Posted on 06/17/2004 11:20:09 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Actually I never read the Da Vinci Code because a screaming liberal I know read it. She told me that it told the truth about the Catholic Church and that Christ was married and blah, blah, blah, patriarchial cult, blah, blah, blah enslave women, blah, blah, blah. I left the room and rolled my eyes and made a mental note never to read such unsubstantiated drivel. But that's just me. There is a Chapel near my work place that I go to at lunch. The priest there gave a seminar rebutting the book. So this has come up in discussion many times.
Not sure if you're right or wrong, JohnnyZ, but really admire your forceful defense and love of the Church. That's as necessary as the ability to level well deserved criticism.
Do you have any objections to the answers given in the 1997 web-page you copied here?
...except for the possibility of direct involvement by one or more members of the Curia in similar scandals/coverups.
I knew the book was crap when a fellow who had read it was enthusing about it----and he recalled that much of what was in the book was what he learned on entering THE MASONIC LODGE!
Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!
I doubt from the backlash on this thread that Peach will consider returning anytime soon. I'm exhausted from just reading it. I hope these Freepers don't act like this in church!
Nope.
I'm not sure what that means. ???
Yes, we put our faith in this Church, because, regardless of what the men in charge do, or how some of them misrepresent the intents, it is still the True Church that Christ Jesus founded. Plenty of Catholics still recognize the hypocrisy of some (a very few) priests and bishops, and yet there is a way to criticize for this without bashing the Church.
Now THAT shows a lack of knowledge of the Catholic Church. May I recommend taking a look at this site:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM
as well as this one:
http://www.catholic.com
Both can clear up some obvious misconceptions about the Church. Obviously, you would have to have an open mind (or at least half-open) if you are to get anything out of it. But they can both be real eye-openers, even for Catholics themselves. One of the real crimes that has gone on in the Church for the past 40 years is the lack of real solid teaching on the Doctrines of the Faith. If we had been better educated on the Church, we would be able to explain things quite a bit better, and understand more of our own Faith.
*frustrated grumbles*
Thanks. I can't take credit for that. I've been watching EWTN a lot lately. :)
If you have no objections to the materials on the website which you posted, then exactly what does the above line mean?
One infers that you think this 1997 material is "bad" if the 1960's were "worse."
I went to your link, and checked the summary for the book. Here is the first sentence. I'll tell you that it lost me after exactly six words. A much more interesting book would probably be Father Elijah, or anything by Bud McFarlen.
Anyway, here is the first sentence.
A Black Mass in the Vatican in 1963 gets Malachi's first novel since Vatican (1985) off to a wicked start.
I have no objections to it because I am no longer a practicing Catholic.
I posted it only to show some freepers who called me a liar and said that the Catholic church did not stop separated women from receiving the sacrament.
If in 1998 the official policy of the Catholic church is that divorced women sometimes can receive the sacrament and they need to check with the specific parish to see what their position is, you can well imagine what things were like in 1963.
MUCH harsher. But do I care what they do today? Nope. Doesn't affect me at all.
Malachi Martin was heavy into conspiracy theories toward the end of his life, and had crawled into bed with integrists.
My in-laws tell a story of many years ago, where the local catholic church would post how much each family gave the week before. These were very poor people in a mining town in PA. How embarassing that must have been!
However, what you described earlier was also the case, that divorced and separated Catholics were treated as virtual pariahs in the Church prior to 1965.
Jesus didn't come for the healthy, but for the sick, meaning those who were broken in spirit and in their relationships.
I wouldn't register in such a parish, even if I went to Mass there.
I should have highlighted the last sentence:
Catholics who are divorced but not remarried should consult their confessors or a parish priest as to whether they may receive Holy Communion. In certain circumstances they are allowed to do so.
Reprinted from January 17, 1997
http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/divorce/#6
Considering that was their position on divorced women, and still is today in 1997, you can well imagine how much more severe it was for separated and getting divorced women in 1963!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.