Vatican blogging conference: “Good” Catholic bloggers are never to offend, and are to always and everywhere exhibit slavish deference to modernist prelates, even when they’re wrong.

by Doug Lawrence

The term “Charity” … at least, as it applies to the on-line community … has just been “informally” redefined by the Vatican to mean “never having to say your sorry” because you never, under any circumstances, write anything that might offend anyone (particularly any of the bishops, or Heaven forbid, the Pope.)

Of course, those in the know would instantly respond, “Then, what’s the point of Catholic blogging?”

Exactly!

What seems to have been missed at the official Vatican blogging conference is the fact that authentic Catholic blogging … which disseminates, explains and reaffirms the timeless, traditional truths of the Catholic faith … should never offend anyone … except perhaps, the demagogues, heretics, liberals, pro-aborts, CINO’s (Catholics In Name Only) turn-coat Catholic politicians, pro-homosexuals, abusive clergy and those who cover for them … not to forget the “we are church” people, who actually seem to believe the trumped up, modernist drivel they have been promoting, at the expense of the genuine Catholic faith … for the last half century.

When are we going to have the conference dealing with all of that?

Love and kisses to all,

Just Another Faithful Catholic Blogger

Editor’s note: The conference seems to have been the result of complaints by certain bishops (and their dedicated underlings) who, in the wake of the recent CCHD/ACORN scandals, have been urging the Vatican to “do something” to reign in “those pesky on-line rascals”.

Tom Roeser’s thoughts about !@#$%! (Cussing)


“Do you know what that officious bastard wrote in The New York Times today? He tried to dress up research in embryonic stem cells as vital to saving lives when he knows—fully knows—that adult stem cells can do the job. You know what? That sonuvabitch simply glories in defending an act of snuffing out lives!”

The fact remains that I feel better when I say this…and that’s important—important to let repressed steam be released…a safety valve that spares bottled up blood pressure.

Let’s be clear. Cussing fate with a string of denunciatory colorful words is different from cursing where you call down evil on someone. Or invoke God to strike someone dead. That’s altogether different. I would judge that to say “goddammit” is different than slowly pronouncing “God damn so-and-so!” Although I’ve been known to do that as well. But seriously calling down evil on someone and invoking God to do it is blasphemy.

(Father) Ernie once told us that to curse rational creatures is a grave offense against justice and charity. When I sat in his classroom so long ago listening to him I thought—and still think—but if you say this to yourself and do not poison this guy’s reputation by enunciating it to someone else but to yourself in solitude, what’s wrong with that? It makes me feel better. And who hears it when I mutter to myself? Ever since that time I have doubted Ernie on that particular item. How do you sin against justice and charity if you growl to yourself imprecations against an unfeeling boss for example?

Another thing Ernie would say is this: “To curse irrational creatures such as the weather or animals who let us say defecate on the floor is a venial sin of impatience.” Wha? Do you understand what I’m getting at here? Is it not possible that we are too Jansenist in this business of cussing? Do we imagine that General George Armstrong Custer at the battle of Little Big Horn…when suddenly surrounded by 3,000 Indians who seemingly came thundering out of the hills from ostensibly nowhere…and remembering that he foolishly left a supply of Gatling guns at Yellowstone because he felt they would not be needed…said:

“Oh my gosh where did these darned Indians come from all of a sudden? And gee whiz, I wish I had the Gatling guns!”

Ernie also said this: “To curse the evil spirit as the enemy of God and human beings is lawful.” That means I guess I can say: “God damn the devil and all his works!”

But Ernie, being Ernie, added: “Exclamations that in themselves are not sinful may become so for other reasons such as the danger of scandal.”

Read more at Tom’s site

Pie chart courtesy of GraphJam.com

Anglican woman priest gives communion to dog, as a “welcoming gesture”.


According to those in attendance at the historical church at 188 Carlton St. in downtown Toronto, it was a spontaneous gesture, one intended to make both the dog and its owner – a first timer at the church — feel welcomed. But at least one parishioner saw the act as an affront to the rules and regulations of the Anglican Church. He filed a complaint with the reverend and with the Anglican Diocese of Toronto about the incident – and has since left the church.

“I wrote back to the parishioner that it is not the policy of the Anglican Church to give communion to animals,” said Bishop Patrick Yu, the area bishop of York-Scarborough responsible for St. Peter’s, who received the complaint in early July. “I can see why people would be offended. It is a strange and shocking thing, and I have never heard of it happening before.”

“I think the reverend was overcome by what I consider a misguided gesture of welcoming.”

Link

Editor’s note: Due to their separation from the Catholic Church and lack of valid holy orders, communion is the Anglican church is purely symbolic. Nothing more than bread and wine. No real presence of Jesus Christ. None-the-less, this is certainly one of the stupidest dog-gone things ever done … in the long history of Christianity

Sin: Public Enemy Number One


1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

– by protecting evil-doers.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”144

Definition:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.”122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,”123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.”124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal – so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church