Free Republic

As the high court is usurping the legislature's right to make law the legislature should now ban all marriages in the state until they are able to have a constitutional amendment passed. People wanting to get married can cross state lines until the amendment is passed.

Mark Twain loved his book,"Joan of Arc", of all the books he had ever written. He did very little research in writing his books but spent 12 years doing so on her biography, and he reached his conclusion about Joan's unique place in history only after studying accounts by both sides, the French who might have slanted matters to favor her and the English who might have wished to justify executing her. His quote,"I have constantly used five French sources and five English ones and I think no telling historical nugget in them has escaped me. Twain's reference to the importance he gave to history in writing his book indicates that he was more serious about the historical Joan than about his creative fictional inventiveness. A very good read but also a remarkably accurate biography of the life and mission of Joan of Arc which will put to rest the various claims made by the anthropologist referred to in this post.

Who are what is considered to be an Integrist? I can't find the word in the dictionary. Thanks.

If the legislature needs more that 180 for a constitutional referendum they should just ban all marriage in Mass. until this is accomplished. No licenses for anyone is equal protection under the law. Let the courts chew on that.

As to 1st Timothy 3 the meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none); but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.

The link I found is http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/fridayabstinence.html

I sent this privately as I am new to this and don't know how to include your request in italics as all of you are doing. If you could give me an explanation on how to do that it would be appreciated. I am still having problems with the "authority" of the USCCB in completely removing the discipline of our Holy Church as to the requirement of penance on Friday. The explanation as to it being purely ecclestical law and therefore allowing for the dispensation seems to open a Pandora's box for me. Is priestly celbacy for instance a purely ecclestical law? How many others have never been tested?

Thanks for the correction. I went to a USCCB site and read their entire definition including the last paragraphs which states:

"Finally, if a Catholic's decision against Friday abstinence is defiant in nature, a rebellion against divine law, it may well meet the criteria for sin, possibly even the criteria for mortal sin. By contrast, a Catholic who would willingly do penance if the Church required it, and declines only because his national bishops' conference says is not required, does not incur sin."

"All that said, Holy Mother Church strongly recommends the practice of abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year."

I will continue to follow Holy Mother Church's strong recommendation as stated by the USCCB in abstaining from meat on all Fridays of the year.

You are right. The new code in 1983 did not remove the prior code proclaiming it a mortal sin to knowingly and willingly disobey the church teaching on abstaining from eating meat on Friday. It did however include some new substitutes mentioned in the "binding" canon law 1249 thru 1253. Having not removed the binding law as a mortal sin leaves it in effect doesn't it?

Please point me to the "new code of canon law". I am aware of only these and they are not just recommendations
# 1249 to 1253.

"All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe." [Canon Law # 1249]

"The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent." [Canon Law # 1250]

"Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday." [Canon Law # 1251]

"The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance." [Canon Law # 1252]

"The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety." [Canon Law # 1253]

I think you are right about the many responses that can be made to this post. I would like to make just one. In February of the year 1966, Pope Paul VI promulgated an Apostolic Constitution (17 Feb. 1966) entitled Paenitemini in which he said that the law of the Church still says to abstain from meat on every Friday throughout the year.
However, he gave permission to go against the letter of the law if the conference of bishops of a particular country petitioned the Holy See, the Pope, for permission for their people to do another penance on Friday in place of not eating meat. So, in those countries whose bishops have gone through the channels to petition the Pope for permission to substitute another penance instead of not eating meat on Friday, those individuals in those countries can substitute another penance.
But what you have not been told, and no one seems to know, is that you still have the obligation to do another penance on that Friday and you are still bound under pain of mortal sin.

What keeps them from downloading the "real" petitions, sitting at their tables getting signatures, and then just discarding them. This will be just as effective but harder to control.

You are not drinking wine "symbolic" of Christ's blood...you are drinking the consecrated blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every particle of the consecrated bread and wine is his real presence..Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Your post has merit for its concern; however, his remarks in this regard are aimed at the media in relishing the chance to single out the Catholic church. He is addressing this bias. Another reason the church is singled out is because the entire diocese is legally responsible for the act of one man. Lawyers follow the money as you well know. In a small protestant church the same act doesn't acquire the legal representation because the money isn't there to be had. No legal action, no publicity, no scandal.

Question...if a woman did the very same to a man would she have to register as a sex offender?

Archeological facts??? Never have they found in their "digs" any evidence of a partial evolution of even one species to another let alone to a human...nothing anywhere in the world yet they continue to accept "on faith"

Scalia is not questioning a dogma of the Catholic Church. There is no dogma against capitol punishment but actually one supporting it from the Council of Trent. A catholic does not commit a sin by either supporting capitol punishment nor by opposing it. A dogma is the truth and cannot change but new light can be shed on it as the Holy Father has tried to bring forth. However, he has not and cannot change the doctrine to the point of it being a sin for a catholic to support Capitol Punishment.

As a practicing Catholic what part of Humanae Vitae does Joe not understand? Bet with all that education he hasn't even read it.

Would he do he same for Hitler?