I have to put my 2 cents worth in:

The Catholic Church will become much stronger due in part to the revitalization of the Church. Efforts at healing the East/West and Reformation schisms will bear fruit. There will be diversity in the Church, but it will be embraced as a cultural strength.

There are the seeds of greater unity now. The letter on justification with the Lutherans, serious talks with the Anglican Church and conservative Epicopal Churches.

The doctrine of papal infallability will be modified with a recognition that no single Pope has spoken ex cathedra without a general concensus by an episcopal council or at least the curia. Councils will become a force for unity and thus will be a leading force in the Church.

The diocese to which I belong (Houston/Galveston) is one of the most diverse in the world. We have it all: traditional churches, charismatic churches, Spanish, Oriental and Anglo-Saxon. Our diocese is a success story. Our Bishop, Joseph Fiorenza has done a very good job. I hope we are the model. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 14, 2003

Answers

Everything is possible, John. I will be probably be alive by this time. If the Church is able to heal, do penance, and emerge a humble one, yes, I think so. Otherwise, the opposite could be true, John.

In the 1980s. when I was trying to help my Church be more evangelistic, I never imagined there will all these major scandals. Back then, the Pope and Mother theresa were my role models.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 14, 2003.

I too believe that the Church is entering a period of renewal and strong growth. The Pope's efforts for reconciliation will absolutely bear fruit. These efforts will continue as well. I would be careful about saying what you say in your second paragraph. The idea that you express in your paragraph sounds like you are advocating a checks and balances system...That is conciliarism and is not something that will not be permitted. Catholic teaching is that the Bishop of Rome is the head of all the bishops. Conciliarism is to say that hands and feet speak for the mouth. The mouthpiece of the Church is the Bishop of Rome. As far as Ecumenism goes, there are degrees of separation still. The anglicans do not have valid orders or Eucharist...neither do Lutherans. We have similar views on the Eucharist, yes, but there are still differences. Doctrine cannot change, it can only be elaborated on. The Catholic Church has never in its 2000 years of history taught anything wrong. We have the fullness of the Truth in Jesus Christ. Peter and the Eucharist are the force for unity... There is no curia without Peter.

-- patrick farley (pfarley@saintmeinrad.edu), March 15, 2003.

The Catholic Church will be marginalized beyond recognition, even more than it is today, but it will be short lived and already the birds are singing before dawn while it is yet darkness; churches will be sacked and the physical presence of the Church will be almost completely obscured and appear to be non existant.

The strategies and bargainings of men will be seen for the departure from doctrine that they are, were and always will be. When all seems lost, a restoration of Christendom will begin to arise out of France and Germany of all places, where the attacks upon Christendom originally began.

The East will continue to show continued decline until what Our Lady asked for is accomplished so that in the end, her immaculate heart may triumphant. World War will damage a great part of humanity because as it can no longer be contained unless her request is heeded. She will be heard but it will happen late, and when all hope seems lost, Catholicism will experience a miraculous gain by the will of God and God alone. Protestants will flow into the Catholic Church, as well as Jews and even Muslims.

There will be one church and one state in unison, which will be the sum and substance of its strength. The enemies of the Church will be put to flight and all will live first for their God.

The council of Trent shine forth like a light in the darkness and all true doctrine will be upheld by all and heresy will disappear. No one will attempt to change or modify doctrines and all will be restored in Christ for a short time.

Satan's attack on the mystical body of Christ having failed, he will then begin to attack it from the exterior in a bloody fury of frustration; the antichrist makes his appearance and stakes his claim as the secret sects rebound from their setbacks and face a glorious and powerful Church in open warfare until the return of Christ.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 15, 2003.

There has not been a single year in the past 2,000 years when the Catholic Church did not grow, in spite of virtually constant persecution from without and frequent turmoil within. Any human institution would have collapsed under similar pressures. But the Catholic Church, in spite of its human membership, is not a human institution. Jesus Himself - God - was its founder and is its sustainer; and He promised that He would be with the Catholic Church until the end of time, and that evil would never triumph over the Church. His word is good.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2003.

Remember the words of Our Blessed Lord: "When I return will I find any faith at all"?.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 15, 2003.

There's actually a lot of things Seth says that I agree with.

"I can tell you people who talk of revitalization of the church... youre dead @#%$& wrong."

I admit to the apparent impossibility of this, and for all the sane and normal reasons, the statement makes complete sense. That's why I think that when it does happen, it will be a Divine act, a miracle if you will. But to think it would be a result of the pursuasive "outreach" efforts of bishops and even popes is silly. In fact, that's just common humanism. Based on the track record of failure of these non-Godly tactics the last half of this century, the very mention that these efforts will bear fruit should rightly be met with howls of laughter. Oh wait... now that wouldn't be nice. It would be nasty, wouldn't it? haha.

"...anyway the catholic chruch has been dying since the reformation... it is continuing to do so today, look at the rise of the aclu, decling of religion and goverment partnership... i do not profess to be a christian, and i say this in a way that if you people want to save your faith... hurry... jesus will be forgotten because PEOPLE forget..."

That is completely the 100% absolute truth. This is what I don't get, Seth... as a non Christian, you see the truth here; you are completely right... what I don't get is that that majority of my fellow Catholics fail to see this.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 15, 2003.

Why are there more vocations to the priesthood than in 20 years? Why are there more than 1 billion Catholics in the World. My parish has 150 people join the parish every year. I fail to see that the Catholic Church is dying. The Church is the body of Christ. Christ yesterday, today and forever. A divine institution can not fail to exist. No matter how many numbers small or big, there will always be a Catholic Church open to go to! Praised be Jesus Christ!

-- patrick farley (patrick@truth.com), March 15, 2003.

Hey. I don't see how they still shouldn't be your role models, considering they were not the sinners of the priest scandal. You shouldn't judge them just because of what some priests did.

-- Daniel Scott St. Paul Burnett (DanielDudeWHS@aol.com), March 15, 2003.

+

-- <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 16, 2003.

Not being Catholic, perhaps I shouldn't throw my two cents in here but there are advantages in being on the outside looking in. And what I see is-- there once was a time when the Catholic Church stood for something. The Catholic Church was a plumb line for morality, and everyone knew what she stood for. I remember as a child hearing my mother talking to a friend and saying, "Well, the Catholics don't approve of it." I learned early that the Catholic Church had a certain standard of morality and we could accept or deny it, but the Catholic Church wasn't going to change.

But guess what? Now it's anybody's guess as to what the Church stands for. Where's the standard that everyone knew? You've got orthodox and heterodox, schismatic and heretical-- all wrapped up under the Catholic standard. People have a sense of sin. They may cry out for leniency, but they really want a standard that tells them what's right, what's wrong and what's the difference. They don't want a priest that's tolerant; they want a priest that's merciful. Tolerance says "Anything goes." Mercy says, "You're wrong, you're broken, you're in sin-- but I will walk with you through this and we will overcome it together, because I love you. Because God loves you. You will fall, but I will always be here when you fall, to help you up and forgive you and heal you. I will be a 'Christ" to you, so that you may know Him and the overwhelming love he has for you."

Until seminaries and dioceses learn the difference between tolerance and mercy, there will be a shortage of priests. When God calls men to the priesthood, He doesn't call them to tolerance but to mercy.

In Him, Ruth

-- Ruthie (Ruth24@pacbell.com), March 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hi, Ruthie.

I do agree with some of the points you made. However, I have to take issue with a couple things ...

You wrote: "Now it's anybody's guess as to what the Church stands for."

Oh, no. That's not correct at all. A person just needs to read the Catechism, and she can learn exactly "what the Church stands for." (Reading the documents of our current pope also help to present more details than can fit in the Catechism.)

"Where's the standard that everyone knew?"
It's still there. You just have to avoid being distracted by trouble-makers!

"You've got orthodox and heterodox, schismatic and heretical-- all wrapped up under the Catholic standard."
I don't agree. I believe that only the "orthodox" are "under the Catholic standard."

Hang in there. Things are slowly getting better!
St. Patrick, pray for us.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.

I think Ruthie is perceiving reality.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

Jmj

Emerald, it is insufficient to say that "Ruthie is perceiving reality."
What she has perceived is real, I admit. But what she has perceived is only a smidgen of reality, and it is a smidgen that is passing away. The smidgen is something negative that can confuse people and make pessimists out of them. [That's why she wrongly stated: "... it's anybody's guess as to what the Church stands for."]

What I did was call Ruthie's attention to the fact that the more significant reality, the solid reality, the reality that does not fade away is Catholic truth. She can find that truth in the Catechism, in the documents of Vatican II, and in the writings of our pope.

The reason you spoke up now to contradict me is that, as a dissenter, you don't believe what I told Ruthie. You don't trust the writings that I mentioned. It is just so very sad that a good guy like you has gone partially bad.

Although I don't want you to be a dissenter, I could respect you more if you had some guts, as people like Ed Richards have. When (a few months ago) I asked you twice, point-blank, whether the Catechism teaches errors, you did not even have the courage to tell me "yes." You just clammed up.

God bless you.
John John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.

I would say that's a pretty fair assessment.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

The dissenter word isn't going to work for you though, John, in attempting to show that I am not in line with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, or to invalid claims that some things that are occurring now are a departure from doctrine and tradition.

You are a dissenter in that you dissent from the culture of death, and rightly so. You, John, dissent from society's rampant sexually immorality, and I'm with you all the way. You and I are allies in the war against progress self-styled "Catholics". We are both dissenters from all manner of things that the world considers to be normal, healthy, sane and reasonable.

So clearly there is an inadequacy in the use of the word dissenter to adequately characters those which one might like to identify as being deviant from the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Dissent is a genus, and a very large one at that, because it also a brand of denial or refusal, and there are many ways to deny but only one or few ways to accept.

If you want to prove me in opposition to the doctrine of Holy Mother Church, you need to reduce this genus of dissenter down to either or both of two species... one would be schismatic, the other, heretic.

I believe I can weasel out of either two, not in appearance only, but in truth.

I believe God has led me to this. Yeah I know; everybody says that, right? But I do in fact believe that this is the work of the Holy Spirit in our age; not this "slaying in the spirit" deception, but the subtle breath of the Holy Spirt... a return to simplicity, doctrine and humility, and service to the Almighty God in a powerful, new hidden mystical body of Christ, under the guide of the warrior Queen, weapons drawn in warfare against the ancient Beast in the epic battle of battles.

How's that for LSD by desire? =)

Before anything can begin to change for the better, though, one must admit to the gravity of the disaster we are witnessing in our Holy Church. The gates of hell will absolutely not prevail against her.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

But Ruth was correct in what she sees, John. Nowadays, it is nothing to see a priest or bishop speak heresy. Our leaders do not even stand united in Catholic doctrine, much less the faithful. And that is what she sees. Many priests give an OK to things such as birth control, cohabitation, etc. It used to be that you could count on the Church to set the standards of morality, and while the Church still does that by her formal teachings, most Catholics and even many priests do not live by and/or preach those teachings. (Even something such as Natural Family Planning was not taught years ago. Besides the fact that most people use it for totally selfish reasons, and not for the extreme cases that prompted it. All in all, NFP still shows a lack of faith and trust in God to know what is best for us.) Where is the Catholic standard of morality? I could tell you, but I am sure you do not want to hear.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

On a related note, why... why did the Pope give Holy Communion to Anglican Tony Blair, who from what I hear, is a pro-abort?

-- Emerald (emeral1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Emerald and Isabel.

Ladies first, even though Emerald replied first. Isabel, you started your post by using language that made it seem that I was denying what Ruthie had said: "But Ruth was correct in what she sees, John." Actually, I had admitted that the bad things Ruthie mentioned were realities. I told her: "I do agree with some of the points you made." And I told Emerald: "What [Ruthie] has perceived is real, I admit." I then went on to point out that, though there are very bad things going on [and you have listed some], that is not the big picture of the Catholic Church. I will instead keep focused on the bigger reality, which makes me optimistic.

Isabel, you wrote: "Besides the fact that most people use it for totally selfish reasons, and not for the extreme cases that prompted it. All in all, NFP still shows a lack of faith and trust in God to know what is best for us."

Here you have made two serious errors, and you are too intelligent to say these things.
Your first sentence implies that you are able to read the minds and hearts of all users of NFP. Only with such an ability could a person say what "most people use [NFP] for." The fact is that 95% of NFP users could be acting from UNselfish motives. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing.
Your second sentence contradicts the Church's teaching on NFP, and is thus an example of dissent, because it implies that the use of NFP is sinful. Instead, we need to follow the teachings of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, who do not even hint at the idea that NFP "shows a lack of faith and trust in God". These popes did/do not encourage people to do something that is in any way offensive to God.

Emerald, it won't surprise you to read that I don't find anything convincing in what you just wrote. You stated:
"So clearly there is an inadequacy in the use of the word dissenter to adequately [characterize] those which one might like to identify as being deviant from the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Dissent is a genus, and a very large one at that, because it also a brand of denial or refusal, and there are many ways to deny but only one or few ways to accept."

I don't find the word "dissenter" to be inadequate at all. Everyone knows (or should know) what it means, by this point in Catholic Church history, when applied to Church teachings. I have to admit, though, that you then went on to make a statement that indicates that you are not aware of the precise meaning of doctrinal "dissent." You stated:
"If you want to prove me in opposition to the doctrine of Holy Mother Church, you need to reduce this genus of dissenter down to either or both of two species... one would be schismatic, the other, heretic."

That is not correct, because some "dissenters" (yourself included) are neither "schismatic" nor "heretical."

The fact that you want to accept the jurisdiction of the pope as the universal shepherd of the Church and the fact that you attend licit liturgies keep me from calling you "schismatic."
The fact that you may not deny any of the dogmas of the Church [I'm not 100% if you accept them all] keeps me from calling you a "heretic."

However, there is at least circumstancial evidence that you do not believe (or at least that you "withhold your assent" to) some of the Church's doctrines that have not yet been expressed in dogmatic language. Such disbelief or withholding of assent is not referred to as "schism" or "heresy," but "dissent." And this "dissent" is unjustifiable and sinful. It is banned by the Church, which requires us instead to give assent to all doctrines/teachings, even those that are not expressed as dogmas.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

Sorry, I accidentally left a word out of a bracketed phrase. It should have been "[I'm not 100% sure if you accept them all]".

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

you started your post by using language that made it seem that I was denying what Ruthie had said:.... I then went on to point out that, though there are very bad things going on [and you have listed some], that is not the big picture of the Catholic Church. I will instead keep focused on the bigger reality, which makes me optimistic.

I did not mean to imply that you denied them. Sorry about that. I guess my point was (which I never really got to in my post) was that if we do not admit to outsiders that there are things wrong in the Church, then we may appear to (those outsiders) to be standing up for those things, even if we are not. We should be the first ones to denounce these things from the rooftops, but then also explain that these things do not make the Church wrong, just those committing those sins. I also think that while we should always back the Church as the True Faith established by God, we also need to address the moral decadence of the Catholic clergy and faithful. If we admit to outsiders that much is going on in the Church that is scandalous (while still defending the Church as established by Christ), and we admit those serious problems to ourselves, then, and only then, can the healing process begin. To me, that is fighting for the faith. (While I understand your points to Ruth, and agree that that is not what the *Church* stands for, Ruth sees that, because that is what alot of the clergy and faithful are doing.)

Here you have made two serious errors, and you are too intelligent to say these things. Your first sentence implies that you are able to read the minds and hearts of all users of NFP. Only with such an ability could a person say what "most people use [NFP] for." The fact is that 95% of NFP users could be acting from UNselfish motives. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing.

You are correct only insofar as you say I have no right to judge these people, and that I do not know the majority of those using NFP. But I have known many people to use it, and the reasoning was always because they did not want any more children at present, or because the felt they could not afford another child (even though they were financially better off than many other people I know with more children than them.) While this is a subject that probably needs its own dedicated thread, I would like to discuss this further if you are willing - about NFP and faith in God. My own thought and opinions only.

Your second sentence contradicts the Church's teaching on NFP, and is thus an example of dissent,

Well, the only thing I can say here, is that it seems contrary to previous Church teaching on marriage and children.

Thanks for your response. I wrote this in a hurry, sorry if it is choppy or if my thoughts seem to jump around. Off to soccer practice.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Isabel. Thanks for replying. I didn't find your message "choppy." Just a few more comments:

(1) You wrote: "But I have known many people to use [NFP], and the reasoning was always because they did not want any more children at present, or because the felt they could not afford another child (even though they were financially better off than many other people I know with more children than them.)"

On the first part: You have mentioned only the "surface reason" that they confided to you [we do "not want any more children at present"], whereas there could be a private reason that is sufficiently serious to justify the use of NFP.
On the second part: They have the right to decide (and the duty to do it honestly) about whether there is a sufficiently serious financial burden to justify the use of NFP. It is not our right to even think about these things, because we don't know with certainty any other family's financial stresses.
In short, it's wise not to judge other couples' decisions, because we might have to eat humble pie if we knew all the facts.

(2) You wrote: "While this is a subject that probably needs its own dedicated thread, I would like to discuss this further if you are willing -- about NFP and faith in God. My own thought and opinions only."

I am willing to try, though I'm pretty sure that other folks here (who have used NFP for a long time) will be able to converse with you better than I can "about NFP and faith in God." Meanwhile, I would recommend that you read all about NFP at the same site that I very recently recommended to our new visitor, Therese -- that is, the Couple to Couple League International (www.ccli.org). The founders (teachers of NFP for over 30 years) are very conservative people and 100% orthodox Catholics. I have met them in person and contributed to their work for over 15 years. They are experts on all aspects of NFP, including the problem that concerns you: the fact that some couples use NFP illicitly -- with a "contraceptive mentality."

(3) Finally, you wrote: "the Church's [current] teaching on NFP ... seems contrary to previous Church teaching on marriage and children."

I'm glad that you used a good, honest word -- "seems." It only "seems" (right now, to you) to be "contrary to [the] previous." I wish that there were a way that I could convince you that such would be impossible, because the Catholic Church never "changes" its teachings in such a way that it contradicts (is "contrary to") what it previously taught. That's part of the way she is protected by the Holy Spirit.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

Here’s a link for a very interesting article by Fr, John McCloskey, called “2030: Looking Backwards “

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/2030.html

By the way, it was here that I first saw anybody calling the pope “John Paul the Great”, when I first read it a couple of years ago. I think I even have recommended it here some time ago.

I will also top a couple of old threads dealing with the same issue.

“Are we entering a new era of persecution?”

“Darwin: Supernatural selection and the survival of the most faithful.”

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.