The Papists

Why, at the beginning of course. I’m just kidding, I know what you mean.  The word “catholic” can be used in two ways.  The first is lowercase, and the second is uppercase.

1.  catholic means universal, comprehensive, or all-encompassing.  It comes from the Greek word, katholikos, which comes from the phrase kath’ holou, meaning “about” (kata) “the whole” (holos).

2.  Catholic refers to the Catholic Church and its members.  It comes from the idea that the Catholic Church is the universal Church.  When used in this case, it is capitalized.

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

- Niko

Hi there! Thanks for your question.

CCC #2487 says this:

Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

So the Catechism is clear that public reparation is the general way of dealing with an offense. 

In French, reparer simply means to fix. Simply put, we’re called to fix things after committing an offense against someone. 

The first thing that comes to my mind is to simply say sorry and ask for forgiveness in front of the person. You tell them, “I’m sorry. Can you forgive me?” and then it’s on them to forgive you. If you did something that hurt them or damaged their property, you should offer to pay the medical bill or mechanic’s bill or contracter’s bill (or replace whatever you broke or damaged). Financial compensation is a good way to make public reparation for a wrong. Another way that comes to mind is to give of your time—your service to that person. If you, say, trampled your neighbour’s rose bushes because you walked outside and were angry, then you could offer to give an hour of your day during the summer helping your neighbour in their garden. 

On a more serious note, public reparation could mean serving a jail sentence or paying a severe fine. Pleading guilty and accepting your jail time would be a good way to make public reparation. Remember, once you commit a wrong and you realize it is wrong, it is up to you to “make up for it” as best you can. 

I hope I was able to answer your question. Take care!

Your friend,

Olivier

Not having read St. Louis de Montfort I can’t know for sure what he meant.  As Catholics however, we have a slightly different idea of predestination than the average Calvinist.  The Catholic believes that God “predestines” everyone to heaven and so gives every man and woman “sufficient” grace that they may choose to follow His will and thus earn eternal life.  (Note, this does not mean that He gives everyone an equal amount of grace, some may get more than others, but everyone gets enough to be able to choose to follow His will.)  This does not mean everyone goes to heaven though, for even with God’s gift of grace, some choose to reject God, and so they do not enter into paradise. 

So, the Catholic believes that despite man’s predestination to heaven, his life choices may condemn him to hell, which is very different from certain Calvinists who may believe that some are assuredly bound for heaven and others for hell, and their life choices are a reflection of where they are going. 

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

-Niko

Anon,

I’d say at face value, they’re not lustful. Lust is a desire to use the other person for our own sexual gain or pleasure, and butterflies are simply feelings we get when we encounter someone to whom we’re attracted. I think that if you, as you say, turn the experience of those feelings into an “unhealthy infatuation,” then it could turn into lust. If you do encounter someone who’s really attractive, thank God for their attractiveness, tell Him He did a good job, and move on. As a guy, I can tell you this is really important and effective in making sure we respect and love women rather than using and lusting after them. Hope this helps.

Your friend,

Olivier

Anon,

Forgive me for assuming, but it seems like you might not have a real grasp of why the Church teaches against IVF methods. BadCatholic offers a nicer explanation than I could ever give, so I suggest you take a look at what he has to say. I just got a feeling that you saying “If it wasn’t against Catholic teaching…” might mean that you don’t know why the Church teaches against IVF. And that’s okay, of course. I myself have a long way to go when it comes to Church teaching.

Now, onto your question. In terms of concrete acts, I would highly recommend your friend to chart her cycles/start looking at NFP methods. Natural fertility methods are surprisingly good at helping women conceive children. Q or anyone else who’s familiar with NFP, would you want to offer a comment?

Finally, good on you for praying for her, Anon. Pray that whatever the circumstance, you and your friend will give glory to God. 

Your friend,

Olivier

approximatelyinfinity:

rebelling-against-the-rebels replied to your post: Hanging out in both lungs of the Church today!

I’ve always wondered what the difference between Orthodox and Catholic were. I know that Orthodox don’t recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but is there anything else?

Great question! There are a handful of differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catechism paragraph 838 says that non-Catholic Christians who have been “properly baptized” are in a “certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.’ ” In other words, we’re really freaking close. :)

As far as the actual differences, some are theological and some are liturgical choices.

• The Pope. While the West teaches papal supremacy (meaning he has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church), the East considers the Pope to be a “first among equals.”
• The “filioque” controversy, in which the West added the words “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed without the consent or consultation of the East. This reflects some differences in the understanding of the Holy Trinity. (Too complicated to get into right now)
• Slightly different views of original sin. Both say it exists, but the West says everyone inherits the sin of Adam and the East says we inherit the sin of Adam AND everyone else who came before us.
• The Immaculate Conception (rejected by the Orthodox)
• Teachings on purgatory, which the East generally rejects, although some believe in a form of purification after death…
• The use of leavened vs. unleavened bread
• Celibacy of parish priests (which is a tradition, not a hardfast rule in the West)

These differences are important, but often they are blown out of proportion by both sides. Historically, there has been a lot of conflict between the East and West about these things, and both can still be “bitter” about it. (It seems to me that the East is a little more bitter than the West, but I don’t blame them. That whole sacking of Constantinople thing…) (Sometimes it reminds me of two feuding families that have been going at it for so long that they can’t remember why they’re arguing anymore.) Fortunately, in recent years a lot of progress has been made in terms of reconciliation between the two Churches. 

Honestly, in today’s world, we’re fighting against the same things. I saw a book in the Orthodox Church’s bookstore that was like, “Criticism of Protestantism” or something like that, and I’m sure it’s nearly identical to what the Catholic Church says about Protestantism! 

So anyways, that’s a long-winded answer that really only touches the surface. In brief, there are some differences, listed above, but honestly a lot of the conflict is historical rather than theological. And we’re making progress so we can be friends again. :)

I figured I’d reblog this here to make it visible to more people. Hope it’s informative!

"

[tw: abortion, violence]

He “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” District Attorney Seth Williams said.

[…]

“A doctor who with scissors cuts into the necks, severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention commits murder under the law,” he said. “Regardless of one’s feelings about abortion, whatever one’s beliefs, that is the law.”

"

—

[source]

I know this hasn’t been getting media attention, but-

If you are pro-choice, you should be paying attention to this case.
If you are pro-life, you should be paying attention to this case.

(via boldaswellas-strong)

Because, the Church believes in truth.  Because gay marriage is impossible, just like a square circle is impossible, the government’s claim that it is, is a lie.  It is the Church’s duty to oppose governments which lie to their people, and to preserve the truth.

Also, it’s not true that civil acceptance of gay marriage will not force it on the Church.  Already, the Church has been forced to close orphanages and other organizations because they refused to allow gay couples to adopt.  So, in some ways, it is forced on the Church.

Hi Anon,

Thanks for asking! I’m going to try to answer your question in three parts.  1) what is excommunication 2) What parties privy to an abortion are subject to excommunication 3) Why abortion is more heinous than murder of a person outside the womb

1) Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.

Note: the guilt requisite for the incurring of excommunication implies, first, the full use of reason; second sufficient moral liberty; finally, a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty. 

2) Canon 1398 provides that, “a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.” This means that at the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.

Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325).

3) Abortion is the killing of a live, immature or non-viable human fetus from the mother’s womb – done knowingly, willingly and effectively. While the murder of adults in censurable enough, the murder of an unborn is categorically a more heinous crime.

 

It is important to remember that the intended end result of excommunication is reconciliation with the sinner.  God never gets tired of forgiving. We get tired of asking for forgiveness.

PSA: Tumblr ate that last ask regarding confession, mortal sin, and pre-marital sex.

Send it again, perhaps?