No, Let’s Not Admit We’re All Cafeteria Catholics

(Originally published at Acts Of The Apostasy)

I’ve noticed a trend bubbling around the Catholic blogosphere, particularly in the more progressive, Catholyc publications. I’ve seen it in several places – nuanced and a bit covert.  Until now.  It’s this notion that we’re all cafeteria Catholics to one degree or another.

I reject that premise, totally and without compromise.

Here’s the most recent example, culled from that paragon of progressive prattle, the National Catholic Distorter, in a piece written by Isabella Moyer, on June 6, titled Catholics Need to Rethink Their Strategy:

First of all, let’s admit that we are all “cafeteria Catholics” to some degree. The groaning buffet table that is our universal church is too much for any of us to take in at once or to fully understand and accept with the same level of commitment and passion. We must stop judging each other by what we can fully accept with an open heart and what we continue to struggle to understand or believe.

I’m going to take this apart sentence by sentence, because there’s quite a bit wrong with nearly every word here, quite possibly including the words “and” and “the”.

First of all, let’s admit that we are all “cafeteria Catholics” to some degree.

No, I won’t admit that.  I know plenty of people who are faithful to all of Church doctrine, and suffer sacrifices in ordering their lives as such.  They neither willingly nor knowingly reject any part of Church doctrine or dogma. And if they discover that their conscience or lifestyle is opposed to Church teaching, they take the painful and narrow routes to conform their lives.  They don’t rationalize sinful behavior and hide behind the cowardly excuse of “following one’s conscience”.

Her statement can be taken two ways.  Either she doesn’t understand what “cafeteria Catholic” really means, or she’s misrepresenting what a “cafeteria Catholic” is, and is attempting to change the definition – kinda in the same way pro-gay marriage folks want to change the definition of marriage, or how Catholycs would like to change the definition of “sin”.  Normally I give people the benefit of the doubt, but not in this case.  I’m going with purposeful misrepresentation, because it gives her and those who think like her cover.

What is a “cafeteria Catholic”?  It’s a Catholic who selectively accepts some of the Church’s doctrines while rejecting other portions – alluding to the buffet line concept, where a person has the freedom to take only what they find palatable and appealing.  It’s a Catholic who believes that Church doctrines can be picked over, and after having done so, can still proclaim that they’re “devout” and “faithful”, even going so far as saying that the Church is wrong and needs to change.  Don’t like having to go to Mass every Sunday?  No biggie.  Don’t agree that an annulment is required before being married after a divorce?  No problem.  And so on.

By attempting to redefine the term, she is trying to make the case that since we’re all “cafeteria Catholics” to some degree, we ought to stop defining people like herself by that term.  It’s the old “the pot calling the kettle black” thing.  But it only works if the definition gets changed.  Changed to what?  Let’s move on and find out.

The groaning buffet table that is our universal church is too much for any of us to take in at once or to fully understand and accept with the same level of commitment and passion.

I’m sorry, but “groaning buffet table” conjures up an ugly image: there’s just too much “stuff” and the table’s going to collapse.  A better image would be “overflowing” or perhaps “richly adorned” – because the Church is the beautiful Bride of Christ, full of grace, with abundant gifts for her children – not some overstuffed, obese, misshapen figure in need of liposuction and a gastric band.  And who’s attracted to something that is groaning, anyway?

It’s not our “universal church”.  It’s Christ’s Church, for Christ’s sake.  We are members of the body, not owners of the body.  We are not part of the Church Triumphant in Heaven, nor of the Church Suffering in Purgatory, yet both are full and equal parts of the Universal Church. We’re privileged members of the Church Militant, adopted by the shedding of our Savior’s blood.  It’s not our right to be part of the Church – it’s our privilege, unearned and undeserved by anything we have done.  And with that privilege comes the expectation to be faithful and obedient, lest we jeopardize our membership, whether here or in the hereafter.

Yes, what the Church offers us is too much to take in at once.  That’s why faith is a journey.  Nor do we fully understand everything at one time – in fact, we are asked to believe prior to being able to understand.  Not only that, but many things will never be understood this side of eternity.  So implying that full understanding of everything is possible or demanded is a strawman – the Church does not expect us to fully understand.  She proposes, not imposes.  We have the incredible freedom to explore why these things are true, and not worry if they are true.  That is a pretty wonderful gift, if you think about it.

And yes, not everyone accepts Church teaching at the same level of passion or commitment.  But that’s not really the point when it comes to “cafeteria Catholics”.  It’s a small distinction, but it’s very important.  You see, “cafeteria Catholics” display absolute rejection of some aspects of Church teaching, not varying degrees of acceptance or commitment.  Thus, that’s why they want to have the definition changed.  Because then every single Catholic would be included, and bring faithful Catholics down to their level.

We must stop judging each other by what we can fully accept with an open heart and what we continue to struggle to understand or believe.

This is a strawman argument.  No one’s being judged based on what they struggle with, or either fully or partially accept.  “Cafeteria Catholics” are judged based on what they claim to believe and what they proudly reject.  They’re judged by their words, not the state of their souls.  It’s a huge difference.  If someone is struggling with a particular doctrine, or has difficulty accepting some teaching with an open heart – for goodness sake, everyone’s been there at some point in their faith journey!  Many of us are there still.  We’re continually tempted and challenged.  We fall into sin and then beg God for forgiveness.  Life experiences and circumstances can bring countless difficulties and questions.  But the point is to always have faith and believe – to never doubt, because once the doubts start, that’s when the rationalizations begin, and next thing you know – you’re a “cafeteria Catholic”.  “Cafeteria Catholics” don’t struggle to “fully accept with an open heart” – they’ve already closed their hearts to particular doctrines, and have been given up to their sin.

One more point, and it’s an essential and critical one.  “Cafeteria Catholics” rarely differentiate between doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues.  They tend to lump them together, giving them equal importance – which goes beyond what the Church does! Pretty ironic, isn’t it?  It makes them more Catholic than the Pope!  When a disagreement arises over the death penalty, for instance, where they’re opposed to it and a faithful Catholic might be in support of it, they will argue that such a person is being a “cafeteria Catholic”.  But such a claim is incorrect.  As Pope Benedict wrote in 2004:

“Not all … issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not … with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

In their mind, then, the Pope is also a “cafeteria Catholic”.  How wack is that?

This differentiation is important.  Definitions serve a purpose, and having the right definition is crucial.  Those of us who accept Church doctrine, and believe it to be true – not because the Church says so, but because such Truths have been revealed by God and thus taught by the Church – while at the same time, exercising our intelligence, wisdom and free will to discuss and even disagree on prudential issues – that’s not the definition of a “cafeteria Catholic”.  It never has been.  That’s the description of a faithful Catholic.  We may struggle with some of the doctrines.  We might have difficulty living up to those teachings.  We may even rail against our good and gracious God for what appears to be injustice and unfairness, because of these doctrines.  But we never doubt their Truth.  We don’t say “the hell with it!” and reject them because they don’t fit our lifestyle.  We don’t become so proud so as to think they don’t apply to us.  We try to say “not my will, God, but yours be done” every day.  We fail at times, and we know we fail, and we try again.  We strive to conform our consciences to better accept the doctrines, to better understand them, and to better live them out.

And we don’t accept the claim that we’re all “cafeteria Catholics”.  I certainly don’t.  Because if there is no difference, then someone is being lied to, and the martyrs have been made the greatest of all the world’s fools.

64 Responses to No, Let’s Not Admit We’re All Cafeteria Catholics

  • How wack is that?

    Heh, I may have to steal that response next time someone pulls any flavor of the “everybody does it, some just don’t admit they do” argument!

  • I’m a Catholic convert— a gay/chaste Catholic convert. If I hadn’t wanted to become a faithful Catholic, I could have been an Episcopal convert, a Unitarian convert or a Metropolitan Community Church convert. I chose to be Catholic because the Catholic church doesn’t shift doctrines around to suit popular culture. If people don’t like the Catholic church as it is, there are plenty of other faiths that fit their ideas better. Why are some so insistent that the Catholic church must, essentially, become Episcopal??? There is already a church for that.

  • There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty

    Of course, the emphasis here is on the legitimate diversity of opinion. Not all opinions on applying the death penalty or waging war are legitimate. And while it is obviously wrong which items on the menu left leaning cafeteria Catholics avoid (teachings against abortion, contraception and SSM most often), the right leaning have their “allergies” as well. However, because these items are generally more nuanced, it is more difficult to tell. There is a fair amount of room, for example, in just war teaching, but pre-emptive war does not appear to cut it. Yet, there are many right Catholics that support it. Similarly with torture. But I would agree, to say “We are all cafeteria Catholics now” is pushing it.

  • The main problem I have with her piece is her claim that these misunderstood cafe Catholics are simply “struggling to understand.”

    It is one thing to not understand something like the Schrodinger equation, and study and work to finally understand it, without rejecting it before you understand it. You may think it wierd, not intuitive, against common sense or any number of things, but you do not reject it until you understand it. That is “struggling to understand.”

    But for many cafe Catholics, there is no struggle; they just think the Church is wrong and will someday come around to their brilliance. That is simply rejection.

  • Open hearts use their lifetime to bring themselves to open minds – not to finding excuses to avoid truths that cure diseased hearts.

  • “Gay Catholic”? Isn’t that any oxymoron? How can you be part of a Church that calls homosexuality “intrinsically disordered”? The Protestants have many sects that would be glad to accept you.

  • but pre-emptive war does not appear to cut it. Yet, there are many right Catholics that support it.

    What is ‘pre-emptive war’ and how does that conflict with (for example) the Catechism?

    Similarly with torture.

    I think the dispute is over what constitutes illegitimate coercion and physical pressure.

  • I like when people try to establish clear definition, to improve communication and to help get on the same page, so thanks for that.
    I dont like what she wrote and I dont agree with it, but I can relate to the overall issue that there are “Catholics” that pick, choose and reject doctrines based on their knowledge, UNDERSTANDING of and ability to stick with certain doctrine.Then there are other Catholics that accept the doctrine, but choose not to live by it…weak, sin and ask for forgiveness…very convenient.
    I see too many Catholics, devote in faith and prayer having sex before they marry, because it’s conveinient or others going to church only part time, not confessing/ready before receiving Christ. These are so called Catholics that dont know how to be Catholics, what it means to be Catholic. That’s what I thought a cafeteria Catholic was. Glad to have been set straight, to have learned the correct definition. Now if only we could help our brothers and sisters to be better Catholics with our strong faith, love of all our neighbors and the holy spirit. I’m wondering if this article was meant to do that…

  • “Gay Catholic”? Isn’t that any oxymoron? How can you be part of a Church that calls homosexuality “intrinsically disordered”? The Protestants have many sects that would be glad to accept you.

    I’m a Catholic convert— a gay/chaste Catholic convert.

    Bolded for your convenience.

  • “If someone is struggling with a particular doctrine, or has difficulty accepting some teaching with an open heart – for goodness sake, everyone’s been there at some point in their faith journey! Many of us are there still. We’re continually tempted and challenged. We fall into sin and then beg God for forgiveness.”

    Bless you, sir. This is the core of the faith journey and the credo of all who trek towards that glorious day.

    And chaste gay Catholic sounds fine to me. Our sin and temptations come from many directions. The Church is our refuge and Christ our salvation, and when we know our sinfulness and we come to Him openly and penitently, the Sacraments help us come closer to our goal of achieving Heaven. Prayers for you in your journey, Nissa.

  • Way to be classy, Joe. Next time, you might want to keep reading a person’s comment instead of stopping after eight or nine words.

  • “understand and accept”

    That’s the problem with the article right there. The virtue of faith allows us to accept that which we don’t fully understand. If you accept only what you understand, or what you think you understand, then it’s inevitable that you’ll be a cafeteria Catholic. You’ll pick up a doctrine or two as you increasingly understand them, but you won’t ever have that moment of trust, the moment where you accept the whole message based on your confidence in God. Converts understand that. Those of us who’ve been catechised decently understand that. Even apostates, who reject the faith, understand that. But to a lot of people who’ve never had it clearly laid out for them, the notion of an act of faith doesn’t even occur to them.

  • First, let us admit we are sinners [without a qualifier].

  • a wonderful post. I esp like this part
    ‘ in fact, we are asked to believe prior to being able to understand. Not only that, but many things will never be understood this side of eternity. So implying that full understanding of everything is possible or demanded is a strawman – the Church does not expect us to fully understand. She proposes, not imposes. We have the incredible freedom to explore why these things are true, and not worry if they are true. That is a pretty wonderful gift, if you think about it.”
    THANKS

  • Why does modern man think that emotions and passions can decide what’s wrong or right? That concept seems dangerous but implied by so many modernists. Why would it be wrong and dangerous? It is wrong and dangerous because emotions and passions can shift wildly and can only have Moral Good or Moral Evil if applied yet some people think that whatever emotion or passion you have decides what is right to do. In which case chaos would be morally acceptable if relying merely on your latest emotion is what is good, but it isn’t Good because it is not objective and can swing wildly. I do think emotions important though because they are what give us fervor and God would not have given us emotion without a reason. Emotions should be checked with what is Good rather than checking Good with emotions.

  • Why would anyone feel the need to put a qualifier on the word Catholic. Catholic first and always, other adjectives take second place to the word Catholic.

  • That is my beef with the line

    “The groaning buffet table that is our universal church is too much for any of us to take in at once or to fully understand and accept with the same level of commitment and passion.”

    That is the kind of line a weak-willed yuppie would give.

  • Aiken if someone is having a problem with doing the good it is important to be forgiving after they are sorry, but what I am wondering is what does Mr. AnnaKindt mean by Gay? because there four uses of the word Gay the four uses being: being attracted to someone of the same sex, Giving in to that attraction a twisted way, being Jolly, and stupid. The last one is used quite often by kids and adolescents. If Mr. AnnaKindt is referring to the second meaning than there is a contradiction in terms with the words Chaste and Gay, but I suspect he only means the first meaning or the third meaning or both.

  • Nissa,
    God bless you. Thanks for your courage and welcome to Christ’s Church.

  • “First of all, let’s admit that we are all “cafeteria Catholics” to some degree.” The writer is bringing everyone down to her level. She says that some of us are more heretical than others, so, it must OK to be heretical, because everyone is heretical to some degree. I am glad Larry D. did not let her get away with such calumny and false witness. The writer assails people of Faith, insulting and degrading them. Modus operandi for militant atheists. I bet the writer got a raise in salary for this piece.

  • Mary De Voe makes the important point that if someone is saying “we are all heretical and unfaithful”, that degrades all the faithful and seems to be based on the theory that people will snap just like irrational animals when the going gets tough.

  • i think something which Friedrich Nietche says is that human beings are the animals that can make promises, so even an atheist would argue against the theory that no one can be faithful in tough conditions.

  • Valentin: Thank you for responding to my comment. Let me carry this a bit further. Moyers does not speak for me or for LarryD for that matter. So, when Moyer says “WE” she trespasses against freedom of speech and press, my freedom of speech and press and imposes her tyrannical definition of “WHO” “WE” as free persons are, the image and likeness of almighty God. Moyers insults GOD. The writer condemns all of us to despair instead of lifting people up to hope in the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ, Risen from the dead.
    “people will snap just like irrational animals when the going gets tough.” Yes, Valentin, Moyers’ atheism denies the rational and immortal soul of man and the free will and the freedom guaranteed in our Constitution. Moyers writing makes of all men beasts of burden and property of the state. I’ll bet you three extra days in heaven, Moyers got a raise.

  • Guys,

    This has nothing to do with Larry D’s post, but my Norton anti virus on my Windows computer says that TAC is a fraudulent web site. And all auto e-mails from TAC to my e-mail address have stopped. Are other people experiencing problems or is it just me? And it happens ONLY with TAC. Now who would want to prevent access to TAC? Hey, maybe I am paranoid, but…..

    PS, this message is from my iPad.

  • Paul I have had some sort of program tell me that this website is dangerous for my computer, I haven’t had any problems with the computer functioning and this website though.

  • Paul W P I am glad you told us, I have been wondering why my e-mails notifications from TAC have stopped

  • Mary Heaven is Eternal so three days wouldn’t change much if we got to heaven.

  • Mary I know that Larry D was not claiming that we are simply irrational animals.

  • Valentin. May I take this even further. I know Nietche was insane when he passed away. “I think something which Friedrich Nietche says is that human beings are the animals that can make promises, so even an atheist would argue against the theory that no one can be faithful in tough conditions.” “animals who can make promises” …to God, and “Relying on Divine Providence”, from The Declaration of Independence, “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity” from the Preamble to the U.S Constitution affirms that the human being has access to a loving God and Father in heaven. (The Great Black Father in Washington is a servant of God and a servant of man, in that order)

  • Nissa I think the problem with protestant churches is that they were not founded by Christ whereas the Catholic Church is.

  • Guys I think we should first ask Nissa what he means by gay before people insult him for calling himself gay. The word gay is used in a number of different ways.

  • Valentin: Heaven is eternal, but gambling isn’t good either so If one gambles for three extra days in heaven one cannot lose. Let us just get to heaven.
    Valentin says:
    “Mary I know that Larry D was not claiming that we are simply irrational animals.” but Moyers is.

  • Thanks, Anzlyne and Valentin. At least I am not going crazy. But I do think there are forces out in cyber space tha would like to silence TAC for its stand in being orthodox. I am certain that the lucid and sane posts from Don M., Paul Z., Bonchamps, Stacey T., Lisa G. and others (even or perhaps especially The Larry D’s satire) are embarrassing (to say the least) to the liberal left.

  • Yes Mary I know that to I was just making clear that I knew who said what.

  • Valentin says:
    Friday, June 15, 2012 A.D. at 8:30pm
    “Guys I think we should first ask Nissa what he means by gay before people insult him for calling himself gay. The word gay is used in a number of different ways.”
    Nissa is free to define himself as he sees fit. When Nissa is insulted or discriminated against by other people, a crime has been committed and Nissa has been injured. Life is a journey in self-knowledge and it is OK to be gay in all four ways at once and to realize it, if it be the case. What it is not OK to do is to injure a person for the way God has created him, that is when people become insulting to God.

  • Larry you make an excellent point when saying that rather than a groaning table it is an overflowing one but I think we have to go one step further and make the argument that the Church has been around for a little less than 2000 years, we have had many Martyrs, and stand strong.

  • God has not created people to commit homosexual acts which are irrational and injuring, it seems like an obvious thing that homosexual acts have no basis except maybe pride and falling into passions (which probably is included in pride), pride is a vice and also the talking point of the Devil who says “but I want the favor man gets” as well as rejecting God’s dominion as God’s dominion.

  • I didn’t need to read beyond “gay.” That was enough for me to form an opinion. I don’t use the term “gay,” which was once a good word used a century ago in a completely different way. Now the word has been ruined and twisted into a euphemism for a pervert.

  • Mary I was thinking of a quote which is “Hate the sin love the sinner”.

  • Joe I think you are right about it being a common euphamism of a pervert but what I was trying to get at was whether what Nissa was talking about was feeling attracted to other men or feeling attracted to other men and going along with it.

  • Guys: I guess it is getting worse as the Fortnight for Freedom draws near. I remember PHILLIP posting that when he opened a link to Maureen Dowd at the New York Times he had to replace his laptop AND his flat screen TV. We have God and our founding principles.

  • Mary I was insulting was the fallen nature of man not the pure, clean, and graceful nature of man

  • Mary it is not to surprising that the New York Times would do something like that considering how bigoted the atheists there are.

  • Wait was this New York Times or somebody else who made his computer crash?

  • Paul-
    I don’t get any emails anymore, either. :^(

  • Joe Green says:
    “I didn’t need to read beyond “gay.” That was enough for me to form an opinion. I don’t use the term “gay,” which was once a good word used a century ago in a completely different way. Now the word has been ruined and twisted into a euphemism for a pervert.”
    Joe, If Nissa does not indulge in the vice of lust, being, as the American Psychiatric Association once diagnosed homosexuality as, in arrested development, it is a very heavy cross to bear and most likely Nissa’s key to heaven. Nissa ought to be encouraged and supported in his following Jesus Christ WHO was an innocent man and a virgin. Nissa says: “I’m a Catholic convert— a gay/chaste Catholic convert.” “gay/chaste” is not only possible, but laudable. “Gay/chaste” is sovereignty, possession of oneself, disciplined. All people are called to the virtue of chastity, no one excluded.

  • Mary the question is an objective one “Does Nissa mean act homosexual, or feel attracted to homosexuality but not fall into it?” because bearing the cross is wholesome, the question is whether Nissa was saying that he bears the cross and doesn’t drop it or whether he was claiming that homosexuality is wholesome.

  • Valentin says:
    Friday, June 15, 2012 A.D. at 9:08pm
    Wait was this New York Times or somebody else who made his computer crash?
    Don’t know.

  • Paul, Foxfier, Anzlyne – last email was 5:20 this morning. ?

  • Valentin, Nissa said that he is a “gay/chaste.” Chaste means chaste means chaste.

  • Yes and the question is whether Nissa is talking about Chastity or a false chastity.

  • PM, it might have been – I received no e-mails today.

  • I didn’t notice because I’ve been gone a lot but my last e-mail notification was way back on June 11 – Morrissey Greater Glory

  • One of the many vile vices of liberalism is the defining down of society, culture, and in this case religion. Even if we were all cafeteria Catholics this doesn’t justify being “cafeteria-y” although that would be unthinkable in a liberal worldview.

    St.Newman put the whole issue rather succinctly when he said:

    “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”

  • If there are “gays” in heaven, “chaste” or not, then include me out, as Sam Goldwyn once put it. I’d rather there were dogs and I say that as a dog lover.

  • If there’s no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven, there’s probably no sexual attraction either. Which is logical, since most of us (ie, except Jesus and Mary) won’t get our resurrected bodies back until Judgment Day, the New Jerusalem and New heaven and earth, etc. So “no male or female” will probably be quite literal at that point, until we reunite with our bodies to enjoy the fullness of eternal life.

    Personally, I think it’s horribly imprudent to make any “Thank you, God, for not making me a sinner like that other guy” comments, especially ones that might lead to encouraging one’s own eternal damnation. I am REALLY THANKFUL that the Lord deigns to make dubious characters into saints, and has mercy on those who convert at the last minute. I might need that. And if it comes right down to it, I’m not too proud to eat the scraps from my Lord’s table.

    So please be careful, Joe. And watch out for the Holy Spirit being ironic at you. He has a sense of humor sometimes in how He teaches us lessons.

  • Maureen, I’ve been taken to the woodshed many times and if God wants to whip me a little more I won’t mind. If there is “no sexual attraction,” as you put it then Heaven might be a dull place. How long before the “beatific vision” wears off and someone says, “So this is all there is?” Besides, I cannot imagine a paradise without dogs happily running in the Elysian Fields, forever free of the brutality of Man. In case you missed it I’m a gambling man and right now Pascal’s Wager is the best bet at 50-50; offering better odds than any casino where the house always has the advantage.

  • God bless you, Larry. You said everything that I keep in my heart and believe to the core. So nice to read this from a brother in the Lord.

  • Joe,
    I have a book by a Franciscan that argues that dogs will be in Heaven but your comments on chaste gays can get you into hell where there will be no dogs. Try off internet (where the ego can admit error) to think what you are daring God to do….include you out of Heaven if there are chaste gays there. Imagine a chaste gay because I suspect you’re imagining the opposite. Would you have rejected Christ had you lived then because repentant prostitutes accompanied Him after they repented…. hated tax collectors accompanied Him. It was one reason the pharisees rejected Christ…the people He was seen with. Would you have said to yourself then…
    ” the pharisees have a good point…I know men who’ve been with the women who follow Christ like groupies…He can’t be the awaited one.”
    We are being tested like the pharisees right now. Are we looking down on the people who have joined His entourage? Do we really want to enter hell forever for failing the pharisee test?
    Do we know what we are asking for?
    Please….off camera….off internet, turn away from this contempt for a repentant person whose conversion caused more joy amongst the angels than 99 who had no need of repentance. “Getting to Yes” was a book out of Harvard that noted that whenever we make an unfortunate public declaration, our ego most often is then at stake…we won’t repent of it in public. The important thing though is to repent of it….off camera…off internet…between you and Him who welcomed the hated people of His land in His entourage once they repented or were in process of same.

  • We all have our limits on love don’t we– we can’t love as well as God does… though we try. Joe has trouble thinking of gay guys, even chaste ones in heaven. I know someone whose face registered a “that’s a new thought!” expression at the statement that heaven will be FULL of “Walmart people” :)

    I think we know there are priests and nuns asking for our prayers from Purgatory– and others in hell according to Lucia–

    Having a person I love who is living gay now brings me to my knees OFTEN with many tears. I was asking John Hardon for help and found out there are questions now about how he handled a “disordered” priest. I continue to ask him and the communion of saints for help on this, sure that there are saints who have lived this struggle. Any of you who would be willing to pray for the salvation of my son, I thank you.

  • Nissa, maybe it is time to quit calling yourself “gay”, period.

  • Joe Green: “How long before the “beatific vision” wears off and someone says, “So this is all there is?” Heaven is eternal life. The Beatific Vison is forever, infinite, never ending. God is a communion of Love. God is Love. God is infinte Love, always more and better. This is why when a person is taken up to heaven, he wants everybody else there first. If the Beatific Vision wears off, believe me, Joe, It is not heaven.
    Anzlyne, Prayers of course.

  • Nissa, if you can exemplify gay/chaste for anyone, then do so.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .