My dear brother David, on August 26 you said: “I will continue to remain in MY Church. I will continue to love MY Church. But I will continue to speak-up when MY Church’s teachings and rules need to evolve.”

Well, yesterday it just came to my mind that you, David, are looking at the Church from the wrong side by calling Her “MY Church”. It is not YOUR Church, as it is not MY Church either. It is Christ’s Church. The Church does not belong to us, WE belong to the Church. Therefore, to be incorporated to Her, to belong to the Catholic Church we have to accept and do what SHE teaches under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not the other way around.

As Jesus Himself said: “Whoever wants to come after me, let him renounce himself everyday, take up his cross and follow me.”

Jesus never promised a bed or roses but preached a life a renunciation and sacrifice in order to get through the famous “narrow gate”. In order to obey the will of His Father, He suffered the death of the cross. If His obedience went as far as that, who are we not to obey the teachings of His Bride, our Holy Mother Church?

My point wasn’t really to re-argue these unassailable historical truths, however, but to note that the Church has indeed changed on every one of them. As it will on the issue of sexuality, celibate priests and stem cell research–or perish. I have no stake in either outcome, by the way.

John, you need to distiguish between what is reformable, or, as we call in in Catholic teaching “the development of doctrine”, and what is immutable and cannot be changed. It is not an arbitrary classification but a real one.

Think of the Catholic Church as a seed which has grown into a big oak, or a baby and has grown into an adult. She learns and expounds truths as she grows. What she was in her very early years is not what she is today. She is now a fully formed adult (or so we think) whereas when she started she was an infant and so the truths she expounds today were not fully formed or fully understood at the beginning. And this is what Jesus hinted at when He told his followers that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us into all truth. However, it still the same tree, the same “DNA”, the same “person”. She cannot deny what she was. She cannot be a “different” person in SUBSTANCE. She cannot contradict what She is…then, now, or ever.

Now to the examples you raise….

1) Celibacy of the priestly state..this is not a doctrine but a discipline. It can be bound or loosed as the Church sees fit. But you are not going to see it loosed and certainly not in your lifetime. In this sex-saturated culture, the Church will loosen this discipline when hell freezes over.

2) Stem Cell Research is fine if it does not destroy a human being (here I am thinking about adult stem cell research). If it’s embryonic stem cell research, it’s abortion. The Church can never countenance murder, John. You will never see that change. EVER. It is a moral commandment of God not to murder. Catholics don’t approve of murder, John.

And let me close by saying one more thing, if I may. Contraception has been around since Genesis. If you’re a creationist or darwinist reading this, I want you to count back to when man Onan first appeard on this earth. That’s how long Judeo-Christian history has condemned the practice. Now, back in the 1930-60s when almost every Christian church was reversing their teaching on this subject, the Catholic Church basically stood alone in upholding the constant witness of the Christianity over a millenia. Now conservatives and honest non-Christians are admitting that the Church was right, given the societal and moral collapse around us. Every social ill that we are experiencing – or almost all of them – derives from – either directly or indirectly – from the acceptance of the contraceptive act in principle. It was the Catholic Church alone who correctly prophesized what would happen to women, to society, and to children if contraception was accepted into law (a relatively new phenomenon to be honest). Until 1930, all Christian Churches had condemned its practice until the Anglicans caved at Lambeth in that year. Before Trudeau, contraception was actually illegal in Canada. In 40 years, we have gone from outlawing contraception to same-sex marriage. That’s no coincidence, my friend. And where we are going to go in the brave new world is anyone’s guess too.

What is my point? Simply this: the issue of contraception and the Church’s steadfast opposition to it – and refusal to bend these past 50 years – is proof positive of her divine foundation. It’s been thousands of years, we’ve held this position. It will be thousands more and we will still hold to it. If you’re a betting man, where are you going to place your bets?

No contraceptive act will ever be accepted by the Church, for the simple reason, that it would overturn not only all her moral teachings on the family, but it would affect much of her doctrinal theology as well. It’s all tied together in a beautiful quilt – every piece attaching and clinging to another.

The gates of hell won’t prevail. That’s Jesus’ promise, and I believe Him. So far, He’s been right on. Why should I doubt the Son of God’s word and place my trust in stupid and sinful men instead – men who are on the way to eternal damnation?

If anyone reading this believes the Church will eventually change on this point or any point which concerns an immutable truth, I want you to understand and mark this very clearly: you will breathe your last breath and the Church will still hold to this teaching. Mark my words now, in ten years time from this date, and on your death bed.

If you’re Catholic and you have homosexual tendencies, call on God and his Mother to help you turn away from these acts. You are a person created in God’s image. Do not trade the truth of who you are for a lie. Eternal separation from God is a real possibility. God does not force anyone to be with Him for all eternity. And He’s not going to change who He is, therefore, you need to change who you are to conform to His image. That is the purpose of your life. Everything else, as St. Paul says, is “dung”.

God bless you in your struggle. There is no hatred in my heart for any of you, but a firm prayer and desire that you accept the Church’s teaching, live it, and become the saints that God has called you to be.

So a man with a menopausal wife is enjoined from having sex with her because no children are possible?

No, John. I said the couple must be open to children. Every sexual act must physically and spiritually permit conception, if nature allows it. There has to be a “yes” to the question of “If I send you a child through this act, will you accept it” Why do you think that where contraception is so prevalent that abortion is so common? “No” during sex doesn’t normally mean “yes” when you find out you knocked her up. The reaction is “O shit where the hell is the Morgentaler clinic?” Goes against the received wisdom you’ve been fed or are feeding, doesn’t it?

But the Church reaizes that a married couple who wishes to postpone childbirth for grave reasons can do so by having sex during infertile periods. They are not doing anything wrong by not having sex on fertile days and having sex on infertile days. The Church only asks that you respect the body and creation as God has designed. These are not arbitrary rules, but rules based on basic biology and a respect for creation. The only thing the Church insists on is that you don’t frustrate the natural act by artificial or other physical means. The sexual act is a remote participation in the Trinity, John. Physiologically, it means when you get the juices going, you need to finish what you started. No rubbers. No Pills. No IUDS. And no withdrawl, either. Real and “dangerous” (i.e. possibility of children up to God) sex, John, with the unlatexed sexual organs that God gave you.

Must a sterile man or woman, even if married, forgo sex for the same reason?

Depends. If he or she is sterile by nature, no, because they are still open to children. The plumbing doesn’t work, but that is no sin. If they mutilated their bodies through a vascectomy or tubal, then they have to take every available means to reverse it before they have sex. If they can’t afford it, AND the person is truly repentant, the intentionally mutilated sexual organ would then be considered on the same moral level as being a limitation of nature. Sex would be OK.

However, on this last point, I must stress, that the person must be truly convicted of their error and repentant. There might be smirks going around as people read this, but you can’t bullshit God. It’s your soul on the line.

That’s why the West’s birth rates are suicidal and why it is on the edge of demographic collapse. Anyone else notice the racist resonances here? Not to mention the hyperbole.

Racist? Modern contraception is the invention of Margaret Sanger and the eugencists, John, who wanted to decrease the black population in the U.S.. I, for one, would like to see an explosion of the population of Black Americans (which is STILL the hardest hit by the way) just to piss her off and make her roll in her grave. Once again, John, you really do need to educate yourself on the facts, and stop watching too much MSNBC TV.

And as for hyperbole on the question of demographic collapse, you must be joking. The only reason you doubt the unassaible facts, John, is that to concede them would mean a significant shift in how you see the meaning of sex and it would likely alter your worldview as well. That`s why you and these damn liberals “cling to your enlightenment and latex“, to borrow a phrase from Obama.

Every statistic for the past 15 years has been showing the same thing. I do not follow the logic of equating advocates for more population with the idea that they have “racist resonances”. Like I told the last Lefty who tried to spew this nonsense, unlike you, I have been the subject of bigotry in my life. So please, don`t try to pull that bleeding heart garbage on me. I`ve been there, done that, laughed it off, and moved on. Stop trying to feel sorry for me. I assure you that I`ve recovered and am doing swell.

That`s it for me. I`m off to bed.

Darwin first. A council of German bishops quickly denounced the theory, and remained uncontradicted by the Vatican. Silence. Assent. Then a number of individuals were called to account for attempting to reconcile Church dogma with Darwinian concepts, and their books found their way onto the Index (which no longer exists–more change). But, as noted, the Vatican altered its views over time.

John, Darwinism is a scientific theory or “theories” as John Paul II comfortably observed. The Catholic Church is not into denouncing “science” or scientific theories. There’s a sucker born every minute — or if you prefer, “science advances funeral by funeral”. On the other hand, She has been the greatest patron of science her whole history, Galileo notwithstanding. What the Church condemns are elements of “science” which contradict the Church’s faith. That’s what happened with the issuance of Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII. Strictly speaking, the Church takes NO POSITION on the physical creation of the world or man, except for a few items which Catholics much believe, including the belief that we came from one man and one woman. The uncited examples that you cite probably refer to theologians who crossed the line in accepting some elements of Darwinism that were against the Church’s faith. There are so many theories of evolution today that a Catholic can believe in some but not in others. I cannot intelligently speak on this issue unless I know what these individuals and theologians were saying. Suffice it to say, that’s why Piux XII issued Humani Generis — as a guide to Catholic theologians and scientists. It was a Catholic priest-physist, after all, who invented the “Big Bang” theory.

Indeed, that’s one of the questions at hand at this point. Failure to denounce evil is countenancing it.

No, John, that is not correct. Most of the time, I would agree with you, but some times loose lips sink ships. Pius XII – an amazing Pope – and the situation of the Jews was a perfect example of this.

Also, remember what happened at Regensberg and the Pope’s academic talk? As a result of being academically critical of Islam, Christians got stabbed in the back.

From a practical point of view, John, you are wrong. And even from a moral point of view, you are wrong. Failing to denounce evil sometimes means avoiding a greater evil if the denouncing took place.

Not teaching the truth is countenancing error.

No, not necessarily. Thomas More and the Church say otherwise. And I’m on their side.

And if even Popes, infallibly speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals, are failing miserably, as you put it, who is the “She” who is doing the teaching?

No Pope has ever failed when teaching ex cathedra. You need to prove it and not just allege it.

She is the Church, the bride of Christ. You wouldn’t understand. It’s a masuline-feminine, marriage of opposite gender kind of thing.

you need to understand that to be a “heretic” meant, at that time, TREASON to the State.

That’s hilariously circular. You aren’t seriously arguing that the victims of the Inquisition were actively conspiring to overthrow the governments of their time, do you? Protestant/Jewish recusancy is hardly the same thing as sedition.

Actually, it was. There was no real separation between Church and State. Heresy was a crime against both. It did not carry the strict meaning it does to us today, but actually a much more “robust and complete” meaning. It is sufficient for illustration and I most certainly stand by it.

Why do you think, John, (in that period of history within a mere 50 years after the Spanish Inquisition) that questioning Henry VIII’s position as the Head of the Church in England got you sent to the Tower of London and then beheaded?

That’s how it worked back then, John.

(I should have used the plural, admittedly, because I was referring in fact to far more than the Spanish Inquisition–e.g., the so-called “mediaeval Inquisition,” which was in fact itself plural. I recall that a 13-century Pope authorized the use of torture during these little escapades.)