Cradle Catholic questioning if I belong

[jmcrae]

Again, why can other faiths be welcomed into heaven without believing all the teachings of the Catholic church and I, having my church chosen for me by the pressure of my parents but still believe the majority of it’s teachings, will not?

I would love to avoid this place of torment.

No, no, no. Other faiths will not be welcomed into Heaven Ii by heir current state. Rather - if, #1, they never heard of the Catholic Church and also #2, they come by natural means to believe all that the Cathic Church teaches, and come by natural means to follow the moral law, then they can, MAYBE, get to go to Heaven. But there are no free passes to Heaven for unbelievers - no.

 

[OurLadysServant]

If you had read my previous posts you would understand. I will repeat myself, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the church believes something is a mortal sin and I do not. Period. Now with that said how do I continue to call myself a Catholic?

The mortal sin that you are confused about is “pulling out.” As I have said before we are NOT using contraception because we WANT to have more children. He does this so that I will have a more comfortable day. Someone suggested that he was really thinking of me he wouldn’t suggest we be intimate until it was a good time for both of us. That is nice to think but what if it is my idea to be intimate at that time. We are also parents of 3 young children, kindergarden and under, both of us having full time jobs. Keeping up with a few kid activities, housework, errands, baths, bills, etc. Not to mention that we can both be just plain tired in the evening. Suggesting that putting off intimacy until a “better time” is not always possible, that time could be days away.

In my heart I do not believe that doing this turns me away for God or my marriage. I actually think it is a good thing for my husband to be considerate of me and my comfort during the day. So how is this a mortal sin? And if it’s just one of those things the Church is saying “because I said so” about, how do I continue to call myself a Catholic? I do not want to be one of those “going through the motions” Catholics that just chose to ignore differences in beliefs. If you had read my previous posts you would also know that this just came about a few weeks ago when my husband was almost finished with RCIA but decided that it was not fully in his heart to join because he also does not believe these things.

So again, my question is how can he, being a Lutheran, continue in his faith and not carry a mortal sin, but I being a Catholic do? And I have been told “once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” You are either a practicing Catholic or a Non-practicing Catholic. Will the Church always believe that my soul is going to hell because It believes I carry a mortal sin? How I continue to go somewhere that believes I am doomed?

So, at certain time the act of intimacy excludes deliberately the final act of consummation that could possibly create children?

The Catholic Church teaches; “Thou shalt not kill.”
Which also means for two healthy married people the act of intercourse must never deliberately block the possibility of children being born of the act.

The act remains carnal Which is a sin because the act of intimacy in Marriage is a Sacred Act where God is present in the act of Creation, Of new human beings = children. And with this union of the spouses.

When only carnality is present (deliberately, medical reasons are excused), it’s a mortal sin under the three conditions.

It becomes similar to contraception or an operation to not be deliberately fertile, because similarly it’s deliberately blocking the act of creating life. Which is one of the only two reasons God created intimacy for. Think about it naturally, intercourse creates children. Its one of the reasons God created it for (as well as union of spouses as a secondary goal). When you deliberately block the act of creating children, with free knowledge, and freely, it becomes a mortal sin, BBecause its still blocking procreation like contraception, after pills, sodomy, like an operation to deliberately become infertile,: it becomes the mortal sin of carnality. Which is sexual gratification for the sake of it. Union without openness to creating children in that particular act. Which is sometimes the deliberate goal of fornication or premarital intercourse.

It may not be as grave as those sins, but it deliberately blocks life like those sins do.

This is Roman Catholic teaching under Papal Infallibility
But you can also see natural moral law in this.

If that sin was made okay, then would people not argue for other intimate acts that prevent life giving in the individual act: contraception, sodomy, deliberate infertility operations, and masturbation? Union without life giving in the process?

Just because your husbands Lutheran doesn’t mean the sins not on his soul; does he have full knowledge (or a.conscience on this),

 

[Convert_in_99]

Popping on to say that as for handling the messiness of sex:

1. After sex and cuddles I always make sure to pee even if I don’t have much.
2. Then I fill the tub about six inches to wash the “nether regions” and make sure to allow the water to flow inside the vagina too. This helps prevent infection.
3. Wear a panty liner and change if it gets moist.

That’s it!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I can’t speak for others, but for myself when I first returned to the Church, I didn’t believe everything the Church taught, but chose to humble myself by being obedient to the teachings of the Church as best I could.

I left it up to Jesus to show me the truth behind the teaching.

Eventually, those things I questioned became clear and I saw the truth in them.

So, humble surrender to the will of God in being obedient to the Church Jesus established was the path I followed.

Grace requires sacrifice and what you receive is proportional to the degree of how much of yourself you sacrifice to God.

Jim

 

[Busy_sleeper]

So, at certain time the act of intimacy excludes deliberately the final act of consummation that could possibly create children?

The Catholic Church teaches; “Thou shalt not kill.”
Which also means for two healthy married people the act of intercourse must never deliberately block the possibility of children being born of the act.

The act remains carnal Which is a sin because the act of intimacy in Marriage is a Sacred Act where God is present in the act of Creation, Of new human beings = children. And with this union of the spouses.

When only carnality is present (deliberately, medical reasons are excused), it’s a mortal sin under the three conditions.

It becomes similar to contraception or an operation to not be deliberately fertile, because similarly it’s deliberately blocking the act of creating life. Which is one of the only two reasons God created intimacy for. Think about it naturally, intercourse creates children. Its one of the reasons God created it for (as well as union of spouses as a secondary goal). When you deliberately block the act of creating children, with free knowledge, and freely, it becomes a mortal sin, BBecause its still blocking procreation like contraception, after pills, sodomy, like an operation to deliberately become infertile,: it becomes the mortal sin of carnality. Which is sexual gratification for the sake of it. Union without openness to creating children in that particular act. Which is sometimes the deliberate goal of fornication or premarital intercourse.

It may not be as grave as those sins, but it deliberately blocks life like those sins do.

This is Roman Catholic teaching under Papal Infallibility
But you can also see natural moral law in this.

If that sin was made okay, then would people not argue for other intimate acts that prevent life giving in the individual act: contraception, sodomy, deliberate infertility operations, and masturbation? Union without life giving in the process?

Just because your husbands Lutheran doesn’t mean the sins not on his soul; does he have full knowledge (or a.conscience on this),

WE ARE NOT DOING THIS FOR CONTRACEPTION. We ARE trying to have another child. Anyone who understands NFP knows that there are fertile and infertile times in woman’s cycle. We do this during infertile times. He does this for the sake of my cleanliness. We are not blocking life because as everyone knows there is still about a 20% change of getting pregnant during a woman’s fertile time.

He knows what the Church believes, but does not believe that the Church is correct. And I agree with him. As far as our consciences go, as I have stated before, we do not think this is a sin, so no guilt here.

I am not trying to change what the Church believes! I am trying to decide where I belong! And if what is being taught in THIS context is a mortal sin. How can my conscience go through life pretending to believe everything the Church teaches, even if I believe most of it. I do not feel welcome in a place that sees me as doomed or not in grace with God, especially when I don’t believe that I am.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m really surprised that a Catholic priest would tell you to come to this forum for information.

All the priest I know recommend staying out of this forum and others.

Jim

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’m really surprised that a Catholic priest would tell you to come to this forum for information.

All the priest I know recommend staying out of this forum and others.

Jim

And the combination of misinformation, inability to comprehend what one is reading, and lack of empathy in this thread are all demonstrations of why that is so!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A priest telling a person to use CAF for information would be as ridiculous as a doctor recommending WebMD for his patients to use for medical information.

Jim

 

[jmcrae]

If you had read my previous posts you would understand. I will repeat myself, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the church believes something is a mortal sin and I do not. Period. Now with that said how do I continue to call myself a Catholic?

The mortal sin that you are confused about is “pulling out.” As I have said before we are NOT using contraception because we WANT to have more children. He does this so that I will have a more comfortable day. Someone suggested that he was really thinking of me he wouldn’t suggest we be intimate until it was a good time for both of us. That is nice to think but what if it is my idea to be intimate at that time. We are also parents of 3 young children, kindergarden and under, both of us having full time jobs. Keeping up with a few kid activities, housework, errands, baths, bills, etc. Not to mention that we can both be just plain tired in the evening. Suggesting that putting off intimacy until a “better time” is not always possible, that time could be days away.

In my heart I do not believe that doing this turns me away for God or my marriage. I actually think it is a good thing for my husband to be considerate of me and my comfort during the day. So how is this a mortal sin? And if it’s just one of those things the Church is saying “because I said so” about, how do I continue to call myself a Catholic? I do not want to be one of those “going through the motions” Catholics that just chose to ignore differences in beliefs. If you had read my previous posts you would also know that this just came about a few weeks ago when my husband was almost finished with RCIA but decided that it was not fully in his heart to join because he also does not believe these things.

So again, my question is how can he, being a Lutheran, continue in his faith and not carry a mortal sin, but I being a Catholic do? And I have been told “once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” You are either a practicing Catholic or a Non-practicing Catholic. Will the Church always believe that my soul is going to hell because It believes I carry a mortal sin? How I continue to go somewhere that believes I am doomed?

He doesn’t. He is not getting away with anything.

 

[St_Francis]

If the Church cannot say where an individual ends up and that the judgement is only God’s, then why does the Church teach that mortal sins will send your soul to hell? I thought they believe “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The Church does not teach that any particular individual is in Hell, no even Judas. This does not mean that no one is in Hell, it just means that of all the particular individuals who have died, the Church will not say this or that one is in Hell.

The Pope is Christ’s vicar *on earth. *What happens after someone dies is up to God. Thus, as the Catechism says, non-Catholics *“may *achieve eternal salvation.” (quoted from Lumen Gentium, emphasis added).

That word “may” is not used in the sense of obtaining permission, but in the meaning of “might.” They *might *be able to enter Heaven.

And the reason for this is that while the Church speaks on earth for God, God Himself is not bound by the sacraments nor by the Church.

Thus, the Church does not say any particular person is in Hell, nor are we forbidden to pray for the souls of any individuals or groups of individuals who have died.

---

The thing is, the Church does speak for God *to us. *When the Church proclaims something, that is indeed the truth, and we must listen. The Church is telling us how to show our love for God to Him, through obedience.

I personally believe that statement should be taken on a more personal level instead of what the Church believes.

So you would prefer to listen to what you think than what the Church teaches? Is that what you mean?

I feel that God is telling us that whatever you do not forgive of others will not be forgiven of you, and what you do forgive of others will be forgiven of you.

Oh… so if you forgive all those who steal from you, it’s ok for you to steal from others? Forgive me if I am misunderstanding what you mean here.

I understand you point of feeling obligated to tell someone when they are on the wrong path. Who is to say though, that their path does not eventually lead them to God.

It will not be the wrong path which leads them to God. The wrong path is wrong because it does *not *lead to God.

What leads them to God is *changing paths. *

There are many great people of God that did not start off on the right path

But they ended up on the right path. And that path included a radical obedience to God, no?

What saved them was not that they were once on the wrong path, but that when they died, they were on the right path.

and then there are those who did start off right and then ended up on the wrong path.

That is sadly true. Do you want to be one of them?

North, South, East, and West are worldly accepted directions, the Catholic church is not.

True… do you prefer the world’s directions or God’s?

 

[St_Francis]

-]/-]

Like many Catholics, I am Catholic because that is how I was raised, not because I think my church is the point or the object of my faith. The object of my faith like any Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Hindu is God. The messages are the same to the extent that we all seem very clearly to be reaching for the same thing. What differs are the approaches. My approach is the approach I was raised in because that normally turns out to be what resonates with people over the long run. The problem with what you are suggesting about obedience is that my objective is not to live for or at the pleasure of any institution.

The problem you are having here is equating the Catholic Church with “any institution.” Unlike any other institution, the Church was founded by God, in the person of God the Son, Who additionally promised the protection of the Holy Spirit over the teachings of the Church.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is God.

Christ said, If you love Me, you will obey My commandments.

Where are Christ’s commandments found? In the Catholic Church.

Further, what I have said is in agreement with scripture

How so?

and scripture is not circumvented by the church.

The Catholic Church is the authority, not the Bible. Christ did not hand the Apostles the Old and New Testaments and say, Make sure everyone gets a copy of this; He directed the Apostles to *go out and teach all nations. *

What you have said about my church in particular being founded by Jesus Himself is an argument that can be made with scripture and disputed with scripture

The Catholic Church is not a Bible-based church; the Bible is a Catholic-based book.

The Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture–determiined which writings were in accord with Church teaching and which were not, so how could Scirpture *possibly *be a higher authority than the Church, to which Christ gave the authority?

as any theologian would know.

Any dissenting theologian…

What any historian would know is that it is an historically questionable idea.

Wow, for 1700 years or more, no Catholic historian disputed the facts. Then the Protestants came up with their imaginary theories, and some Catholics were foolish enough to fall for them. So, no, not “any historian” would know it’s historically questionable. They have made a lot more out of a lot less.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis and Pianistclare, so would it be correct to say it’s a matter of what it means to have full knowledge and understanding? And that just because a person knows what the Church teaches about something and understands why, if they don’t believe it, then they don’t truly know? And so when CCC 846 says you can’t be saved if you know and don’t enter or remain, it means you can know what the Church says. But if you don’t believe it, that actually means you don’t know? IOW you have to believe something in order to know?

I would say that if a person wants to twist things around so they can justify doing as they please while claiming to be a good Catholic, they would propose what you are saying (not saying that *you *are doing this; afaik, you are just raising the question).

Let’s look at what it means to be an orthodox Catholic instead–this is something I wrote on another thread:

St Thomas Aquinas discusses this in his discussion of heretics and the faith.

On the contrary, Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.

I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith…

Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.

Summa Theologica II-II 5 Q 3
Link

I like the distinction he makes between the heretic and the erring, and that he shows that the heretic has *no faith at all, *he just has his own opinions and only happens to agree with the Church in some areas.

A good Catholic is teachable and wants to learn what the Church teaches. in the end, we all learn alone… but guides are very helpful ​

In other words, St Thomas Aquinas teaches us that we do not need to “believe,” to “know to the point of being personally overwhelmed with evidence so we can deny it no longer,” to quibble about “understanding and its relationship to knowledge,” and all of that.

What St Thomas is saying is that we need to trust the God Whom we profess to love. And we must trust Him in each and every thing, because otherwise, we are trusting only our own selves, and our own selves decide how our trust in God will be.

 

[Busy_sleeper]

A priest telling a person to use CAF for information would be as ridiculous as a doctor recommending WebMD for his patients to use for medical information.

Jim

I was told to go on the internet and find the answers because it was not his strong point. I was told you can find everything on the internet, and there were catholic forums that discuss these questions. And to talk to my parents, who he does not know.

So please tell me where I should go?

 

[OurLadysServant]

WE ARE NOT DOING THIS FOR CONTRACEPTION. We ARE trying to have another child. Anyone who understands NFP knows that there are fertile and infertile times in woman’s cycle. We do this during infertile times. He does this for the sake of my cleanliness. We are not blocking life because as everyone knows there is still about a 20% change of getting pregnant during a woman’s fertile time.

He knows what the Church believes, but does not believe that the Church is correct. And I agree with him. As far as our consciences go, as I have stated before, we do not think this is a sin, so no guilt here.

I am not trying to change what the Church believes! I am trying to decide where I belong! And if what is being taught in THIS context is a mortal sin. How can my conscience go through life pretending to believe everything the Church teaches, even if I believe most of it. I do not feel welcome in a place that sees me as doomed or not in grace with God, especially when I don’t believe that I am.

Just explaining RC Church teaching:

NFP the RC Church approves of,

The RC Church does not approve of pulling out to prevent childbirth (even if the chances are almost zero anyway of conception), because conception is still possible during those moments to, albeit less so.

Despite being open to life during other times of the month, it means you are deliberately blocking the possibility of childbirth at other times. It still is blocking childbirth, and hence one of God’s preconditions of intercourse is absent, rendering the act carnal.

God blesses the acts that are open to conception.

But acts deliberately blocking conception without approved medical reasons are against the 6th commandment because those particular acts, each time they are comitted, are not prolife.

So at times acts are open to life when yo are trying for a child.
And at times acts deliberately block it.

The moments that block conception are each individally wrong because, they become similar to sodomy, masturbation, contraception, operations for deliberate infertility on carnal reasons, in that an attempt is made in those particular moments to block conception. Even if conception is almost impossible during certain times of the month.

God doesn’t teach that sodomy, fornication, masturbation, adultery, are okay at certain times of the month because the possibility of conception is low.

You are going to have to decide whether you will trust God on this one and change.
If you believe most of what the RC Church teaches, can you not understand that blocking conception at anytime without medical reasons, goes completely against God’s natural law and one of God’s main reasons for inventing intercourse: not for union only but always each and “every” time to be open to conception during “each” act, Not just sometimes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I was told to go on the internet and find the answers because it was not his strong point. I was told you can find everything on the internet, and there were catholic forums that discuss these questions. And to talk to my parents, who he does not know.

So please tell me where I should go?

His advice to use the internet was poor advice.

I don’t know any priests in my area who come into this forum. Heck, they don’t even like EWTN.

As you’ve probably already seen in here, you’ll get a variety of opinions which will
only serve to confuse you.

I’d look for a spiritual director who could help you. Contact your dioceses chancery office for a spiritual director.

That being said, be sure you’re willing to do what he advises you to do. If you’re going to go and argue with him about Catholic doctrine, he’ll tell you to go elsewhere.

Perhaps this was the issue the priest that told you to come in here had with you?

Jim

 

[St_Francis]

I was told to go on the internet and find the answers because it was not his strong point. I was told you can find everything on the internet, and there were catholic forums that discuss these questions. And to talk to my parents, who he does not know.

So please tell me where I should go?

What do you want to know?

If it is all right to skip Mass for a Protestant service: No. You are a Catholic and are obliged to go to a Catholic Mass on Sundays. practice.

If it is all right for your husband to withdraw at a time when you are not fertile: No. The act of withdrawal is of itself a sin. It is a contraceptive act even if you and your hisband believe that you are infertile.

If you want to understand the latter, you must learn about the three slements of an act and how they work.

There is the act itself, the intention, and the circumstances. In your case, the intention is good, bit the act is in and of itself wrong. It is an act of artificial birth control; therefore, it is wrong. Your husband’s good intention can not change that.

Now you know those answers. If you listen to and obey what the Church teaches, then all your other questions will dissolve, right? The problem here is that you want to do what you have been doing *and *be right with God and the Church so you can get to Heaven, but the bottom line is that you can’t serve two masters…

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’m really surprised that a Catholic priest would tell you to come to this forum for information.

All the priest I know recommend staying out of this forum and others.

Jim

I was too.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I would say that if a person wants to twist things around so they can justify doing as they please while claiming to be a good Catholic, they would propose what you are saying (not saying that *you *are doing this; afaik, you are just raising the question).

Correct I am just raising the question as I don’t claim to be a “good” Catholic since I don’t currently practice the faith. But the Church considers me a Catholic.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The problem you are having here is equating the Catholic Church with “any institution.” Unlike any other institution, the Church was founded by God, in the person of God the Son, Who additionally promised the protection of the Holy Spirit over the teachings of the Church.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is God.

Christ said, If you love Me, you will obey My commandments.

Where are Christ’s commandments found? In the Catholic Church.

How so?

The Catholic Church is the authority, not the Bible. Christ did not hand the Apostles the Old and New Testaments and say, Make sure everyone gets a copy of this; He directed the Apostles to *go out and teach all nations. *

The Catholic Church is not a Bible-based church; the Bible is a Catholic-based book.

The Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture–determiined which writings were in accord with Church teaching and which were not, so how could Scirpture *possibly *be a higher authority than the Church, to which Christ gave the authority?

Any dissenting theologian…

Wow, for 1700 years or more, no Catholic historian disputed the facts. Then the Protestants came up with their imaginary theories, and some Catholics were foolish enough to fall for them. So, no, not “any historian” would know it’s historically questionable. They have made a lot more out of a lot less.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is in fact just an institution, and like any other religious institution, it simply has tenets that it feels expresses certain intrinsic truths. But the real truth is that while.all religious institutions have interesting arguments, very little if any of it is grounded firmly in historical fact. In fact, history reveals the development of these institutions to be heavily entangled in the social and political realities of their times. What any of us ends up believing is largely matter of upbringing and exposure. For instance if I was raised Jewish, I would have a sound argument that Jesus was simply one of an endless parade of false messiahs stirring up trouble in Judea at the time. Like all the others, he was executed for sedition. Having failed to restore the Hebrew nation, he woild not qualify to be the Messiah. If I were Jewish it would also be my understanding that Christians simply changed the definition of Messiah to accommodate their religious agenda. If I were a Hindu, I would allow that the followers of Jesus had an encounter with an Avatar of Vishnu, and having my own avatars, I would pretty much leave Jesus to Christians. Muslims in turn would have their own very convincing ideas on the matter. Which of these we subscribe to is largely a matter of exposure and institutional as well as social reinforcement. This is the main reason why myself and many others are Catholic and while others still are Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists.

The absurd topic of this thread is evidence of how strong this institutional and social conditioning can be. In a world full of real and pressing practical concerns, some woman is driven to distraction over when her husband “pulls out.” This is a seriois problem I think, and it could only happen in an institution such as this one.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Busy_sleeper]

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is in fact just an institution, and like any other religious institution, it simply has tenets that it feels expresses certain intrinsic truths. But the real truth is that while.all religious institutions have interesting arguments, very little if any of it is grounded firmly in historical fact. In fact, history reveals the development of these institutions to be heavily entangled in the social and political realities of their times. What any of us ends up believing is largely matter of upbringing and exposure. For instance if I was raised Jewish, I would have a sound argument that Jesus was simply one of an endless parade of false messiahs stirring up trouble in Judea at the time. Like all the others, he was executed for sedition. Having failed to restore the Hebrew nation, he woild not qualify to be the Messiah. If I were Jewish it would also be my understanding that Christians simply changed the definition of Messiah to accommodate their religious agenda. If I were a Hindu, I would allow that the followers of Jesus had an encounter with an Avatar of Vishnu, and having my own avatars, I would pretty much leave Jesus to Christians. Muslims in turn would have their own very convincing ideas on the matter. Which of these we subscribe to is largely a matter of exposure and institutional as well as social reinforcement. This is the main reason why myself and many others are Catholic and while others still are Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists.

The absurd topic of this thread is evidence of how strong this institutional and social conditioning can be. In a world full of real and pressing practical concerns, some woman is driven to distraction over when her husband “pulls out.” This is a seriois problem I think, and it could only happen in an institution such as this one.

All the best,
Gary

Forgive me for bringing up such an “absurd topic.” I thought this was a place where anyone could come to ask questions about beliefs of the Catholic church and reasons behind those beliefs. Or am I misintrepting your statement. Do you mean that the issue is so absurd that it doesn’t deserve the time spend disscussing it.

I am relieved that the consensus is that no one, the Catholic Church or any member, has the authority to say that any soul that dies having the presence of mortal sin is guaranteed to go to hell. That is for God to judge, and Him alone.

I still confused how the scholars, with all their knowledge of scripture, could possibly have pondered every sin in every context. Everyone agrees that some sins are acceptable for medical reason. I am not suggesting that my issues have medial reasoning, just that some sins in certain context are permissible. We have gained so much knowledge through technology, that believing that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin just because it was believed to be in the past. The Church has changes Her views on issues before, who is to say She won’t do it again?

As for fulfilling the Catholics Sunday obligation, I still don’t understand. How, having my Catholic religion chosen for me by my parents, I am obligated to attend a Catholic mass every week, and someone from a different faith, who knows the Catholic church and Its beliefs, is not. I understand the Eucharist, and that some believe that just being in the presence should be enough. Then why is someone who has never been in This presence, let alone receiving It, viewed to still be permitted into the Kingdom of God?

This is probably my last post. Feel free to respond, I in no way want to give the impression that I am trying to “have the last word.” I will read them. I feel that my time and energy should be given to my family and elsewhere. Thank you for your time and I hope that you are able to help others with their issues, no matter how trivial or complex they may me.