Another Phony E-mail Refuted

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Both of them talked it over and agreed that they have 3 children and neither want anymore. We offered to pay for her to have her tubes tied and they accepted. Well, she was not allowed to have her tubes tied because of her age. I found that ridiculous.

If she had wanted to have all her teeth pulled, she could have had them taken out.

I read where some women are having their breasts removed to prevent possible breast cancer.

But she can not have her tubes tied?

Who gave the doctors their halos?

[GeezerSue 7]

Most anti-abortion groups do not take a stand on birth control or abstinence or sex ed. Most anti-abortion groups direct all their energy toward preventing abortions - period.

If you had the Catholic Church in mind, as one of those "groups", you would be incorrect. The official Church position on birth control (at least in the USA) is that it is strictly between a woman and her parish priest. Therefore, there are millions of Catholic women in the US who use BC with the full knowledge and consent of the Church....

"...with the the full knowledge and consent of the Church?" Are you talking about "Vatican Roulette" Birth Control? Or the pill and other hormonal or barrier products? As described by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles...

http://www.archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/family/nfp/index.html

From this site:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399).

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

And, the above was accompanied by:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

I have no doubt that people who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and priests who deal with those people are in agreement using birth control is not the highway to hell...but, I really, REALLY doubt that anyone has cleared that position through Rome. Which means...if I am correct...that while Catholics in the US are using birth control it is not something the Pope would give the go-ahead for.

More info and history available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church

[Carlene 12]

"...with the the full knowledge and consent of the Church?" Are you talking about "Vatican Roulette" Birth Control? Or the pill and other hormonal or barrier products?

I have no doubt that people who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic and priests who deal with those people are in agreement using birth control is not the highway to hell...but, I really, REALLY doubt that anyone has cleared that position through Rome. Which means...if I am correct...that while Catholics in the US are using birth control it is not something the Pope would give the go-ahead for.

I am speaking of so-called "artificial" birth control, not the "rhythm" method.

The notion that everything Catholics do has to be "cleared through Rome" is simply not true. Each Bishop is fairly autonomous - more so than the average person might think. In other parts of the world the Church has more clout, and no doubt enforces "the rules" much more diligently. There are 65 million US Catholics. Probably one-fourth of those are women of child-bearing age. That's 16 million women. Do you honestly think all those ladies have abdicated control of their bodies? Hardly. Instead, they have struck a bargain with the Church. Almost a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing. No one is privy to what goes on in the confessional (not even the Pope), so if your parish priest says you need not confess the use of artificial birth control, that's all anyone needs to know.

I have no idea when it started, but I took birth control pills after my youngest was born in 1973. I had 4 children under the age of 6, and it was my priest who initiated the birth control discussion.

I realize there are conservative Catholics, for lack of a better term, both laity and clerics, who deplore this course of action and speak/write against it, but that doesn't change anything. The Pope isn't likely to excommunicate us, and until he does, we are as Catholic as Mother Theresa.

Let me give you an example of a Catholic zealot. In my own parish, I'm sorry to say, there is a woman who makes me (and everyone else) CRAZY. I'm sure she totally disagrees with the birth control thing, but I'm not about to ask her. Anyway, if she sees someone chewing gum during Mass, she will leave her seat to hand the gum-chewer a piece of paper, on which is printed something to the effect that gum-chewing breaks the required fast of one hour before receiving Communion and that person, therefore, should not receive the Sacrament. The really scary thing is that this woman comes to church armed with these little pieces of paper - just looking for people who aren't strict enough to suit her definition of "true" Catholicism. Yes, Virginia...there really is a nut in every tree.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

As I mentioned in earlier posts, my family is split between Roman Catholic and Pentecostal. I was brought up by a mildly Catholic mother and fervently Pentecostal grandparents.

Though slightly more of my family is Catholic, none of them have problems with the use of birth control or make a big fuss about the abortion debate. Abortion is one of the lower priority issues in their voter decision making.

However, many of my Pentecostal family members wear as a badge of courage the number of times that they have been arrested for blocking "abortion clinics" or "abortion mills". Of course many of the so-called "abortion clinics" are "Planned Parenthood" facilities which provide many more services other than providing abortions.

When I mentioned that, they have told me that birth control is also evil. Their basic philosophy is simple. God said, "Be fruitful and multiply" and the Ten Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery", so there is not reason or need for birth control. “Abstinence only until marriage” is the only way in their book and anyone who gets pregnant must accept the responsibility. When I asked them about the caring, feeding and clothing of the child and shelter for the child, they just replied that it is the mother's responsibility. She had sex. She has to pay the price.

There are many websites that provide this type of information. Sites such as these often give slanted information on "Birth Control Information" for ProLife Christians and other sites attack condoms. The BuSh administration has fought the distribution condoms in AIDS torn Africa and even Laura has made speeches in Africa recommending the abstinence-only-until-marriage program.

I have also heard people like Ralph Reed and other people who are leaders in the ProLife movement discuss contraceptives on TV and they are equally proud of their stand against abortion and contraceptives. “Abstinence only until marriage” is the only way according to them, but they can not see that this “Just say NO” policy is as doomed to failure as the parallel anti-drug policy promoted by Nancy Reagan, 20 years ago. Victims of these twin policies mean nothing to these people who's agenda comes before the health needs of the proletariat.

[Carlene 12]

Ahhhh, yes...the Pentecostals. They are such a fun group. I knew they were head and shoulders above most Catholics when it came to protesting and demonstrating against abortion, but I was unaware that a birth control ban was part of their dogma. Many of their brethren must not be listening because my son-in-law's whole extended family is Pentecostal and the women discuss BC methods freely. Most had their tubes tied after two or three children. What sanctions does their church impose on them for those actions?

In the Catholic Church, the sticky wicket is the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). A devout Catholic will not make a "bad" confession. So, if BC were a sin that had to be confessed, and you planned to keep using it, you couldn't make a good confession. A lot of Catholic women just stopped going to Confession, and eventually they stopped going to Mass (what's the point, if you can't receive Communion?). They stopped sending their children to CCD (religious education classes). The Catholic Church, as I mentioned before, as been around for 2,000 years. They aren't stupid. They noticed, and they did something about it - at least in the USA.

Same thing with the issue of a celibate priesthood. Now married men can become priests, and remain married, if they are members of the Episcopal priesthood who convert to Catholicism. Men whose wives have died can become priests, too. Interesting second career, huh? But it does work for those who almost entered the seminary years ago, and never completely gave up their calling. The Catholic Church will almost certainly have to admit married men into the priesthood, sooner or later. The shortage of priests is just too great. And there will still be illicit sex among the clergy, but maybe it will at least be consensual, adult sex and not child molestation. Those guys need to have more than their Roman collars removed.

[BJean 16]

All churches have man-man rules that their members either adhere to or not. Some of the man-made rules in the Catholic Church are so difficult for their parishoners to live by, they just go ahead and break the rules and take communion anyway. I don't understand it at all.

I was divorced and fell in love with a very good Catholic young man, and he with me. We went to the Bishop in Wash., D.C., who was in charge of making the decision about whether we could be joined in matrimony without my DH being excommunicated, or even better, if I could become a member of the Catholic Church and we could be married in the Church.

The Priest said, well..... we don't excommunicate our men anymore for marrying a divorced woman, but they sure aren't allowed to take communion or partake in any of the sacraments. And you cannot become a member of the church since you are a divorced woman.

We were married in a civil ceremony and DH stopped taking communion. The Catholic Church in Petersburg, VA, where we attended church every Sunday and Holy Day, decided that my son would not be allowed to attend pre-school there. Not because I wasn't a member, but because I was divorced.

We moved to Arizona (closer to liberal Calif.) and the priest in our parish there was conducting classes for people with our circumstances. We ultimately paid the money, filled out the lengthy paperwork and had my first marriage (conducted in the Baptist Church) annuled. Like as far as the Catholic Church was concerned I was never married and divorced, just had a child (which of course is totally fine).

That action made it permissable for DH to once again receive sacraments.

But, it did not put me in a position to take instructions and join the church. My children (first being adopted by DH) became Catholics because the church said that was a must for DH.

It's all very complicated and one-sided, having little to do with the needs of the parishoners, but more to do with furthering the goals of the Catholic Church. One of the first of those goals being to keep up the numbers... that's where the money is and that's how they continue to be an enormous organized religion.

When a man-made rule in the church is just too much for the parishoners, sometimes the rule is modified or changed. Like accepting married Episcopal ministers as Catholic Priests. Like meat on Friday.

I realize by the response (or lack thereof) to my posts, you readers are undoubtedly bored out of your skulls with my personal stories. But to me they are relevant and they have made me who and what I am today. I haven't thought about these subjects for years and I think it is good that I am doing this stroll down memory lane. It makes me be very thankful for what I have - and reading your posts makes me thankful indeed, that I never joined the Catholic Church.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I, for one, am not bored by your personal stories. While you can not supply any links to verify the validity, they are what shaped you.

The nature versus nurture debate will never end, but our experiences are as much a part of us as our DNA. Two people may have the same experience and may react totally opposite to the experience.

Two sibling who are physically abused by their parents may grow up to be one that is a physical and verbal abuser of his children while the other spoils the children and will not even scold them.

I tell many of the stories that shaped my life and I hope that my experiences can be helpful to others. Just as with putting my hand into a flame, I would hope by telling someone of the pain I felt, it will stop them from doing it.

At one time, when I debated on website forums, I was meticulous at supplying links to verify my facts. But today, there are so many sites with political agendas, that it takes a lot of screening to know what site to link to.

Many times I find extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing sites on a particular issue. I will not use either for a link, because the right-wing site does not make my point and the left-wing site will not be believed my the members I am posting for. Middle of the road sites or sites which give unbiased detail are hard to find very often.

So please continue with your personal stories.

I enjoy them.

Plus, I do not want to be the only one doing it.

[BJean 16]

Thanks TOM I sure appreciate your stories and I believe I learn from them.

It has been so refreshing for me to come to this thread and get fired up about something someone has written. I've been disconnected far too long, and I'm getting myself back. Who knew that the Lap Band could play a part in that!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Catholic Church Confession Communion Conformation

Speaking of man-made church rules. When I was a child, I went to public school, but was released early every Wednesday for religious instruction at at the local Catholic school to learn my Catechism in order to receive the sacraments of Confession and Communion one year and then Confirmation the next year.

Well, during my training, the church repealed the rules on eating meat on Friday. About a week before the new ruling had been decreed by the Pope, I had asked my instructional nun if a man went to Hell for eating a hot dog if he thought it was Thursday, but it was actually Friday and then he was hit and killed by a car before he could go to confession? She told me that accidentally eating meat on Friday was no excuse and of course he would go to Hell.

So on the Wednesday after the Pope's issuance of the new rules, I asked my nun, if the man who went to Hell because he thought it was Thursday could be let out since it was no longer a sin to eat meat on Friday?

I was sent to Purgatory on Earth for that question. :faint:

[BJean 16]

LOL! You crack me up!

[green 6]

I like reading your stories, too, Bjean. I found the story of your annulment particularly interesting. I had heard before that the Catholic church will offer this, the option of buying your way out of an inconvient previous marriage, as a solution. I first heard about it when I was living in France.

[Carlene 12]

BJ...

I don't think your posts are boring. I think they are thoughtful and sincere.

I understand your frustration with the Catholic Church. I don't think, however, that a lot of Catholics disregard the Church's "rules" and take Communion anyway - at least not "cradle Catholics". It has been so ingrained in us all our lives...you can't receive Communion unless you are in a state of grace. To do so anyway is a serious thing - almost blasphemy.

Communion, to Catholics, is the whole enchilada. It is the reason we attend Mass. It is, to us, the body and blood of Christ. Not a symbol or something that represents the body, but the actual body and blood. That's why we do not permit non-Catholics to share Communion with us. Since they do not believe in the miracle of transubstantiation, they do not share our devotion and reverence for the consecrated host and wine.

I am puzzled by one thing in your story. After you received a church annulment from your first marriage, why were you not permitted to take instructions in the Catholic faith and join the church? Also, I presume that you and your husband were remarried in the Church, correct? Otherwise, he would not have been permitted to receive Communion, since he would still be "living in sin" (ie, not married in the Church).

My first husband and I were married in a civil ceremony. This was a long time ago, he was not Catholic, and interfaith marriages were still unusual and very much discouraged. I was furious at my church for this and didn't go to Mass at all for several years. After my first child was born, I decided that I owed him a religious foundation and even though I tried attending other churches, I knew in my heart that I was still a Catholic (albeit an angry one). So I drug my Protestant (Southern Baptist) husband to classes (private ones, with a Monsignor, no less). There was never any question about him converting (he wasn't), and no signing of papers that pledged our children to the Church, just a verbal understanding. We were quietly remarried in the chapel and everyone was happy.

Chapter two...after husband number one died in a tragic accident (at age 28), I remarried. This time I married a divorced man who had never been baptized, in another civil ceremony. I went back to not taking Communion, but I continued to attend Mass because of my children. After about 5 years I guess he got tired of being left alone on Sunday morning. He asked me if he could go to church with us. Then he decided to convert. They have a whole program now called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) and you don't have to be committed to conversion to take the classes. It took 9 months to complete the whole "course". He was scheduled to be received into the church at Easter. In March, we planned to be remarried in the Church. He had obtained a church annulment from his first marriage and we were all set, we thought. The Catholic Church is meticulous about documentation, but they dropped the ball on this one. Where was his baptism certificate? He didn't have one - never been baptized. The plan was to baptize him at Easter. But, we were informed, a baptized Catholic cannot be married to an unbaptized person, even if that person is "free to marry". What about our wedding - now a week away? We had guests coming...a cake ordered. Long story short (well, shortER)...we had to get a dispensation from the Archbishop. We were married as planned, he joined the Church the following month, and became very active. He was a member of the Fourth Degree (Knights of Columbus) and when he died, they were his pall bearers and honor guard. I buried him in his tuxedo and K of C regalia.

Chapter three...after husband number 2 died (after 25 years of marriage), I remarried again. This time to a baptized Catholic. Who had been married TWICE before. Sounds like a huge problem - not one annulment would be required, but two. What are the chances? Well, if you are a Catholic who married outside the Church, it's easy. It's called "lack of form" and takes about 15 minutes to get the whole slate wiped clean. Amazing. Bob and I were married in the Church, and we had the neatest ceremony. We had about 80 guests. Our attendants were his son, my daughter, my youngest son, and 5 of our grandchildren.

PS...Bob's second marriage failed quite suddenly after 20 years (she left him for another man, as did wife number one). He started seeing a therapist, who suggested that he join a singles group of some type. Although he had not been inside a church in YEARS, he heard about the 40 and over singles group at my church, and joined up. I joined several years later, a couple of years after my husband died, and that's how we met - courtesy of the Catholic Church. And yesterday was our 4th wedding anniversary.

And you just thought your posts were long and boring!!!

[Carlene 12]

I like reading your stories, too, Bjean. I found the story of your annulment particularly interesting. I had heard before that the Catholic church will offer this, the option of buying your way out of an inconvient previous marriage, as a solution. I first heard about it when I was living in France.

My husbands had a total of 3 previous marriages between them, all of which had to be annulled by the Catholic Church in order for us to be married - many years apart and in two different dioceses. None of the 3 annulments cost us a single dime. Not one single dime.

On the other hand, my DH and I have some now-married friends who were both previously married in the Church. It took 3 years for their annulments to be granted. He (the groom) would gladly have paid for the annulments, had they been "for sale". The truth is, they aren't.

A church annulment requires extensive documentation and many, many hours of preparation. You must have an advocate (similar to an attorney in a civil divorce) and submit pleadings to a tribunal of clergymen (the "judges")who are very thoroughly schooled in Church law. And in the end, not all annulments are granted.

Some parishes are quite poor and/or small and can't provide the personnel to facilitate an annulment for free. They will find a way to subsidize a parishioner who lacks the necessary funds, however. The most I have ever heard of anyone paying was $500.00.

By the way, you wouldn't expect to receive a civil divorce for free, would you?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Carlene, please do not think that I am accusing you or anyone in your family, past or present, but churches have been known to facilitate annulments for those with the ability to benefit the poor-box (or collection plate).

The Catholic church had one of its biggest scandals when they were selling guaranteed entry into Heaven (indulgence) for a fee which I believed was finally outlawed in 1562 at the council of Trent .

I believe most protestants also believe that communion is body of Christ. I have seen Roman Catholics take Communion at a Protestant church and I have seen Protestants take Communion at a Roman Catholic church. I would assume that the Protestants would have been violating Roman Catholic doctrine, but not the other way around, because Communion can not be taken without Confession.

:clap2: BTW, I admire you for the fortitude that you shown considering all the adversity that you have been through. :clap2:

[BJean 16]

Carlene: First of all congratulations on your sucessful marriages and annulments and you must be a very wonderful, thoughtful and smart lady to have been able to work all these things out over the years. Not to mention persistent.

I don't know when your annulments took place. Ours was in the 70s and money was definitely involved. We were part of the Tucson diocese. I had to answer (at the downtown cathedral in the presence of church administrators) 2.5 hours of written questions. My ex was asked to fill out a similar set of questions as were all the members of my family and his. That was all done by mail. It took many months and there was definitely no guarantee (according to everyone involved) that the annulment would be granted.

My first marriage was in the Baptist Church. I was baptised Methodist as a child and then later, prior to my wedding, baptised in the Baptist Church. I too had to furnish my birth certificate and baptismal certificate for the annulment.

My husband does not take communion. He did receive special dispensation (if that is the correct term) to take communion when he was the best man at his brother's wedding. I am not sure why that was such a big deal, but it was. I think DH had mixed emotions about it.

As for money... the brother mentioned above and his DW moved to Lubbock in the 70s when she was preggers with her first born. They were new to town and she had some complications with her pregnancy and so they did not go to church without fail every week right away and did not get envelopes to use every week like they normally would have. After Jeff was born, they called to make arrangements for his christening. They were told that the church would not consider a christening since the parents had not been donating regularly to the church coffers. They protested and said that they had been donating every time they attended church, but that since she had been confined to her bed off and on, it was not every week. The priest said that he had no way of knowing if they had contributed or attended church since he had no record of their attendance and they had not signed up for tithing envelopes when they arrived in Lubbock. The answer continued to be no.

Now this couple were both raised in the Catholic Church, attended Catholic Parocial schools and came from very strong (and very large) German Catholic families. They were horrified that their son would not be christened in a timely manner and shed many, many tears over it. This was the beginning of the end for them and their relationship with the Catholic Church. That wound never healed and she now sings choir in the Episcopal Church where they live and he just doesn't go.

You may think that story was exaggerated for effect, but I assure you it went down just as I told it (except for my choice of words).