’s Church.  I dare say that the presbyter who gave his opinion on a ‘religious’ and her writings was in fact demonstrating he was a faithful son and was propagandizing.  His orders do not include giving an evaluation of other’s writings.  Or is that a change I’ve not learned about?  I dare say that if he would have criticized the religious’ writing,  if he had called the writing false and that none should read it, his prelate would not have hesitated to correct him.  Last thing, Frustrated Reader:  never change your Catholic sense based on a lay person’s advice.  Find a suitable priest or bishop who has the anointing.  Lay people do not.  Stay intimate and close to Our Lord.  Stay close and intimate with Our Blessed Mother.  Pray the Rosary daily and She will lead you safely to her Son.

What’s wrong with just standing up and yelling at the priest that he is wrong?

The women who wrote did not say the homily she heard was in her parish church. In fact she said she belongs to a group of Catholic bloggers a few of whom had been to Holy Masses where priests made upsetting comments. Immediately I wondered—are these folks ‘temple police’ going around to different parishes trying to catch priests making ‘mistakes’ in their homilies?  If she heard what upset her in her own parish church it seems to me she would have spoken directly to the priest afterwards about her concerns so he could further clarify his remarks.  A priest at our parish writes down his homilies and speaks from them so that he has a record of what he said because he fears being misinterpreted and reported to higher authority by people who are looking for ‘heretics’.

Perhaps I am out of line here.  If so, I beg your charity because I am a new convert, having just come into the Church in October as part of the Anglican Ordinariate.  The main thing that drew me finally into the full faith of the church was the issue of Authority.  I had been a devout, conservative Protestant for my entire life and had spent many hundreds of hours debating the finer points of theology with my protestant friends.  However, what finally got to me was the realization that none of us really had any more right than the other to say what is correct.  Sure, we could each read the Bible and quote scripture by the boatload, but ultimately it all fell back on what each person thought it meant.
What I love the very most about the Catholic Church is that, when I have a question, I have an answer.  And honestly, sometimes I don’t like the answer i.e. capitol punishment.  But when that happens, I have to face the reality that if one new convert disagrees with the conclusion of 1,000 trained theologians, chances are, I’m wrong.
I saw all this to say that, while I agree with everything Mark said about how to most appropriately confront the priest, she might want to check her concerns with a bishop, too, just to make sure she’s on the right track.

I think it is total cowardice and wrong to complain to the bishop before first talking to the priest who gave the homily you find offensive. I had a situation years ago where I took my complaints directly to my pastor, showing him information from “Catholic Answers” because I wanted authoritative sources for him to refute. I was not entirely happy with the results of my meeting, but I believe the pastor respected the fact I had done my homework and was willing to talk to him one on one. He did not repeat the “offense.”

If the offense is serious enough and the priest persists in repeating it after a meeting with him, then by all means contact the bishop with all the details.

It does go both ways. I know of parishioners who heard something totally different than I did during a homily. One has to be very careful before accusing a priest of heresy, and seeking ‘clarification’ is also a way to alert the priest that we are not taking our role as “sheep” too literally.

  But the priest expressly affirmed Sister Farley and the fact that Sister Farley ( and quite a few empathizers on the theology oriented Catholic blogs ) have drifted so far from Biblical injunctions regarding sodomy and divorce…all that bespeaks two breakdowns: administrative in Rome and a Biblical breakdown outside Rome.  How did Rome let pieces of the Church like a theological society in the USA drift so far for decades at a time in history when all parts of the Church have phones and can have video conferencing.  When Pope Paul III tried to reign in Iberian slaving in 1537, he could only write his letter (bull), send a copy to the Spanish king and hope he would put letters on ships taking months to deliver the new mandates against enslaving natives of the Americas.
    Now Popes have phones.  No months involved in communicating.  If they don’t use those phones as administrators ( ” that Pope was a great author but poor at administration”)... but are over involved in greeting dignitaries and writing documents that everyone can avoid ( did anyone read Verbum Domini?)  then you get this chaos after decades of non
communication of pieces of the Church being light years from each other in thinking.
    Imagine a Pope who comes along and refuses to waste hours per week greeting group leaders from all parts of the world because he loves to video conference with Cardinals worldwide virtually all day and requires them to keep him abreast of what is being printed and thought and felt throughout his region.
    Now here is another part of the administrative breakdown: the CDF criticized Farley’s book 6 years after it was
published.  I have heard not a hint that the CDF is ordering it removed from any Catholic libraries which purchased it in the last six years worldwide.  Solution: tax each Catholic $2 once for Vatican expansion of personnel at the CDF included.
Half will pay.  That’s one billion dollars to expand manpower and technology in all offices needing it.  The SSPX is soaking up inordinate CDF manhours so they are not doing things that they would have decades ago….like removing books from Catholic libraries that they just declared defective.

I forgot to mention how much I appreciate the response of “Fr. Chris,” who discussed a real-life meeting he had with a parishioner, and how her wise way of dealing with him changed Father’s entire priesthood. What an awesome testimony. If that isn’t proof positive that good fruit can result from charitable correction, I don’t know what is. God bless both Fr. Chris for being able to listen, and to the parishioner for speaking the truth in love.

Dear Frustrated Reader,  I investigated nun Farley’s book and was saddened once again to see a rebellious lady allowed to harm so many by her writings.  These are Farley’s word: “Although my responses to some particular sexual ethical questions do depart from some traditional Christian responses, I have tried to show that they nonetheless reflect a deep coherence with the central aims and insights of these theological and moral traditions.”  How can Farley admit she ‘departs’ and still maintains coherence with tradition.  This is typical post-Vatican II lingo.  Today is Humility Sunday.  We are taught that God rejects the proud.  Grace is given only to the extent of our humility.  Nun Farley snubbed her nose at her superior’s stern criticism of her “Just Love” award-winning book on sexual ethics.  I don’t dare to surmise who gave the award to such a book on these kinds of matters no lady should be writing about.  Undoubtedly it qualifies for the “List of Forbidden Books”.  Post Vatican II rejects that list.  Souls have been harmed by nun Farley’s grave disobedience to not only the dignity of her true feminine nature, but her disobedience to the Apostolic Teachings of Christ’s Church?  Yes, I recognize she is not in the True Church of Christ, but uses the name ‘Catholic’ for her career.
I wonder how many in the presbyter’s congregation purchased a copy of this scandalous book and put their souls at risk?  Have you read Donna Steichen’s book in the ‘80s, “Ungodly Rage” which is about the religious advised to get education equal to their peers.  Educated they became;  educated into imbecility.  Sisters removed their habits, returned to their birth names… and became submissive to their own wills.  They have done much harm to the Catholic Faith and especially to the youth in parochial schools.

Thank you so very much for this article.  The advice given is very charitable and follows the appropriate lines.  I was faced with an extraordinarily similar situation a few months ago.  Partway through the homily, I actually got up and almost left.  My friends and I spent much prayer, asking the Lord to show us what the homily was meant to communicate, rather than what was heard.  No doubt about it that many were scandalized, but many were touched too, some of them visiting Protestants (from personal testimony they gave later).
God bless and protect our priests.  They encounter much more pressure on their faith than many of us will, and some will stumble. They also will have much more to answer for if they cause scandal (See Lk 12:47-48, Lk 17:1-2).  Theirs is not a light undertaking.  We should be doing all we can to help them in it.
Lord, forgive them, and us, for we know not what we do.

Kerath25, Mark and others.  When something is clearly against Church teaching and your Spirit is distessed you need to speak up while the incident is fresh in everyone’s mind.  I think Mark’s method, while exceedingly cordial, has no support from Jesus’ own actions.  It is a roadblock to the Truth. The priest has a captive audience with no chance for the audience to ask questions or rebut.  If priests are misrepresenting the faith, they need to clarify things sooner rather than later.  I have let remarks go and I have stood up at the end of a Mass and asked politely for a clarification of a heretical statement - because everyone heard the statement, they should hear the clarification. The latter action was more faithful to Catholic teaching. With the push of the liberal agenda false teaching is happening too often and silence is consent.

“There are several approaches you could take here in order to act with both truth and charity.”
Of course your fundamental assumption is that there is such a thing as “truth” in such a situation.  Every religious person is soooo convinced that his religion is the only way to the “truth”.

Of course there is such a thing as “truth.”  Jesus Christ is Truth. The Teachings of Jesus Christ is Truth. The Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church protects and defends that Truth. If one is a Catholic, they should know the Truth of their faith. We aren’t talking about the other numerous religious communities that have bits and peices of the truth wrapped up in their own manmade “truths.” Frankly, we pray and always hope that all believers in Christ come home to the Church, but they are not our concern. We expect and deserve to have our clergy and religous and our brothers and sisters to be versed in the Truth.

“Jesus Christ is Truth. The Teachings of Jesus Christ is Truth. The Church Jesus founded, the Catholic Church protects and defends that Truth.”
You are soooo sure that your particular religion is the only one with the inside track to the “truth”.  As soon as I reply “hilarious”, this comment will disappear and I will be banned.

JD Hughes: You sound like Pilot.  There is Truth and you live with it every day. For instance life has cycles where we see a day has about 24 hours and a year has 365. Seasons follow one after the other, sometimes more extremely than others but always sequentially.  Nature tends toward life.  Try as we might to kill a weed, it finds a way through even cement blocks. Men and women who have sexual unions create children sometimes. Two men or two women who have sexual unions never do.  When we make bad decisions we know it inside ourselves. We have an innate sense of right and wrong and sometimes we listen to it and sometimes we try to kill it. There is more to life and creation than what we see. So many people have had experiences with the mystical, the ghostly, near death, and the supernatural. Love brings more love and arrouses jealousy and hate too.  Hate brings more hate and arrouses a yearning for love and peace.  Truth exists.  We believe based on the teaching of Christ and the unbroken succession we have to His Church that we do have the FULLNESS of Truth in the Catholic Church.  We know that others have alot or some.  The way to find truth is not to pooh pooh it, but to search for it.  I would suggest the New Testament first and the early writings of the Church Fathers and then the Old Testament so that you see how the Old was completed by the New Testament.  It’s a journey and we are all at different places, but at least take the journey.  God bless.

“When we make bad decisions we know it inside ourselves.”
Often “bad decisions” are more clear with 20/20 hindsight.
“We have an innate sense of right and wrong”
Which is mainly not innate - just a cultural artifact.  “You’ve got to be carefully taught.”
“There is more to life and creation than what we see.”
Yes, there’s smell and touch and taste and hearing.  Five senses.  But “reason” really distinguishes men from lesser animals to some extent.
“So many people have had experiences with the mystical, the ghostly, near death, and the supernatural.”
As Feynman said, it’s easy to fool yourself.  That’s why science says those are all unsupported by any evidence.
“We believe based on the teaching of Christ and the unbroken succession we have to His Church that we do have the FULLNESS of Truth in the Catholic Church.”
Of course you do.  So what?  So does every other religious believer.  I’m sure Mormons and Muslims would say the same.  But you could change.
“but at least take the journey.”
Why?  There are plenty of brainwashed people already.  Google “Bill Nye video creationism”.  3.5 million views and 120,000 comments.  40% of US adults think some god created the universe 6000 years ago and made man in his image.  How ignorant.  And completely based on religion.  The Catholic church is “better”.  Humans evolved, but sometime in the past a god gave humans a “soul”.  How ridiculous!  Your book of mythology is virtually worthless when it comes to the “truth”.

JD Hughes: Faith has been under attack for at least one hundred years so it is no wonder you struggle to accept the supernatural. If you began your life with parents who knew God, you would have begun your life talking to Him as a young, innocent child and that beauty and innocence would have been rewarded with God revealing Himself to you - not by your parents but by His very self, apart from them. They help instill the gift of faith, but the faith in you is what is rewarded. You would pray and he would answer. You would ask and be given, seek and find, knock and it would be open to you. As a jaded adult with no faith He may not so readily. He is waiting for you to want it. You have to lay the groundwork. I have been both the innocent child and the jaded adult who walked away from God, but thankfully He brought me back.  Perhaps if someone is not baptised they do not have the innate sense of right and wrong and they do not know a decision is bad. Baptism reconnects us to God’s grace and His Spirit within us guides us. But it isn’t all based on what we’re taught. When we have a choice between doing something positive and negative, no one has to teach us that the positive is better.  That is one of those truths that you probably do not believe but we experience.  We do have consciences and some are formed well and some are not so to that degree we are influenced by the culture we are in. As to mystical experiences etc. being unsupported by science, that is just a lie.  Take Saint Padre Pio for example.  He had the five wounds of Christ and they were examined by an atheist doctor and a Christian doctor regularly to see if Padre Pio was inflicting these wounds on himself or if they were some psychological phenomenon or if they were supernatural. They documented the wounds, the bleeding and the flesh around them and knew they were miraculous.  These wounds were particularly painful on Good Friday, the day the Church commemorates Christ’s crucifixion. Miraculous healings occurred when Padre Pio interceded with God for people. The atheist doctor was converted by his time in Padre Pio’s presence.  Padre Pio also had the “odor of sanctity”. He smelled like roses even though he had blood oozing and drying on his five wounds. He should have stunk. There are thousands of witnesses to this.  He was proven to bilocate, being in prayer at a chapel and at a hospital bedside at the same time.  Witnesses are still alive to testify to this. He read souls in the confessional (telling people sins they forgot to mention or the intent they had coming to him) and people whose souls he read are still alive to testify to this.  He foretold events such as telling Carol Woltyja (sp?) that he would be Pope one day. He became Pope John Paul II. He saw his guardian angel since his childhood and didn’t realize everyone didn’t , and on and on.  He died in 1968 and there are volumes about his holiness and his affirmation of life after death and heaven and hell. There are also Eucharistic miracles that have been examined in different cities throughout the world, scientifically, and proven to be supernatural where the host (bread) consecrated at Mass and the wine consecrated at Mass have been proven to have turned to real flesh and real blood.  There is the cloak of Juan Diego that revealed an image of the Blessed Mother and has been scientifically examined and is on display in Mexico.  God reaches out to us.  But we have to be open.  Yes, people raised in other faiths may believe also they have the one true faith which is why they are where they are.  We have examined them all and found elements missing that Christ incorporated into His Church, but we recognize faith as a journey and God’s love for all people of good will and we remember His admonition not to stop someone who is preaching Christ because “if they are not against us, they are with us.”  It isn’t about competing. It is about finding Truth. We know Adam and Eve were the first “souls”.  My own mother had a near death experience and was “floating” (her soul) above her hospital bed looking down at her body and the doctors and hearing every word.  Many people have experienced this.  You seem so adamantly opposed to truth and religion to the point you can not acknowledge the existence of the spiritual. Do you want to convince the readers here they are brainwashed?  I personally have received God’s grace many ways and have no desire to be where you are.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.  Jesus Christ is Lord. There is no other religion or belief that is based on a relationship with a person, who happens to also be God. There is one truth. Only one.  All the rest are just man made ways to live. Some of them are good and some are not, but only one will bring you to eternal life in the glory of God.

You cannot make someone believe in ths supernatural if they have not experienced it. Most of the time, you cannot even explain it to them, as they have no frame of reference.

One thing that is true. If anyone should seek the Lord, with all their heart, they will find Him. I was blessed, I did not believe and He came to me and showed me He existed.  Sometimes people have to be broken or despairing before their hearts are open enough for Him to gain entrance. 

Those of us who KNOW God is real will continue to pray that those who do not will be given the Grace for conversion.  All souls are precious.  God does not condemn anyone to hell. Each person condemns themselves. Once their time is up though, there are no do-overs.  May God grant the gift of faith to all people.

Well said Deblette! Amen

Now that universal salvation has been established and no praying for converts according to Assisi meetings beginning in 1986 culminating the spirit of the Council of Vatican II, no gift or grace is necessary.  All people are saved whether they believe it or not;  all are saved whether they accept it or not.  Baptism and Faith are no longer necessary.  Original sin has long disappeared because of man’s greatest and encounter with God.  So what’s the struggle?  Be happy!!

Bayleaf, From what I read of the meetings your interpretation is way off base.  Do you have a source?

“Faith has been under attack for at least one hundred years”
Irrelevant.  The newest “attack” has made it clear that the conflict is a political conflict.  On the one hand we have politicians who cater to the religious and claim that they are going to end abortion or end free contraception or end Medicare as we know it or whatever.  On the other hand we have politicians that will not cater quite so much to the religious.  The polls now indicate that the number of people who answer “none” to religious affiliation has been increasing.  It is also a science versus religion conflict between knowledge and willful ignorance.  Google “Bill Nye Video creationism”.  3.5 million views!  Perhaps in another century or two, the need for the crutch of religion will fade.
“it is no wonder you struggle to accept the supernatural.”
Science says “no” to the supernatural.  The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.  UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles - lots of “evidence”.  Science says the evidence is worthless.  Your book of mythology and your anecdotes - science says your evidence is worthless.
“with God revealing Himself to you”
Worthless.  Science is about “not fooling yourself and you are the easiest person to fool” - Feynman.
“But it isn’t all based on what we’re taught.”
Of course it is.  Children are selfish - me, me, me.  They must be taught compassion for others.  Parents reveal that there is no Santa Claus eventually.  They fail to reveal that there’s no answer to anyone’s prayers to a “god” because there is no “god” to answer such prayers.
“As to mystical experiences etc. being unsupported by science, that is just a lie.”
You are entitled to your opinion.
From Wikipedia:
“The founder of Milan’s Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, who met Padre Pio once, for a few minutes, but was unable to examine his stigmata, concluded Padre Pio was “an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people’s credulity.”“
“Witnesses are still alive to testify to this.”
Irrelevant.  Anecdotes are not evidence.
“It is about finding Truth.”
Yes, it is.  And science is the only proven method to truth.  Religion has never found any truth.
“We know Adam and Eve were the first “souls”.”
No, you don’t.  That opinion is obviously contrary to science.  There is no such thing as a “soul”.  There never was an Adam and Eve.  And the idea that a god gave some pre-human a soul to make him a real human is just silly.
“Do you want to convince the readers here they are brainwashed?”
As children, yes.  As adults they are simply deluded.
“only one will bring you to eternal life in the glory of God.”
Science says “no”.  But it sure is an effective promise to the believers.
“Once their time is up though, there are no do-overs.”
Correct.  This is the only life we will ever lead - so be the best that you can be.

JD Hughes:  The hundred years is definitely not irrelevant but not something you can understand at the moment because it has spiritual roots. The attack may appear political, but it is at its root Spiritual.  Look at the issues. God said I put before you life or death, choose life.  Now Satan doesn’t want that.  Abortion is the intentional killing of a child in the womb by its own mother.  Mother’s don’t kill their own children. At least not if they can see any other way out. One candidate wants the government and taxpayers to pay for that assuming the child is a burden and the mother should feel ok with killing her own child. The other candidate wants us to help the mother in her time of need to make a choice for life and to build a compassionate society that wants to face difficulty with character and love. He wants programs that promote choosing life.  He knows some people may still choose death but he doesn’t want our government and taxpayers to pay for it. As a Catholic, I don’t want to pay for it either.  Same idea with contraception. Men and women are created to love each other, not use each other for sexual gratification.  Love entails self-giving and self-restraint and commitment for the sake of the other.  Men and women come to feel entitled to recreational sex and women are often used. Hearts are broken on both sides.  The burden of taking responsibility for one’s action and affirming the life-giving act you participated in falls almost solely on the woman.  Children are killed because they are an embarassment or a mistake or unwanted and society is so cruel to those struggling.  And the contraceptives that were meant to prevent having to make that decision fail a regular percent of the time.  It is not good for us to be so selfish and it isn’t good for us to forget we are not God. It isn’t good for our souls (whether or not you believe in it),nor for our society. Giving into our baser selves doesn’t make us the best we can be. So one candidate says we want what we want and we don’t care about the moral implications and the other says, you may decide you want to use contraceptives, but the government isn’t going to pay because the societal and moral cost is too high. As for medicare, one has already taken billions of dollars from it and is trying to force socialism on us by impoverishing the nation and the other is fighting to restore it to health.  So seems pretty clear one is choosing life on most issues and one is choosing death on most issues.  I will choose life. As to your, “Science says no to Supernatural”, that is untrue.  You can repeat it and hope people believe it but scientists and science are divided on the issue.  Einstein strongly believed in God. There is no logic that says belief and science are incompatible.  You seem to be a big fan of this Feynman.  We really are nothing compared to God, but we are really fools if we can’t find Him through His creation. Take the time to ponder the miraculous world around you. Children have survival instincts and can appear to be all me, me, me but they are extremely compassionate and quick to comfort a hurt friend.  I am sorry if a prayer of yours has not been answered.  Mine are answered.  Not always as I like and sometimes more spectacularly than I could have imagined. I know hundreds of people who would tell you the same and I’m sure there are more like millions. And Wikipedia as a source?  Anyone can put anything in there. You would take a line from there of a man who “spent a few minutes” with Padre Pio (if any of that is even true at all) over the research of several doctors that you could actually read and confirm?  You lose alot of respect their my friend.  As to the soul, there was a movie out that used as it’s premise a scientific fact.  Bodies weigh I forget how many ounces less once a person dies.  The soul leaves it.  That’s science. JD why bother being the best you can be if this is it?  And how can you be the best you can be if you have closed yourself off to Truth and faith and thousands of years of wisdom? That makes YOU sound like a fool. If nothing matters and there are no consequences alot of people will be amoral and do and say whatever to get their way.  We already see it in politics.  I know you don’t want to believe so there is really nothing we can do except pray you receive the grace of wanting to believe or being open to believe and then the grace of faith itself. You were made for immortality and you are settling for seventy or eighty years.  Hope they are spectacular because they other side ain’t gonna be fun.

“God said I put before you life or death, choose life.  Now Satan doesn’t want that.”
You write as though a “god” and a “satan” really exist.  I reject your assertions because you have no “evidence”.
“As to your, “Science says no to Supernatural”, that is untrue.  You can repeat it and hope people believe it but scientists and science are divided on the issue.”
The top scientists of the national Academy of Sciences are nearly all atheists.  There is no “evidence” of the supernatural.  Please point me to the peer-reviewed scientific papers about the supernatural.  :-)
“Einstein strongly believed in God.”
You are incorrect for almost all values of “god”.  See Wikipedia.
“There is no logic that says belief and science are incompatible.”
Faith - belief without evidence is incompatible with science.
“Take the time to ponder the miraculous world around you.”
The word “miraculous” is being misused here.  This Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and modern humans have been here for only a tiny fraction of that time.  There is nothing all that “miraculous” about this world.  It just happened to be the right temperature.  I would assume that many other similar worlds will be found in the future among the nearest 100,000 or so stars.  The fact that this Earth has life does not in any way imply that a “god” exists.  If that asteroid had not killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the tiny little mammals of that time would never have evolved into humans.  Dinosaurs would still rule.
“I know hundreds of people who would tell you the same and I’m sure there are more like millions.”
Anecdotes are not evidence.  Humans have evolved to see “purpose” around them when there is none.
“Bodies weigh I forget how many ounces less once a person dies.”
Hilarious.  It was in 1901!  It was 21 grams - about 1/2 ounce from a body of 2000 to 3000 ounces.  Ridiculous.  From Wikipedia:  “His results have never been reproduced, and are generally regarded either as meaningless or considered to have had little if any scientific merit.”
“if you have closed yourself off to Truth and faith”
Hilarious religious silliness - you have no “truth” from your religion.
“If nothing matters and there are no consequences alot of people will be amoral and do and say whatever to get their way.”
Such a silly failure of an “argument”.  Can’t you do any better than that?
“You were made for immortality”
I’m probably already too old.  The latest Discover magazine speculates that anyone under about 50 may live to see medicine conquer aging and produce nearly effective immortality.
“they other side ain’t gonna be fun.”
Such a silly statement.  You have faith, but no evidence.
The Wikipedia entry on “afterlife” is long and interesting.  Many different religions have wild and wonderful (and contradictory) opinions.  But it’s all irrational nonsense.

Pam, there is no doctrinal basis for the Assisi meetings.

JD, Obviously you don’t care to have any kind of exchange, but even an atheist should be able to see that when two candidates both profess belief in Jesus Christ and one takes actions against life totally opposed to those belief and one takes actions for life consistent with those beliefs, the first lacks honesty and character or knowledge and understanding while the second does not. Also personal accounts are data and “evidence” in alot of scientific research so it is ignorant or duplicitous to categorize it otherwise. And science and belief are not incompatible because science will prove truth and confirm the divine.

Bayleaf, You didn’t answer my question. Doctrinally I could support it under Christ’s command to “Go preach to all nations.”

JD: Here is a link that mentions scientific studies that support the supernatural:  www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evidence_of_the_supernatural.html

Pam,  The Assisi Meetings makes obsolete: the need for the Church Christ established; the Theological and Cardinal Virtues; the need to be absolved regularly from sins; the need to pray for oneself and others’ conversions;  the need to pray for the suffering souls in Purgatory; any heroic acts or charitable works.  It makes obsolete the fact that all Catholics are potential martyrs.  The Assisi Meetings mocks the Saints, Confessors, Virgins, Popes and Martyrs.
Pam, Christ commissioned His Apostles to:  “Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:  but he that believeth not shall be condemned” Mark 16:16.

Bayleaf: You continue to make accusations but don’t give any basis.  What document or announcement makes you jump to all these conclusions.  What I read was that the meeting was to find common ground for peace within the different faith groups.  How do you get from there to the gross leaps of apostasy? There was no praying together.

“one takes actions against life totally opposed to those belief and one takes actions for life consistent with those beliefs”
Thank you soooo much for your opinion.  My opinion is that “actions for life” should not be taken with regard to any silly religion.  But of course a candidate could never admit that.
“Also personal accounts are data and “evidence” in a lot of scientific research”
Yes, research into the psychology of why humans are irrational.  Please cite specific peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature that are not about human irrationality.
“And science and belief are not incompatible because science will prove truth and confirm the divine.”
Fail.  Define the “divine”.  Why do you use the future tense “will”?  One hundred years of science was not enough?
“Here is a link that mentions scientific studies that support the supernatural.”
That silly web site is hilarious.  Please cite scientific peer-reviewed papers from the scientific literature.

JD That wasn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. And it is troubling when anyone in authority says they believe one thing and then does something totally opposed to it. Also, candidates have often admitted that they make decisions independent of their faith. JFK did it much too the chagrin of many Catholics. And why do you find a conflict with choosing life and your own ideology of being the best you can be? Doesn’t being the best you can be include a component for character and sacrificial love? To nonbelievers, I suppose the divine would be the concept of intelligent design. Science already confirms this and will continue to do so the more we learn. As to research, there’s plenty out there.  You can do a google search and come up with plenty of sites.

“And it is troubling when anyone in authority says they believe one thing and then does something totally opposed to it.”
Sounds like a politician to me.  Can you be more specific about a particular “action against life”?  The HHS mandate?  I didn’t think Protestants have any particular disagreement with that.  I note that Catholics claim “religious freedom” is involved.  I think that’s a silly bogus argument.  Oh.  There is this:  “The abortifacient requirement is also contrary to the teachings of many Protestant and Jewish organizations.”  And then a “slippery slope” non-argument.  Note Mark Shea’s piece at patheos where he points out that Romney refused to promise that he would rescind the HHS mandate.
“Doesn’t being the best you can be include a component for character and sacrificial love?”
Of course.  What does that have to do with “choosing life”?  Why can’t you be more specific?
“To nonbelievers, I suppose the divine would be the concept of intelligent design.”
Hilarious nonsense.  Define “intelligent design”.  An Edsel?
“Science already confirms this”
Science confirms WHAT?  What nonsense have you been reading?
“You can do a google search and come up with plenty of sites.”
Thanks sooo much for even giving me the help of telling me what search terms to use - not.

Pam, 150 religions of the world assembled at the invitation of John Paul II to pray together.  No Traditional Catholics were invited.  This is an unprecedented assembly of animism, voodooism, shintoism, Islamism, Jewish, Buddhism, Hinduism……. Pope Piux XI defined these ecumenical gatherings as false in Mortalium Animos, “….it is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God”.
Christ founded His Church to teach all nations all things whatsoever He commanded. This was His solemn command to His Apostles and their successors:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:19).

“Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed it subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”  (Mortalium Animos, 1929)

“It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.”  Canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law 1917.

Truth stays the same or there is no truth.

Bayleaf, It is very troubling when we think our leadership is not being faithful to the teaching of Christ but from what I read Pope Benedict was very careful NOT to have them all pray together because of concerns like what you mention.  John Paul II I don’t know about, but I don’t know if that would qualify as attending one of their assemblies even if he did.  That to me would mean more like participating in another denominations service.  If he prayed to God while other groups prayed to someone/thing else, he was not participating in their service but his own while others were independently participating in their own and they were all reaching out to their deity at the same time.  I can see where that could be seen as supporting something that may oppose Christ in some way but I don’t know enough about this to have an opinion. Christ sat down and met and talked with alot of outcasts. The basis of the meeting was to have all leaders of people of good will commit to peace.  My faith is strong and I do not like seeing any doubt of the truth of God’s Word myself, I just don’t know if that is what this is.

Pam, Christ sat down and met and talked with alot of outcasts in order to convert them to Christ and His Church to be built upon Peter.  The Assisi meetings contradict the Great Commissioning to the Apostles.  Do you want to discuss what happened at the 1986 Assisi Meeting?