Answer me this limbo question, please

[Teflon93]

As anytime an attack is launched on Catholic teaching, let’s go to the Catechism for enlightenment.

Hell:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die **in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” **

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. **Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 **The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 **God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621 **

Purgatory:

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship**, but still imperfectly purified**, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but** after death they undergo purification**, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.622

More follows.

 

[Teflon93]

Particular Judgment:

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597

Mortal Sin:

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 **For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131 **

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

More…

 

[Teflon93]

Original Sin:

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 **All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness. **

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken.** Death makes its entrance into human history**.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

402 **All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”**289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and **their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.**292

404** How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand**. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 **It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act. **

More…

 

[Teflon93]

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:

The whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303

More…

 

[Teflon93]

Baptism of Children:

1250 **Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51 **

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

Baptism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 **The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. **

Baptism of Blood:

1258 **The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. **

Baptism of Desire:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 **As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. **

 

[Teflon93]

To summarize:

1. All men inherit original sin as their birthright.
2. Original sin is distinct from mortal sin in that original sin is not freely chosen.
3. Man’s culpability for original sin is therefore different from that of mortal sin.
4. Men who die unrepentant of mortal sin descend immediately to Hell.
5. Mortal sin requires a grave offense committed with full knowledge and consent.
6. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.
7. God predestines no one to Hell.
8. Those souls not in mortal sin, but insufficiently purified, undergo purification after death and enter Heaven following purification.
9. Baptism washes away original, mortal, and venial sins.
10. Baptism may be of water, of the blood, or of desire.
11. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.
12. As the Church does not know of a mechanism besides Baptism which assures salvation, she encourages infant baptism as soon as practicable and entrusts those children who die before baptism to the mercy of God.
13. God bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but God is not bound by His sacraments.

Thus one can see that the Church’s trust in God is neither arbitrary, convenient, nor misplaced, but based on the totality of Man’s relationship with God and a proper understanding of salvation.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

[SIGN]Slam dunk, Teflon![/SIGN]

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Purgatory can purify the actual guilt of actual venial sins that have been committed and not repented of when one dies–why is purgatory not able to purify away the mere inclination towards sin that is original sin?

People in purgatory are purified of their Attachments to creatures which are in fact “Inclinations” towards things that are not God.

Why is the “Inclination” towards sin that is Original sin stronger than the Inclinations towards creatures that are purified out in Purgatory?

Why is it that God can easily purify one Inclination and cannot easily purify another Inclination?

If God is indeed sovereign is He bound to the whims of people on Earth as to whether they will or will not baptize a child to be able to purify the Inclination towards Original sin since he certainly isn’t bound that way in purifying Inclinations towards creatures that He already purifies in Purgatory?

If “All” doesn’t pertain towards Mary and Jesus certainly in regards to sin–why does all pertain to unbaptized infants?

If Holy Scripture can have an exception to ALL why can’t the Catholic Church also have an exception to its doctrinal decrees?

Holy Scripture is still true while containing the word all which would seem to exclude exceptions.

Is the language of Catholic doctrine also capable to appear not to have exceptions while having them?

 

[DJim]

Jerry-Jet–



That’s an absolutely intriguing line of thought!

DJim

 

[Teflon93]

If Purgatory can purify the actual guilt of actual venial sins that have been committed and not repented of when one dies–why is purgatory not able to purify away the mere inclination towards sin that is original sin?

People in purgatory are purified of their Attachments to creatures which are in fact “Inclinations” towards things that are not God.

Why is the “Inclination” towards sin that is Original sin stronger than the Inclinations towards creatures that are purified out in Purgatory?

Why is it that God can easily purify one Inclination and cannot easily purify another Inclination?

If God is indeed sovereign is He bound to the whims of people on Earth as to whether they will or will not baptize a child to be able to purify the Inclination towards Original sin since he certainly isn’t bound that way in purifying Inclinations towards creatures that He already purifies in Purgatory?

If “All” doesn’t pertain towards Mary and Jesus certainly in regards to sin–why does all pertain to unbaptized infants?

If Holy Scripture can have an exception to ALL why can’t the Catholic Church also have an exception to its doctrinal decrees?

Holy Scripture is still true while containing the word all which would seem to exclude exceptions.

Is the language of Catholic doctrine also capable to appear not to have exceptions while having them?

God is the Great Exception.

Protestants who criticize Catholic teaching seem to believe it binds God. It does not. Just because you are baptized doesn’t mean you are saved. Just because you are not baptized does not mean you are damned. God alone knows what is in our heart, and judges us accordingly.

Creature does not bind Creator; Creator binds creature.

 

[bilop]

I know I’m late to the debate, but as one who believes that limbo infantum is the most likely destination for unbaptized babies, I wanted to present some reasoning, and caveats.

First, I don’t know if Limbo is true, it is only speculation either way, and I am not a “limbo lover”, I’d prefer these babies being able to achieve salvation.

Limbo is an attempt to reconcile several truths that Christ gave us.

1. Christ is the only way to salvation.
2. We are all to be Baptized.
3. Baptism is the only sure way to salvation.

It is crucial to note here that being a good person is not enough. People have said that limbo could be for good unbelievers. Jesus is pretty clear on this, only through him can we be saved.

Un-baptized children do not have this opportunity. Therefore, given what has been revealed to us, we can not see a positive way for them to be saved.

Limbo is a merciful alternative to damnation.

God Bless

 

[mich2]

If Purgatory can purify the actual guilt of actual venial sins that have been committed and not repented of when one dies–why is purgatory not able to purify away the mere inclination towards sin that is original sin?

People in purgatory are purified of their Attachments to creatures which are in fact “Inclinations” towards things that are not God.

Why is the “Inclination” towards sin that is Original sin stronger than the Inclinations towards creatures that are purified out in Purgatory?

Why is it that God can easily purify one Inclination and cannot easily purify another Inclination?

If God is indeed sovereign is He bound to the whims of people on Earth as to whether they will or will not baptize a child to be able to purify the Inclination towards Original sin since he certainly isn’t bound that way in purifying Inclinations towards creatures that He already purifies in Purgatory?

If “All” doesn’t pertain towards Mary and Jesus certainly in regards to sin–why does all pertain to unbaptized infants?

If Holy Scripture can have an exception to ALL why can’t the Catholic Church also have an exception to its doctrinal decrees?

Holy Scripture is still true while containing the word all which would seem to exclude exceptions.

Is the language of Catholic doctrine also capable to appear not to have exceptions while having them?

I personally believe that purgatory does exactly what you wrote.
However, notice that in Maccabees, we are told that some have been lossed from their sins, the process having been probably done through “fire” since St Paul mentioned that we “all” will pass through this fire. Nevertheless, even though some people were separated from their sins before the sacrifice of Christ, they could not yet enter into Heaven, but resided in a place called Abraham’s bosom, that which we call limbo.Why? Either because, while they were separated from their sins, they still had their sinful nature which would have led them into sin eventually even in Heaven.Or if they were indeed capable of entering Heaven due to this “baptism of fire” which they might have received, they still needed to await for Christ to open for them the door to Heaven.St.Paul mentioned that judgement is going to come to Jews first, then, secondly to gentiles.It maybe that certain individuals, while ready to enter Heaven, might have to wait for Judgement Day. I don’t know, And I stress that there’s nothing wrong to hope for the unbaptized children as having been delivered…I for one, have this hope. However, it is another thing to claim that this must be the case since no actual sins have been commited as this undermines the doctrine of original sin.That is all that I’m saying.

Andre

 

[pcd84]

I haven’t been following this discussion closely, but since I recently bumped into an article on this subject, I thought I would post it:

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

 

[pcd84]

There is also this post: iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2006/05/disputed-question-on-limbo-positive.html#links

 

[roo]

I think the problem here, Mike, is your use of the term “innocents.”

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that infants are guilty, not innocent, and thus deserving eternal damnation.

Baptism is primarily for forgiveness. Only a corrupt judge would say they are forgiving an innocent, thus the teaching on infant guilt.

…

 

[roo]

My God is a just God, but He is also Loving and Compassionate.
That should be enough. To try and decide what God does is wasted time. It is for God to decide, we can only debate. Through his Love, the unborn is taken care.

 

[Atemi]

Well then what you are saying is that you are denying that the Church does not teach Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance.

I was not addressing these teachings. Again, I must repeat what I said which you denied:

What I said is that the Catholic Church has historically taught that those who die with the stain of Original Sin still on their souls are damned to Hell.

This is Catholic doctrine, like it or not.

It is not my doctrine, but the doctrine of your church. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t.

Every soul that dies absent sanctifying grace is damned forever. There are no if, ands, or buts.

…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, you keep making assertions. What is your evidence for the infallibility of Florence?

Are now Ecumenical Councils not protected from error by the Holy Spirit?

So even RC bishops in Council cannot be trusted to teach the truth?

Is this what you are saying?

The point of Florence was to correct the Greeks and other fallen-away churches to heal up a schism.

What they defined did not just address those from the East. I surely hope that is not your claim here.

You also seem to have completely missed or ignored that Florence made a distinction in what happens to those souls with original sin only. This distinction undergirds the Catechism.

The distinction?

They go to Hell forever.

The only distinction the Council makes is the extent of their punishements, not their eternal destiny. That is a distinction without a difference here.

It should also be noted that the doctrine of Purgatory allows for post-death cleansing of the soul.

Not for those who are sent to Hell immediately after death. This is basic Catholicism.

One who dies with the stain of Original Sin on their soul is, by definition, not in a state of grace. Only those who die in a state of grace can go to Purgatory for cleansing.

…

 

[roo]

I am sorry to hear such anger in your responses. I am not denying or anything like that. We need to look at the New Testament for our teachings. It is the new covenant. My God is all just. He is of Love, Compassion, Mercy, and Forgiveness to name a few. I do not want to argue what you keep arguing. I will pray for you. We can all use prayers. If you disagree with what I am saying, I am sorry. That is why we can come to these forums.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Atemi, as a ‘once Catholic’ it appears to me that you are most eager to find fault, to harp on your ‘perception’ of what you ‘say’ Catholics teach, in order to justify your own abjuring of the faith. No wonder you are so eager to tell yourself over and over that we are** wrong**. No wonder you are so unwilling to even consider that your understanding might be at fault, that (oh heavens!) all these people trying to help you see reality might actually be correct. Because if we are, then you would have to accept that you had made a wrong choice in leaving the Church. What a blow to pride it is to be found wrong. What a huge effort it is to lift that cross and then to slowly, painfully, limp one’s way, not in the smooth, broad, comfortable way one had been going, but on the rough, narrow, way one had always mocked and insulted.

Indeed, one of the many reasons I feel that the Catholic way is the ‘right’ way is that it is not the comfortable way. The Church does not ‘conform to the world’. People constantly mock and insult us, persistently refuse to acknowledge us, deride and deny us. But wait! Isn’t that exactly what Jesus foretold would happen?

If I wanted ‘comfort’ and to be ‘accepted’ by others, it would be the easiest thing in the world to shop around for a religion which appealed to the god whose image and likeness I would make for myself. I could ‘choose’ from a broad spectrum of religions, from “full of ritual” to bare minimalist simplicity to nirvana seeking. Heck, I could even relax in the agnostic state of recognizing some kind of ‘possibility’ for ‘something’ and knowing that so long as I, relatively speaking, do not ‘hurt people’ (as ‘I’ define both ‘hurt’ and ‘people’), I’ll probably be rewarded after life, if ‘reward’ and ‘afterlife’ exist.

But I don’t want ‘comfort’ and ‘acceptance’ as my ‘reason’ for embracing a faith. I want to know God, love God, and serve God, to be happy with Him in this world and the next. . .and for that, the fullness of this Truth, expressed by God and given by God to the Church He established. . .is found in the Catholic faith. No matter how ‘hard’ it may be at times to live that faith, there it is, in all its fullness, not just in parts. God bless those who can find ‘enough’ in the parts, and God help those return who turn away from the fullness because it is ‘too much’ to accept.