Matt 19:13-14 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. -- Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh,” the Psalmist promises, specifically in a passage about enjoying vindication over one’s adversaries. If that is so, then the racket on this fortieth anniversary must be prodigious. Four decades later, not only have the document’s signature predictions been ratified in empirical force, but they have been ratified as few predictions ever are: in ways its authors could not possibly have foreseen, including by information that did not exist when the document was written, by scholars and others with no interest whatever in its teaching, and indeed even inadvertently, and in more ways than one, by many proud public adversaries of the Church.

The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.

When “Humanae Vitae” came out in July 1968 I thought I better read a copy of it. So I went up to my Newman Club chaplain at the University of Minnesota and I asked him where I could find a copy of “Humanae Vitae.” And his comment to me was, “What do you want to read that kind of trash for?”

This irritated me. It was not his role to make an editorial comment to me. He was a priest, a Catholic priest. He ought to at least be sharing what the Church was saying, and not be so afraid of it.

Then the pilgrims came. The winter weather turned heavenly — one blue day after another. And the crowds of youths weren't quite the kind party-mad "Sinny" is used to. They were happy, patient, peaceable. They sang hymns and waved flags. When protesters threw condoms at them, they shouted, "Jesus loves you, too." When gay activists dressed as monks, nuns and devils shouted "Pope Go Homo, Gay Is Great," pilgrims made peace signs. After a mass on Bondi Beach, some high-spirited worshipers plunged into the surf. "They don't feel the cold, obviously," said local resident Lilian Selby. "I'm freezing."

Of the priests I've known, not one deserves this casual vilification as pedophiles, or their protectors. And when I check how their church touches even my life, I see one of its hospitals, in which my children were born. I see its churchmen tackling forces that rip up homes and make our streets unsafe. I see its intellectuals preaching values I recognise as essential for the defence of our weak. And I see a faith that exhorts its -- yes, fallible -- believers to goodness, integrity and public service.

Such a faith deserves respect. Instead, there's that hooting mob, brandishing cobwebbed skeletons to smash one of the few institutions still trying to civilise the barbarians.

Let it be known that he [Benedict XVI] does not support the defection of conservative Anglicans to the Roman Catholic Church

They want us to believe that Pope Benedict is "shunning defectors" in an attempt to shore up the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not true.
...
The Pope is supporting moves by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to construct a model whereby a group of rebel conservative Anglicans, the Traditional Anglican Communion, can be received en masse and occupy their own structures inside the Roman Catholic Church.
...
Let's put this bluntly. Far from wanting to preserve the Anglican Communion, Pope Benedict wishes all its members to become Catholics. He realises, however, that corporate reunion is now impossible, and so he and his key advisers in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are considering ways in which groups of Anglicans can be received into full communion with the Holy See.

HMS Birkenhead sank off the coast of South Africa on 26th February 1852. This incident is widely believed to be the origin of the phrase women and children first. The ship was carrying 480 British troops and about 26 women and children. When the ship foundered the soldiers' commander Colonel Seton told them to 'Stand fast!' and allow the women and children to make use of the few lifeboats. Most of the soldiers and sailors on board were drowned or eaten by sharks, but all the women and children survived.(source)

Very few of the survivors were women, children or - the elderly. "There is no law that says women and children first," said Roger Kohen, spokesman for the International Maritime Organization, based in London. "That is something from the age of chivalry."

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.

The basic attitude of the Dem party leadership is "Christianity is crap and Christians are an enemy to defeat." The basic attitude of the GOP leadership is "Christianity is a useful form of crowd control, and must be exploited so that we can attain money, votes and power." Obama's principal contribution to Dem political thought is, "Hey! Slow down! We might be able to exploit Christians too!"

Please take care to write in a good, literate, adult style, in order to increase the contrast between the letters of support and the incoherent, juvenile flaming that will doubtless characterise the letters from the Catholics.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“The Myers blog can be accessed from the university’s website. The university has a policy statement on this issue which says that the ‘Contents of all electronic pages must be consistent with University of Minnesota policies, local, state and federal laws.’ One of the school’s policies, ‘Code of Conduct,’ says that ‘When dealing with others,’ faculty et al. must be ‘respectful, fair and civil.’ Accordingly, we are contacting the President and the Board of Regents to see what they are going to do about this matter. Because the university is a state institution, we are also contacting the Minnesota legislature.

“It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively.”

Myers, in an interview today, explained that the blog entry is more "satire and protest" than an actual threat to defile the Eucharist. (source)

Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? ... I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.

The Council of Cardinals that studies the Vatican's organizational and economic problems announced that the Holy See has reported a deficit of 9 million euros –more than 14 million U.S. dollars- for 2007.

That's fine that you don't agree with me. I've met many who do not and many who do. I've got friends of both mindsets.
The hardship between the two opinions is that many will take the

I simply don't agree with ...

and accuse those who [do/don't] spank of abuse.

Romans 14:21 it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble

So is it fair to say that the modern notion of tolerance revels in acceptance of many forms of personal behavior but rejects most aims to simply state what behaviors are and are not acceptable under any philosophical or religious system? ... The second question I have is, given our free speech rights in this country, can we get where Canada is today?(source)

Now we see what happens when this newly redefined right to have strangers regard one’s relationship as particular and intimate crashes into the reality that most of the world’s religions regard such intimacy between two women or two men as wrong in one way or another – as “fundamentally disordered,” as the Catholics put it.

What happens is that judges sweep the religious views aside.

Not that courts are outlawing the mere belief that gay sex is a sin, at least not yet. But as Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress writes in Tuesday's L.A. Times, allowing mere belief or not actually forcing clergy to perform gay “marriages” is an awfully narrow view of religious liberty.

The practical effect is that religions are increasingly stopped from behaving as if they believed that homosexual relationships were wrong. Believers can believe; they just can’t let that belief govern their actions if it in any way impairs what is a new right to have one’s homosexual relationship affirmed by the implicit social approval that comes with marriage. Under this new calculus, so much as merely declining to shoot pictures for pay amounts to an unacceptable “hatred.”

In short, political correctness is being used as a form of fundamentalism, and fundamentalisms, especially "warring" fundamentalisms as manifested in the battles between religious fundamentalists and neo-atheist fundamentalists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, are a grave danger to democracy. They vastly widen the divides between us, creating an unbridgeable "us" and "them" when what we need is a "we".

...

The issue that sparked the "Ryerson controversy", legalising same-sex marriage, is an example of what "pure" moral relativism and intense tolerance, as modified by political correctness, mean in practice.

While I abhor discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Full Circle: rightfully I might add) and agree that same-sex marriage could be a powerful message of the wrongs of that, I oppose same-sex marriage because of its impact on children’s rights. In choosing between adults and children, I believe we should give priority to children. I argue that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, unless the "best interests" of a particular child require otherwise, as in many adoptions. Marriage limited to the union of a man and a woman establishes that right; same-sex marriage eliminates that right for all children (which is why I oppose the redefinition of marriage), but support civil unions (which do not have that impact).

The Ryerson protestors sought to "deal" with me by labelling me. I was described as guilty of a hate crime; the new Ernst Zundel (who, like him, should be deported – they were grateful that I came from Australia and could be sent back there); a neo-Nazi; and a member of the Klu Klux Klan. My views had no place in the university, they claimed. This approach eliminated the need to deal with the substance of my arguments. It sent a very powerful warning to all those who might happen to share my views.

Dear Roussel,

Thanks for your letter. I have ordered last weeks Church Times but it has not yet arrived...

I do not remember exactly what I said the other day, but I do not think you yet know the full extent of my difficulty.

My difficulty is something like this.--Our Lord taught 1900 yrs. ago in a country known as Palestine, for about the space of three years. After that time He ascended into Heaven, but before doing that He made provision for the teaching of posterity the words which He had spoken. A great many of these words have since been written down by Evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. That this is not sufficient of itself we see by the fact that whereas one man who receives the Holy Scripture as the inspired Word of God professes to find from that Scripture one thing, another man professes to find quite another thing, and yet both alike profess to find it after prayer, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Take for instance the question of the Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Here, O'Bardsy, Vicar of St. Peter's, Bdfd., tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do not really & truly receive the Body and Blood of our Lord, whilst in the neighboring parish of St. Mary Magdalene's, Wm. Redhead, the Vicar, tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do really and truly receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord. Now both of these men profess to have found their respective doctrines from the same source, and under the same guidance. But it is perfectly obvious that one of them must be in the wrong. Which of them is it?

Now as I have said, our Lord did make provision for the teaching of His people after he was gone. He did establish a Church which should teach the world that which is contained in Holy Scripture, & should be able to decide, if necessary, what was the meaning of any disputed passage, and should be able to solve any doubts and difficulties of any of its members. Now this was a great work for Him to give to His Church, but He also made it able to do it. He did send it the promised Comforter whom he promised would remain with it always (St. John XIV. 16). And again, when He sent them out to preach, He promised that He Himself would be with them...

This Church then must be at the present time in existence & always have existed since the time when Our Lord founded it.

Nextly -- How are we to recognize it? We are told - By their fruits ye shall know them.

So I next try to find out what would the characteristics of such a Church be?

The first thing I find is that whatever it teaches must be absolutely true. The Holy Ghost dwells within it. Our Lord Himself abides with it -- therefore whatever it teaches is true, for if not it must be untrue, and God cannot back up what is not true, for if He did He would cease to be God. It must then be Infallible.

If then it is infallible it must be one, for ... It cannot be divided -- "A house that is divided against itself cannot stand." It must be absolutely uniform on all matters of Doctrine (F[athe]r['s] objection about Card. Newman's ..... does not touch this for it was not a matter of doctrine, but merely a policy).

It must be Catholic and Apostolic.

Now let me look at the different views on the Catholic Church held by those who call themselves Catholics.

The Anglicans maintain that the Church consists of different "branches". The "English Church" is one, the "Roman Church" another, and the "Eastern Churches" others. Now they admit that all these "branches" differ amongst each other on certain points of doctrine. For instance, on the question of Transubstantiation, or on the question of Purgatory & Indulgences. Are they then one? Yet no Anglican dares to say that his branch alone is Catholic, and others are heretical. Again, why does not the whole Church speak, and say which is right? Our Lord is still with it, for He promised to be with it always. The Holy Ghost still dwells in it, and animates it. Can the Church ever cease to teach whilst there are still doubts & difficulties to overcome?

Now the "Roman" view on the other hand, says that the Church must be one. But in order to secure it being one, Our Lord provided it with a visible Head, without which, the Roman Catholics claim there can be no true unity. Those who do not recognize this one Head are outside the Church, just as much as a branch cut off from a tree is no longer a part of the tree. Now when I look at this view I do find that the Church, according to the Roman view of it, has always been one, for it has always looked to the Pope for guidance, & has accepted as true what has been taught by the Pope. The Church, according to this view of it, must be one for the Pope cannot at some time make two directly opposite statements, nor, the Roman Catholics claim, can he at different times teach different doctrines, for he speaks only as the mouthpiece (so to speak) of the Church, and therefore at the bidding of the Holy Ghost who is the life & soul of the Church.

The Doctrine on infallibility of the Pope follows from the Doctrine on the Infallibility of the Church, once the Roman Catholic view of the Church is accepted. There can be no doubt, I think, that a Church bearing the characteristics which the Roman Catholics claim belong to the Church, has existed from the time of the Apostles themselves. And that this Church has always called itself the Catholic Church (& always did acknowledge the English Church to be part of it, until the English Church at the Reformation denied the Supremacy of the Pope.) And we know well enough that it does exist, and that it is in a flourishing condition at the present time.

It seems to me that Anglo-Catholics (so-called) profess that they teach what has been taught by the whole Church, but that each man is to use his own private judgement as to what has been taught by the Church.

Roman Catholics (so-called), on the other hand, look to their bishops to know what is the Church's teaching, and the Bishops to the Pope. So that according to the Roman Catholic view, a man has only to use his private judgment when he declares himself to be a Catholic or no.

Thus I find two views. -- If one be true, the Church is a disunited body. If the other is true, the Church is a United body. Which am I to accept?

The direct arguments as to the Supremacy of the Bp. of Rome, which have especially appealed to me, I think, I gave pretty fully in my last letter.

As to whether St. Peter was even Bp. of Rome seems to me to be sufficiently answered by the fact that it was never questioned until three or four centuries ago. There are other arguments -- perhaps better ones -- which I have not time to go into now.

With much love
Believe me,
Yr. very loving brother
Wm. Byles

(source)

Dissatisfied with the theological shortcomings of his Congregationalist upbringing, he converted to the Church of England. He soon became dissatisfied with Anglicanism, and wrote his brother William: "The fact is I find myself unable to recognize the Anglican position. I do not, however, feel myself anymore satisfied with the Roman position. I have given up going to Anglican communion, and have postponed my ordination as a deacon."

William had already converted to Catholicism, and the two brothers had a lively religious correspondence. Roussel converted in 1894, an event of which The Tablet wrote:

Probably no one on earth knows all he went through-all the prayers he offered, all the works of mortification which he practiced….About Trinity Sunday arrived a letter which seemed to breathe a note of despair that he was ever going to get the grace he was looking for, but on Corpus Christi the last letter came. Two days, before, whilst making his meditation, the fog had cleared away.

There had been a short visit to the Jesuits at St. Aloysius and he was to be received into Holy Mother Church and to make his first Communion on the feast day of Corpus Christi, surely an appropriate festival for one who had been led perhaps more by his devotion to the Eucharist than by anything else to the altar where alone the Eucharist has its dwelling.(source)

Of the very few passengers willing to brave the cold, Father Byles had been reciting the Breviarium Romanum, fully dressed in his priestly garb, while walking back and forth on the upper deck at the moment the Titanic struck the iceberg.14 He acted bravely in his capacity as a spiritual leader of men. Descending to the third class and calming the people, Father Byles gave them his priestly blessing and began to hear confessions; after which, he began the recitation of the Rosary. He then led the third class passengers up to the boat deck and helped load the lifeboats. He gave words of consolation and encouragement to the woman and children as they got into the boats. As the danger became even more apparent, he went about hearing more confessions and giving absolution. By all accounts, Father Byles was twice offered a seat in a lifeboat but refused. After the last lifeboat was gone, he went to the after end of the boat deck and led the recitation of the Rosary for a large group kneeling around him of those who were not able to find room in the boats. Father Byles also exhorted the people to prepare to meet God. As 2:20 a.m. approached, and the stern rose higher and higher out of the sea, Father Byles led the more than one hundred people kneeling before him in the Act of Contrition and gave them general absolution.

"I'll call you a liar if you say that you are not sleeping together before you get married"
"After all, you wouldn't buy a car without a test drive, I don't see why getting married is any different"
"We would be living together but my future father-in-law threatened to kill me if that happened"
"The everyday difficulties of life require us to live in sin"
and the gem of the evening.
"We are all sinning and know it but we know Jesus is going to forgive us anyway so what is the point"(source)

Typically in cohabitation the two individuals are more concerned on obtaining satisfaction from the other person, they write. In marriage, by contrast, spouses tend to focus more on giving satisfaction to the other person.

One major problem with cohabitation, the book explains, is that the two partners often start living together for very different motives. While many women look upon it as a stepping-stone to marriage, men often look at it for convenience, and not as a firm commitment.

Unfair

Furthermore, the authors cite studies showing that typically cohabitation is not a fifty-fifty division of expenses and burdens. Women tend to contribute more, both in terms of money and in domestic work.

Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing.

Adam's mother, Carol Race, of Eagle Bend, said today that she found Robertson's ruling "very shocking."

"What does a judge have to say or not say about what is acceptable in a chjurch service?" she added. "That comes down from the Vatican."

Race said she is exploring whether to continue challenging the restraining order, either through the courts or within the church hierarchy.

Speaking on behalf of the parish this afternoon, Jane Marrin, director of pastoral planning for the St. Cloud Diocese, said that St. Joseph "is involved in mediation with the family, and it's the parish's hope that we can come to a mutually acceptable solution. That has been the goal all along for the parish, and the judge's ruling doesn't rule out."

I Corinthians VI - How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones? Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters? If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers?