04 September, 2010

A Cafeteria Catholic—Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia !

The Setting.
Conservative Catholics are very quick to accuse more “liberal” Catholics of picking and choosing to accept some, but not all, of Catholic teachings. Whether it is use of “artificial” birth control or not “attending” Mass every Sunday or questioning the Church’s position on same-sex behavior, liberals are dismissed as “cafeteria Catholics” choosing only those beliefs,  norms and behaviors that they want to.
Well, conservative Catholics are also cafeteria Catholics; they just select other beliefs and norms to reject. Look at the large number of conservative Catholics today who resist the Vatican and American Bishops teachings on foreign policy,  immigration and capital punishment! A very clear example of the latter is Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s clear-cut rejection of the Catholic teaching on Capital Punishment.
In an earlier post I remarked that the Church has always taught that the community / society has the right to defend itself against violent behavior that endangers individuals and the larger civic community, even the use of capital punishment under some extreme conditions,. Certainly since the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the “Church” has reaffirmed tradition, and with new insight into our contemporary situation, teaches that there is never justification for use of capital punishment in modern industrial and post-industrial societies. Why? The popes respond that there are other “less extreme” measures that accomplish the same goal: the protection of individuals and communities as a whole. One such measure is the penalty of Life in Prison Without Parole. This is what the Catechism says”
Today, in fact as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense of doing harm –-without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are extremely rare, if practically non-existent.”  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997 edition. # 2267 par 3. See also Pope John Paul, II: Evangelim Vitae  Par. 56).

Justice Antonin Scalia’s rejection of the Papal teaching on Capital Punishment.
Justice Scalia publicly rejected  Papal teaching on Capital Punishment in Chicago on 25 January 2002, and again in February 2002 during an open forum at Georgetown University as reported by the Pew Research Center in Scalia Calls Death Penalty Constitutional, Not Immoral (See also: “Scalia questions Catholic stance on death penalty” USA Today 02/04/2002 [no longer online]).
At the Chicago meeting, Justice Scalia said a number of things that showed his opposition to Church teaching. Speaking as a strict constitutionalist, Scalia said. “the constitutionality of the death penalty is not a difficult soul-wrenching question.
In response to a question asking whether current practice violates the Eighth Amendment, Justice Scalia responded, “Does it [the death penalty] constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The answer is No.”
As a Roman Catholic, Scalia disagrees with the recent teaching of the Catholic catechism and Evangelium Vitae “that the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than avenge,” and is therefore almost always wrong……. In fact Justice Scalia reacted to this statement by saying, This view [Canon 2267] is not a “position that Christianity has always maintained…There have Christian opponents of the death penalty just as there have been Christian pacifists, but neither of those positions has ever been  predominant in the church.
The Justice also said, “No authority that I know of denies the 2000-year-old tradition of the church approving capital punishment…I don’t see why there’s been a change.”
Especially in this response Justice Scalia tries to justify his rejection of the Pope’s teaching on the grounds that it is not old or traditional enough. Scalia is out of touch with the idea of the development [not wholesale change] of doctrine and that the Church has used an historically conscious method of doing social ethics at least since the late 1890s.
When asked whether or how his religious views came into play, Scalia, replied,
“I try mightily to prevent my religious views… from affecting my interpretation of the laws…. He continued, “The only one of my religious views that has anything to do  with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment –thou shalt not lie.

My observations on Justice Scalia as a “Cafeteria” Catholic.
I do not at all question the sincerity of Antonin Scalia’s Faith. He attended Georgetown University and later taught there as a visiting professor. He is the father of nine children. He is a “strict constructionist” and one of the most conservative justices on the Court. He is 73 years old.
I have no quarrel with Justice Scalia as a man. I do feel, however, that he is an excellent example of a conservative Cafeteria Catholic. At least two characteristics help account for this situation. First, he does not believe that the US Constitution is a “living document” but rather it is an “enduring” document that must be read and interpreted just as it was written, sort of like inerrantist fundamentalist Christians understand the Bible. Second, whether he uses the word or not, he has a “classist” understanding of Law and his faith. A classist understands the world as unchanging, with universal norms both in principle and application. This view tends to be very static. It sees change as a negative thing and, therefore, is very hesitant to take into account specific contemporary sociocultural realities or ongoing human experience as relevant to moral decision making. That is why he doesn’t like to see the “change” in the Church’s understanding  of the applicability of the practice of capital punishment.
My real point here is that conservative Catholics are  very often “Cafeteria Catholics.” The major difference between a liberal and a conservative “Cafeteria Catholic” is the particular part(s) of Catholic teaching they choose to ignore or reject.

Another Cafeteria Catholic I know
For example, I blogged, emailed and IMed a Catholic young man for months and months. He was the first person to ever comment on one of my blog posts. He is very intelligent, funny, and deep down he is very tender. He loves his family unconditionally. He loves the Catholic Church as he understands it. Unfortunately right now he is very angry and presents himself as very close-minded. He seldom heard anything I ever said (because it was too complicated) and once he began to call me a “heretic,” a “pretend Catholic” and things like that, I was miffed and felt like he really couldn’t / wouldn’t be a dialogue partner any longer. I must admit I broke off what began as a good friendship with sadness and hurt feelings.
But this man, who so defends  the “Church” in some areas, is a Cafeteria Catholic. In a previous blog he operated, he showed by what he wrote that he was unable to accept the Vatican and American Bishops’ positions on immigration and health care, or foreign policy.
So in the end, continually voicing, and screaming by Conservative Catholics that Vatican II,  liberal or progressive Catholics are unfaithful to the Church is to say the least, not helpful and will be one more thing to drive people out of the Church.
Comments are welcome here!!!


  1. Perhaps an article to be released in October may shed some light of the most recent thinking of the Catholic Church on the death penalty which I will copy below. Personally, I refer back to the New Testament where Jesus was asked about the death penalty. He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


  2. Kathleen,
    Thanks for your comment. There was no article. I am anxious to read any update in thinking. Take care, Seb

  3. Hi regards to Justice Scalia I to find his position troubling. But if that is all you can come up with regards to a "conservative" Catholic that is not much is it? Now regards to yours truely (me). You claim I am a cafeteria Catholic..prove it! You state such thing as immigration. Okay lets look at immigration. I have stated over and over...every country has a right to protect its borders. Every nation on earth has immigration laws. In fact the USA has one of the most liberal immigration laws in the world. I have stated that people should follow immigration laws...such as my family did. I am in immigrant just like the latino's only difference between my family and many latino's we followed the laws of the United States. Did you know even the Vatican has immigration laws? Did you know that at 23:00 every evening the Vatican seals off the city. No one is allowed in or out? Even America does not do this. Do you think an Italian living in Rome can just move in illegally to the Vatican? Just find a bed and move in and become a citizen of the Vatican.. which is a sovern nation like the USA? Nothing have I said regarding immigration is agaisnt church teaching. If you think other wise prove it. Another thing you mention foreign policy...um okay well no details here another thing that is oddly missing. You say because I do not support socialized medicine or socialist policy I am going against church teachings? Odd wasn't Hitler a socialist? Yes think he was. Wasn't the bishops of the United States against obama care? yes think they were. Fact is socialize medicine does not work and thousands die from it every year..ask the Canadian how they like socialized medicine..better yet ask an Italian..oh wait I am an Italian..it sucks. The Church has always spoken against socialist.

    No regards to progessive catholics such as yourself..well that is a good question. Why are they considered heretics? Well because they just don't go against some church teachings but most Church teachings...such things as fornication, abortion like they actually think its okay for a mother to kill her own child, homosexual sex, gay-marriage, denying the real presense in the Eurcharist. Its okay to miss Mass if you have better things to do like, as you said once "a picnic" or lets say a ball game or maybe cause they just didn't feel like getting out of bed. Many progressives push the pagan idea of women priestesses, and have very little concern to the Blessed Mother...denying many if not most Marion doctrines. One thing I find very odd with you you are high on the polls. But you make no difference between Catholic by name vs Catholic by faith. There is a difference. A poll will come around and a "catholic" will say "yes I support the killing of children" or "yes I support same sex marriages" but yet they haven't been to church in years. This polls are blantly inaccurate and no one holds any credit to them. About 20 percent of US catholics are faithful and gracefilled-are you one? Anyways these are the ones and only ones that can be rightly called "catholic" if these polls were soley for them you would find in fact the results would be different.

    You are only trying to propagate your own brand of Catholism nothing more. Let me ask you one question do you disagree with the moral teachings of the Church yes or no. Very simple question..very simple answer. If so which ones? all of them or just a selected few or many? Which teachings to you hold to be true and which ones false? Never did ever get a straight answer from you....

    BTW if you are going to quote me do so accurately and your protrayal of me is so far off the mark it is laughable. Ken work on honesty.

  4. BTW never meant to hurt you but feelings are not based on facts. Why would I debate someone who clearly goes against church teaching? did the jews debate hitler?

  5. The reason why I say your comments are confusing cause they are. Take no offense to this but it is the truth-many progressives go on and on talk and talk..when the answer is much simpler. Look at Obama he rarely answers a question point blank he just goes on and on. I don't know why progressives do this.

    You consider me a conservative Catholic I consider myself faithful. But if conservative means faithful than so be it. To tell you the truth I really don't know what you do believe regarding the Church. I know some things you do not agree with. You don't agree with much of Church teaching. Then I have to ask myself why would you consider yourself even Catholic? I would never been in a religion I considered to be in error. Maybe you think one day the Church will change to your liking. Maybe you think a great pope will arrive and turn every thing up on its head. What if that day never happens? What then? My point is very simple. Either you believe what the Church teaches and proclaims or you don't. You claim many Catholics leave the faith because such things as behind the times. Do you really believe the Church is behind the times? I would argue the Church is ahead of the times. Do you really think most of the arguments you present are something new? Really? Now I know some progressives based their things on science but even science does not agree but mostly progressives based their thoughts on feelings have nothing to do with fact. I tend to think progressives think of the Church in a world view, faithful Catholics tend to think the Church in divine view. Perfect example lets say the pope tomorrow says fornication is acceptable is not a sin. then the next pope comes along and says it is a sin, then the one after says it is not a sin....on and on. Many things I see in a progressive mind is solely bases on opinion polls. Do we really believe God is subject to opinion polls. Do we really believe natural laws caves in to the minds of man? If we went by progressive mind-set every decade or so the church would be coming up with new morals, then reversing then back again. It would be an endless cycle. I can not understand why you would think this way. I have also learned progressive Catholics worry more about the mind of man vs mind of God. They tend to make God in their image, not man in God's image. One thing I also never understood about you is why are you so into polls? Why? And do you actually believe these polls are accurate? Example...lets say 100 Catholics are surveyed regarding murder. Lets say the Catholics that haven't been to church in years, stop going to mass, confession and prayer..lets say 60 percent of these Catholics are like this and lets say all of them say murder is okay. Now lets take the other 40 percent they say no murder is not okay..these lets say go to church, mass confession and they are truly living the faith. Would you not agree that the true Catholics are the 40 percent? Then would you not agree 100 percent of the Catholics in this poll agree murder is a sin? my point is very simple Ken..many surveys do not tell the difference between practicing/faithful Catholics and lapse Catholics. The lapse Catholics only identify themselves Catholic when a survey comes along. In your polls I think it is blatantly dishonest. Not once in any of your polls or surveys have you differentiated between Catholics that are faithful and those who are not.

  6. Davide,
    Thank you for your comment. I just wish you had spoken more to the point of the post, that the label that "Cafeteria Catholic" can apply to conservative Catholics as well as to liberal Catholics.

  7. lol ofcourse it could but I would hardly compare the two. Lets say the good justice is for the death penalty which I totally do not get but lets say this is all is against Church teaching. Could this man really be considered a Cafeteria Catholic? Perhaps. But when we speak of caferteria catholics we think of those who against many not just one but many church teachings. The perfect example of this is progressive catholics. They just don't go against some Church teachings but many if not most. I would argue that many progessives agree very little with Church teaching. Some even disagree in the real presence, some say Mass in not necessary, some think most of the Marian doctrines are bunk. on and on..they have a latany of things that go against church teaching. Each becoming thier own little popes. There is a huge differnece between going against one Church teaching which is error than many and most church teachings. You might be correct to say some conservatives whatever that means..I guess you mean faithful or traditional. But even conservative catholics might not be faithful. I don't ever recalling many conservatives going against Church teachings..perhaps the death penality would be the only acception...but to compare progressives to conservatives is like comparing a rhino to a chevy.I just don't understand if I was progressive why would I stay in a church I felt was wrong..to me this is simple..I wouldn't..BTW I open up the forum for progressives and you are welcome to go there..

  8. BTW I did comment on the post earlier today but for some strange reason I don't see it here..um very strange..but yes I did comment on justice Scalia...

  9. Again, Davide,
    Thank you for this comment. I am sorry that we can have no sensible, reasoned dialogue or even "argument."

    I do hope your physio re your Italian is going well, and that you are enjoying your stay at home.

  10. Diaolog to be sensible...you mean for me to agree with you? You're kidding right? If you want to dialog don't expect me to agree with you. Thanks what I don't get. I don't agree with you and you accuse me of being perhaps unsensible? unreasonable dialog perhaps? or even an arguement. What exactly do you espect from me? Tell me. I posted my opinion about justice Scalia but yet I do not see it. It's cool..one thing about progressives and this is so true in the political realm they hate when others disagree with them..look at obama he wants to limit free speech...because people don't agee with him...did Bush do that to those against the wars? Not hardly...If you are going to comment about me on your post do so honestly. You should state "Davide did comment on this but I won't print it"...honestly Ken give it a try...

  11. Davide,

    I have posted EVERY comment you have ever sent me and I have responded back to every one of your comments to me.

    I know you will not believe this, but I have NEVER corresponded with you trying to make you change your beliefs.

    My definition of "dialogue" is a give and take conversation between people who my have different perspectives on some topic or issue who respect each other, truly listen to each other and who seek to better understand each other in seeking the truth together, accepting the reality that no one has knowledge of the "whole truth."

    Anyway, this conversation is is going nowhere and certainly is not a dialogue.

    So, GOOD BYE, Davide. I wish God's love (grace)to descend upon you and fill every part of you.

  12. Ken, I left couple other comments and some reason they did not appear. You accuse me of being a cafeteria Catholic and I was only stating my position. None of my comments on this blog or my own were against "official" Church teaching if you say that I am than prove it. I do not believe I am in error. I am not going to rebuttal a second time from my first comment that is not posted here. I understand what dialog means. I just happen to believe the Church is correct. You are incorrect on some things. This is Canon Law a Catholic must accept all Church teachings this is Canon Law. Or they are in sin. This is Canon Law. I am no more a theologian than you are...so some issues I have no right to debate official Catholic teachings. My point is this. If I felt the Church was wrong so many times about so many things no way would I remain Catholic. Reason tell me why would I be Catholic if I felt they were not proclaiming truth. To me this is a no brainer. I disagree the Church does in fact have "whole Truth" regarding Moral and divine law this to is Catholic teaching. Also according to Canon law the Pope is the only "true" interpreter of natural, and divine law. No other person has this right. By the power of his office he is infallible regarding faith and morals. The Holy Spirit protects the Church regarding issues of Faith and Morals. This is Catholicism 101. If you want to seek truth with me fine than do it...but you need to get inline with the truth and only the Catholic Church has this truth. Either we accept or we reject there is no middle ground. If you do not believe what the Church teaches than can you rightly be called a Catholic? According to Canon Law you can not. Do not take this issue up with me take it up with the church. Everything I have stated does not contradict church teaching infact I would argue lines up perfectly with Church teachings. When I have an issue with Church teaching I pray to have a better understanding. So far my faith has led me to believe this infallible truth. Some of us are given faith, others are not. Thanks for the well wishes. Hope you well to and I pray that you have a better understanding of Church teachings.

  13. Ken thank you for the kind words. Ken the truth is I simply do not accept your theology. You do not accept mine or Church teachings. We look at the Church differently. I never meant to hurt you and perhaps it was wrong for me to call you a heretic. But many things you believe is heresy. There is no way around this. The Church is Divine cause Christ is divine. The Church is human cause man is human. Yes there are times the Church might be in error, but not regarding morals and faith. Sometimes leaders or priest are sinful to the core. But aren't we all? Just this week the Holy Father stated the Church needs conversion not radical change. Many people in the Church and mostly from progressives are calling for radical change. I mention progressives so much cause they are the loudest bunch. Even though they continue to be weakened and holds very little credit in the Church they still are a noisy bunch. No Church leader takes them seriously. Many progressives are calling for radical change within the church such as women priestesses which is a pagan, homosexual same-sex marriages which clearly violates the biblical teachings, church and natural law. For 21 centuries the church has taught these things to be in error. Today we have a thing called dictatorship of relativism. The pope spoke of this shortly before being elected pope to the Cardinals then by the power of the Holy Spirit he was elected pope. This attest to this truth. The world can not survive without the Catholic Church because it can not survive without the holy Mass. Countless Catholic saints over the years have spoken this truth. Padre Pio spoke of this much. The world need the moral voice of the Church it bleeds for it. Catholics need to conversion of heart not radical change. This radical change that so many call for will never happen. Never will the Church condone women priestesses or homosexual marriages these things will never come to pass. 500 years from now these things will never come to pass. We must live our faith and convert and show our sorrow for our sins. The homosexual priest abuse scandal is the biggest scandal in church history. But in the a thousand years ago the Church also went through a homosexual abuse scandal but was on a much smaller scale. So this is nothing new. Each day we are seeing more and more of this come to light. All these truths will be revealed the world will see the truth about the homosexual abuse scandal, much of the world already knows..more will come to light. Researchers and specialist, and child molester experts have weighed in and will continue. As a gay man we are called to live chaste lives there is no other option, if we are Catholic. Active homosexual priest have no business in the priesthood and we can clearly see why. The pope or the next pope will demand all homosexual priest, religious, to be removed from their calling this will come to pass. The Church has no choice. Of course most homosexual are not child abusers. What good does it do us to win the world but loose our souls? Of course we stumble and fall into sin. But we try harder next time. I have been chaste since 26 June and I am happiest now more than ever. Chastity is a divine gift that all that are not married are called to be. I can debate these things with non Catholics but with other "caholics" there is no debate. We pray that people in the Church will convert and turn from sin. Those who don't should leave the Church. If a progressive Catholic or others who constantly go against Church teaching and have no intentions of converting to truth than they should leave. I can see in the very near future that a false Catholic Church will rise up. We must ask ourselves which side will we choose with the Vicar of Christ or not. The next pope will not change these moral laws or the one after him and on and on. To say these things will happen is being foolish.

  14. Davide, I have posted your comment because it is my policy to allow everyone their do. I must say, however, that I haven't read it. I have heard your mantra before.

  15. This is off-topic but I'll say it; it's changes such as these that clearly (to me) contradict the supposition that the Pope is Christ's vicar here on Earth. I'm sorry but it just seems (again, to me) to be so very unlikely that God/Spirit/Yahweh/whatever-name-we-so-choose-to-refer-to-the-all-knowing-as would "change his mind about certain things, from one Pope to the next."

    I'm not trying to intentionally dismiss the Pope, or in any way attack his position (as in "office") but I just felt it was worthwhile to state my position on that before I go further in my comments.

    As for Justice Scalia, he's correct when he states, "The only one of [my] religious views that has anything to do with [my] job as a judge is the seventh commandment—thou shalt not lie." Our entire court system is based on the premise that all those called upon to testify WILL tell the truth; anyone caught lying in court will be held in contempt and charged with perjury.

    But I agree with you that Scalia is just as much a "Cafeteria" Catholic (albeit a conservative one) as any other Catholic individual alive. I've always hated that phrase, as it (and you've spelled it out so well in this blog entry) is always used by those who are trying to dismiss the beliefs of other Catholics, whom he/she/they believe are not living up to and following the teachings of the Catholic Church well enough. You've said it yourself here; everyone "chooses" what they wish to believe or not. The stances of some are more liberal and thus, their religious beliefs reflect that while the positions of others are much more conservative (thus, the specific rules of canon law and individual [religious] beliefs those individuals choose to follow will fairly represent their conservative positions). Both sides are "choosing" what he, she, they believe..

    As for Davide's comments, it appears to me that he has submitted four of them to date. Have there been others (posted to this entry)? I well understand the "dialogue issue" and agree. There is only one site that I [generally] do not worry about having a dialogue, and will allow myself to let off steam at. (That would be the Topix website, which I long ago did decide was a site that seldom encouraged real dialogue. Heck, even the so-called conservative Catholics over there went after Davide, which was so typical of those who will never acknowledge others have the right to their opinions as well. Davide did not even direct any of his criticism, personally, at the two who later bore down upon him but they felt he was there only to take my side and support me so they attacked him. That is the problem when "assumptions" are made; little did they know that Davide and I have not really been getting along very well for some time now, and that his presence there was of his own choosing. Anyway, this last para is all off-topic.)

    I agree with you that "Cafeteria" Catholics exist on both side of the spectrum, just as such a "Cafeteria-style" of choices exists in any other religion, be it Protestant, Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism, Buddhism, etc. People pick and choose what they will readily identify with; NO person is immune to such a thing and those who claim they are, I will always think of as "liars".

    Thanks for the blog post.


  16. Michael,
    Thank you for your comment. Yes "Cafeteria Catholic" was created to bash Catholics who act as adult Catholics in their life in the Church. Those who literally believe that every teaching and word of the pope must be accepted as if it were infallible are, first of all wrong, but more significantly acting like children not as adult sons and daughters of God.

    I do not follow Topix so I don't know much about what goes on there.

    As often happens, I don't think we see it exactly the same, but we could have a fruitful dialogue.

    Take care, Seb

  17. Michael and Ken, Hi-I have never supported the death penalty. Justice Scalia does and I find this to be odd. Is he a cafeteria Catholic? perhaps. I also find it odd that many liberals or whomever don't support the death penalty but support the right for a mother to kill her own child. Also find it odd that many pro-lifers are pro-death penalty.

    Ken-I don't look at it as Catholic bashing or bashing those who pick and choose. The pope is infallible regarding faiths and morals, when he speaks ex cathedra.This must be believe by all Catholics. The Holy Spirit protects the church from teaching error. The pope when he speaks infallible speaks with the voice of God. This happens when he speaks or promulgates on behave of the Church. But he is not impeccable-which means free of sin. Ken is the Pope the Vicar of Christ or isn't he? Is the pope Jesus Christ true representative on earth or isn't he?

    My point is this. If I am Catholic do I have the right to tell the Church to change its position on teachings that I am uncomfortable with or don't like? Is this my right? Is it my right to tell others that they do not have to go by Church teaching? Is it my right to promote others to sin? Ken looks at the Church I think more aa a democracy. More based on human opinion polls vs divine inspiration. Many progressives (not ken per-say) speak up against many or most Church teachings. Some even saying Christ was not God, that Christ is not divine. My other point is also this...why would anyone want to remain in a church or a religion if they felt the Church was constantly wrong about things? I wouldn't.

    Me and Ken just look at the Church differently. But I can tell you this. If I thought like Ken thought I would never remain in the Church. why? well like I said before and also because I know and Ken must also know he is in a battle that he will never win. These things that he advocates will never come to pass not now not ever. So why would I ever stay in a religion if I felt that religion was false?
    Okay have a great day...bye

  18. Davide,
    Thank you, again, for your comment.
    I am not in battle with the Church, you, or anyone else.

  19. Ken thanks sorry I need to choose my words more closely. I should not assume you are in a battle only asking the Church to look into matters. Sometimes I have a hard time finding right words. There are people who however do want to have battle with the Church from within or outside the Church. This battle will never defeat the Church or absolute truths. The church has been burying her enemies for 21 centuries. There are things that are absolute truths this is a Church doctrine. Only the Catholic Church holds such truths and only the Catholic Church can make such a claim. We are one family even though many in the church act like the spoiled teenage girls they are still part of the faith..providing they have not excommunicated themselves and sadly millions have...but only takes conversion. The Church is in a sad state of affairs however its time like this great saints will rise up. The Pope recently spoke of this just the other day. This pope now needs our prayers he is probably one of the greatest popes in Church history. He is a super intelligent man, kind and humble. The Holy Spirit always puts the perfect person in as pope doesn't he? Whatever the need a good and saintly man always fills this post and does so elegantly. Out of almost 300 popes in Church history only 5 or 6 were bad men..this is a true miracle.We also should pray for all priest, bishops and religious. I know many people want radical change the pope also spoke of this the other day. They must understand this "radical" change will never ever happen. So it only cause them resentment and ugliness. They need to be free but they choose to live in the chains of sin. One famous saint once said "the Church is a whore, the Church is my mother". This is so true, because of sins of people in the church it is a whore, because hes is the bride of Christ she is our mother..take care Ken...peace

  20. David,
    Thank you for your comment. It saddens me that you will never see that, in terms of the fundamental beliefs and doctrines of the Church, we very determinately are extremely close.

  21. Hi Ken-yes I agree with you it is sad. The last few days I have been in a aweful mood..think I am homesick..and have had a migraine since this morning. Since my accident they are frequent. Maybe next weekend I will take the train to Milano see family or Venice to see my good friend Flappos. Kinda lonely here...believe or not so sick of Italian food and miss my peanut butter and honey sandwiches. Can not find peanut butter anywhere in this country..silly Italians. This place were I am at is so unlike what I thought..much more than speech..I actually have homework and I have a freaking cooking class twice a week. Earlier this week I was baking a freaking cake at 22:00. Can you believe that? poor Davide... ;)

    Yes Ken I am sure our fundamental beliefs and doctrines of the Church are close, after all we are Catholic. But is not the sacrament of marriage also not a doctrine of the Church? Is sexual morality not a doctrine of the Church? Is papal infallibility not a doctrine of the Church? These are also fundemental beliefs.Anyways perhaps we should have..and still can conscentrate more on our likeness than all the other crap that is wedge between us. I have talked to several progressives and not just you..perhaps even you are more traditional in some of your views. I have met a couple progressive catholics that were way out in left field even denying the divinity of Christ. Of course it would be wrong to compare all progressives the same...but I do believe that progressivnism is a great threat to Christ Church..even though hold very little weight. I set up my new website to counter the progressive agenda and I will continue to do so. But we should focus more on our beliefs that we share..but maybe this is not even possible..I do not know. I will never waiver in my fight against progressivenism. This will never happen..if this saddens you then so be it...but my conscious dictates this must be done. I don't know if we have a future as friends or not..but I am willing to give it a try..maybe we need to completely leave out what we disagree with. Not even discuss these issues I don't know .. okay I going to lay down and sleep see you and peace...BTW that priest on your website..giving you a heads up..I will be exposing him next week for what he truly is..have done much research on him...not such a great guy..but I will go gently after all he was or is a priest..even though he is deflocked and needs our prayers....thanks

  22. Davide,
    Thank you for your comment.
    I am not surprised that you are homesick because you so love your family, especially Andy and Jules as well as your peanut butter and honey (Suffer, Davide, I have peanut butter on toast EVERY day but Sunday). I was a little surprised that you're getting "tired" of Italian food. LOL
    I am sorry about the headaches and loneliness. I hope you will pull out of it soon and in the meantime I will keep you in my prayers.

    I don't owe you or anyone a justification for my beliefs but I will briefly make a few statements:

    1. Yes I believe matrimony is a sacrament of the Church and that is a matter of faith.
    2. Yes I do believe that the Church is infallible when the Pope and bishops speak in a formal manner (as at Vatican II) and that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
    3. Yes, I believe Jesus Christ it truly human and truly divine.
    4. Yes, I believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is the source & summit of Catholic worship, and the celebration of Communion with the local community and the universal Church.
    5. Yes, I believe in the Real Presence during Mass and enduring in the Blessed Sacrament to be available for the sick and private devotion. I don't think the word "transubstantiation" is a world truly understood by people today; not even by the majority of priests.

    Perhaps we are more alike than you suspect.

  23. Never said you owed me anything. I was just asking...you are defensive and perhaps you should be I don't know. I am just trying to wrap my brain around your theology. I am trying to understand it.vry confusing to me. I think you love Vatican II, you always quoting it or referring to it. As if the Church did not exist before Vatican II. I have only lived after Vatican II, it's all I've ever known. In our family we do have theological discussions. But we have never fought when we disagree. My parents and my siblings are highly intelligent people. My family and myself are not zombies blindly following the Church. I have questioned many Church teachings. I look into it read the Cathecism and the bible or talk to my parents. I pray about it. Vatican II was a good thing I can not argue that..however many people have totally misinterpret Vatican II especially progressives. For instance no where in Vatican II does it say women should go to Mass with heads uncovered. But Vatican II did not change this. It was silent on the issue. . Vatican II did not tell parishes to remove alter rails..but after Vatican II the churches ripped out the alter rails..but many are bringing them back. Communion in the hand has been approved by the Church. But is mostly a Canadian and American thing. But in Italy it is approved to take communion in the hand but rarely does this take place. I do not take communion in the hand not saying it is wrong for those that do, but I do think the Church needs to rethink this one. I do find this to be very troubling. If I hold out my hand to recieve Christ than give it to myself I have become a eurcharistic minister. Clearly I am not. The extraordinary has become ordinary. Perhaps in the future the American Bishops will reverse this decision the American Church for decades has been a weak link in the Church. Maybe even the pope will not longer allow it. At any rate this decision is not mine to make so it must be respected. Also Vatican II, never said persons can not knell for communion. I have even heard horror stories of priest refusing to give communion there in the United States because the person to recieve was on his knees..if fact I have seen several you-tube videos on this. I find this shocking and wrong. If a person want to recieve communion on his/her knees this must be allowed. The priest was in error. Regarding head covering for women 1917 Canon Law stated women should wear head coverings..1983 the canon law was silent did not address this issue. Saint Thomas Aquinas spoke of this and modesty for all at Mass. The New testament speaks much about women coverning thier heads. My mother and sisters always wear a veil. Over the years in our parish many other women started wearing veils..all because the example of my family and a few others. Our parish is very fortuante we have traditional priests. I was doing research on Father Farrow yesterday and will finish up today. I feel very sorry for the people of his parish. This preist came out gay at holy Mass when he spoke about Prop 8, but not before alerting the media about his intentions. Many people left Mass in shock, confusion, betrayal and some were even in tears. This man made a politcal statement at the altar of Christ. He had his 15 minutes of fame now he will have years of shame. We need to pray for such troubled priest. Thank God his bishop immediately removed him..but I mis spoke he is not deflocked and I hope it never comes to this. I hope he repents of his sins. If not than he must be deflocked. Very sad this man is not a priest for Christ but for himself. On his web site there is a picture of him not beneath a crucifix or even in a church but below two symblos of political power..the American and gay flag..a picture is worth a thousand words. Okay have a nice day.

  24. Thank you for your comment, Davide

    I had so thought things would out better if I entered in conversation with you this time. However, I see that nothing has changed. I have a lot of reasons, but I will not discuss this in a public venue like a blog.

    Please do not send any more comments on my blog posts. Your message is extremely repetitive and I won't even read them.

    I also do not want you to contact me by email.

    Because you are so self-oriented I don't think you will ever grasp why I feel so sad that we can no longer be friends. So long. I do wish all God's blessings upon you and a truly happy life ahead.

  25. Ok I understand thanks I am sorry you feel sad. But I get why take care


Comments most welcome.