No wonder Catholics are confused!

[jwashu]

I know and number of Priests who feel this way despite their rubrics, commitment to the liturgy and the Church in every other single way… It was watching her mother suffer that pushed Margret Sanger to help start Planned Parenthood as well.

There are so many Priests, and even the entire Canadian Bishops Conference for many years, who just flat out reject Humane Vitae I have to wonder if we will see a change to this in our lifetime.

How far removed is it from the parents who let their child die, and were recently sentenced to prison because they wouldn’t seek medical help… no it’s not the same but…

Not saying it’s wrong… just that I believe the Church may modify this in the future.

Joe

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I know and number of Priests who feel this way despite their rubrics, commitment to the liturgy and the Church in every other single way… It was watching her mother suffer that pushed Margret Sanger to help start Planned Parenthood as well.

There are so many Priests, and even the entire Canadian Bishops Conference for many years, who just flat out reject Humane Vitae I have to wonder if we will see a change to this in our lifetime.

How far removed is it from the parents who let their child die, and were recently sentenced to prison because they wouldn’t seek medical help… no it’s not the same but…

Not saying it’s wrong… just that I believe the Church may modify this in the future.

Joe

The Church has NO authority to change its teachings. The Canadian Bishops and Priests have NO authority to reject such teachings!

To hold up eugenicist Margaret Sanger as a symbol of compassion is as mind-boggling as the comment by the priest in the OP.

Satan has far-reaching tentacles indeed.

 

[FiberZilla]

I just had a priest stand in my office chatting. In the context of a discussion of a neighbouring community a criminal case was brought up in which I mentioned how disappointed I was in the accused since he was a man I’d met and respected.

His response: “Poor guy, he’s probably desperate for money, after all he’s got 8 children to care for. I wish he’d do something about that, after all, there is surgery and he doesn’t need more children.”

What part of the priest’s statement was inaccurate? Does this man need more children? Should the man give up sexual relations with his wife? Should he work 80 hours a week where he will never see his children? Crime is certainly out of the question, but forcing a man to father children that he cannot afford simply to comply with the legalistic teachings and decrees of celibate men is unconcionable. The priest is right.

Also, I’ve seen some other posters on here who continually associate Margaret Sanger the high priestess of evil and her minions, with the responsible use of non-abortive birth control by married couples who have a number of children and feel that their family is complete. I find that reckless and dishonest.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Why is it dishonest?

Sanger was a racist and eugenicist. She is one of the leaders of our current romance with Satan and his scaly minions. She fosters the idea of death. Whatever her original intentions, this is how they have played out.

Secondly, there is nothing in the priest’s comments in the OP that agree with the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

This isn’t my opinion. If you have a problem, it’s not with me.

 

[tweetymom]

What part of the priest’s statement was inaccurate? Does this man need more children? Should the man give up sexual relations with his wife? Should he work 80 hours a week where he will never see his children? Crime is certainly out of the question, but forcing a man to father children that he cannot afford simply to comply with the legalistic teachings and decrees of celibate men is unconcionable. The priest is right.

Also, I’ve seen some other posters on here who continually associate Margaret Sanger the high priestess of evil and her minions, with the responsible use of non-abortive birth control by married couples who have a number of children and feel that their family is complete. I find that reckless and dishonest.

Boy do I agree with you on needed birth control!!!1

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

The priest in the OP is Catholic.

Everything he said goes against Church teachings. He is causing scandal and misleading others.

Whether you agree with what he said or not, he is NOT in line with his Church. May God forgive him.

 

[exoflare]

Yeah it’s amazing isn’t it? I once attended mass in a rather large church (not my home parish) where some people were being confirmed. The priest says during a part of his homily, “let’s especially pray for those of them (the confirmed) who end up being priests later on… and hopefully not just the males but even some of the females will be able to in the future!” :doh2:

 

[ContegoFides]

What part of the priest’s statement was inaccurate? Does this man need more children? Should the man give up sexual relations with his wife? Should he work 80 hours a week where he will never see his children? Crime is certainly out of the question, but forcing a man to father children that he cannot afford simply to comply with the legalistic teachings and decrees of celibate men is unconcionable. The priest is right.

Normally, I prefer to be more gentle about responding to error, but the these statements flow from evil lies that must be countered.

First, you clearly have no understanding of actual Church teaching. If you did, you would not be so dismissive, and you would not so unjustly misrepresent what the Church teaches. What you have done is setup a strawman regarding what YOU say the Church teaches so that you can convince yourself that you are right.

The Church does not force a man to father children. The Church teaches that for just reason, including economic ones, a married couple my use natural family planning (the Creighton method) to avoid conception. Contrary to the lies propagated in the media and popular culture, it is a demonstrated scientific fact that it is as effective as hormonal birth control, more effective than condoms, and safer for the woman.

To state that a celibate man cannot have a deep understanding of sexual and sociological issues is an unjust dismissal of anything that man has to say. I could use the same argument to state that your beliefs and arguments are to be ignored because you are not a priest. Both statements would be wrong.

Finally, the Church’s teachings are not simply legalisms created from thin air to make people’s lives miserable, as you have implied. They are based on the Truth of human sexuality, on the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and the goodness of sex and life. In contrast, those who cling to artificial contraception and abortion promote a culture of death, literally death.

Also, I’ve seen some other posters on here who continually associate Margaret Sanger the high priestess of evil and her minions, with the responsible use of non-abortive birth control by married couples who have a number of children and feel that their family is complete. I find that reckless and dishonest.

What is reckless and dishonest is to be so willfully ignorant of hard facts. Margaret Sanger would be vilified even by so-called liberals today. Here are some of her actual quotes:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.Margaret Sanger. "

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

From her own mouth we may clearly judge her opinions to be evil. Outright evil. I challenge you to defend them.

Additionally, your statement regarding families considering their family complete denies the Truth that children are gifts from God - not commodities that a family can plan as they alone desire.

Finally, your statement regarding families also ignores the fact that a couple can decide for just reason to use NFP effectively to avoid conception.

I challenge you to learn what real Church teaching is. If you apply real logic to Church philosophy, you will find it difficult to be so dismissive.

Again, I am normally not so harsh in responding to error - but there comes a time when the Truth must be defended vigorously.

God Bless,

 

[Rence]

I have never, in all my adult years, heard a priest say “ABC is wrong.” In fact, when I’ve brought up the topic of NFP being offered in our parish I’ve been greeted with smirks that speak volumes.

IMOHO this has a lot to do with the lack of education regarding NFP out there. There is a “stigma” associated with NFP as being “the rythmn method” which quite frankly doesn’t work. That’s why NFP encompasses a variety of methods, only one of which is the rhythm method, and many times people use more than one or two methods.

I wish there was more education out there. I didn’t know anything aobut NFP until I reached nursing school and was taking a women’s health course.

IMOHO, and I know what does MOHO matter anyway, but the Church isn’t doing enough as a whole to teach people about NFP. Which results in “traditional” or “conservative” Catholics critcizing other Catholics for using ABCs, which is useless without education. As someone who was raised Catholic all my life, and attended all Catholic schools, college and university, one would think that I would hear about NFP before I reached nursing school many many years later. IMOHO, NFP should be taught in Catholic junior high and high schools. Period. Where else will they learn? If you’re not going to teach Catholics NFP, I have no clue why one would complain when Catholics use ABCs.

So it’s simple folks: if you want to steer people away from using ABCs and use NFP instead, do something to educate people about it. I don’t know too many people who want 20 kids. Every Catholic I know in real life is on ABCs. IMOHO regardless of your religious affiliation (which makes a big difference whether you acknowledge it or not) women are playing with fire if on ABCs for an extended period of time without a sound medical reason for being on them. They don’t know about that either. In my line of work, I can at least educate them about the adverse effects of ABCs. But I’m not allowed to infringe on their religious beliefs with my own. So when the opportunity arises, I at least educate them from the health standpoint.

 

[Rence]

So, everyone believes stealing is okay when people have more children then they can afford to support?!

No, the Church expects one to just not have sex during fertile times, which is unrealistic for someone who doesn’t practice a religion that forbids ABCs. To anyone who think they can convince someone to be chaste, celibate or ‘to wait’, when they don’t think it’s wrong to satisfy their urges when the urges arise, good luck. I haven’t met one person IRL who was open to that option - even Catholics, and even “practicing” Catholics who knew the rules and decided to not follow them.

But on the flipside Sugar, the Church isn’t going to condone ABCs because it goes against their teachings. And of course you know, from our previous conversations, I have no problem with the CC laying down the law for Catholics. It’s when they try to impose their teachings and rules on people who aren’t Catholic that I have issue with. But as always, that’s only MOHO, which probably doesn’t mean much to anyone but me

IMOHO, again useless to anyone but me, if people in general want unwanted pregnancies prevented, they’re going to have to do something else, because what’s being done now is clearly not working. HALF of the kids I know under 21 are parents. That’s a LOT. There were 16 pregnant girls in a small town high school near my house. That’s a LOT.

 

[jwashu]

Why is it dishonest?

Sanger was a racist and eugenicist. She is one of the leaders of our current romance with Satan and his scaly minions. She fosters the idea of death. Whatever her original intentions, this is how they have played out.

Secondly, there is nothing in the priest’s comments in the OP that agree with the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

This isn’t my opinion. If you have a problem, it’s not with me.

Yes she was a eugenicist and she promoted contraception but WHY was she these things is what is important. Why was someone who was raised in a strong Catholic family pushed to change her views. Along with what some Priests are saying, this is of dire important to us as faithful Catholics, especially those of us with children. Ignoring the cause of distention by just saying “it’s Satan” will only cause it to proliferate.

We are the only group of Christians, except for a few small Protestant groups, who do not believe in Contraception. I’m not arguing the merits or the evils of contraception and what other evils those have lead to… rather I’m saying that we need to come to terms with why so many Catholics, including some Bishops, reject a Papal Encyclical. Just as important… why did it take the Vatican almost 20 years to respond to those Bishops. If this teaching was truly the be all end all of Church Teaching on sexuality I would think they could have found the time to renounce the teachings of an entire nation of Bishops, right? I mean millions of Catholics were being taught incorrectly… We have to remember that the Church HAS changed their teachings on sexuality many times over the past 2000 years as more information was learned. For years we taught Augustine’s teachings… no longer, some are almost laughable in the modern world.

So that’s my point… I believe that the Church will address this issue again in our lifetime. Will it change… maybe, maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe none at all. However if we chose to ignore this, especially why some Priests, Bishops etc… feel strongly enough to go against the teachings of the Church only on this one issue, it’s not going to go away, it’s just going to get worse.

Joe

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

Yes she was a eugenicist and she promoted contraception but WHY was she these things is what is important. …we need to come to terms with why so many Catholics, including some Bishops, reject a Papal Encyclical. Just as important… why did it take the Vatican almost 20 years to respond to those Bishops.

I don’t know if Sanger’s family was a “strong” catholic family or not. Maybe someone does. But the mere fact that the family goes to Mass and has several children does not necessarily mean they understood, taught, and lived their faith in all aspects of their lives. It is more likely to mean that now (although not certain), but back then, it was the cultural norm to go to church and have your kids.

But the question you’re asking is “WHY” and it is a good question. One that we need to be very careful to understand as we seek to return to the truths that have been abandoned over the last 50 years. In my understanding, the pre-vatican II Church was beautiful in many ways, but had its flaws. Many of the flaws were lack of understanding of the faithful. “Obey because I said so” seems to be the main reason why most Catholic followed their Church’s rules. This is not what the Catholic Church has ever wanted of her people, but in practice, it is what happened. Anyone who has parented a teenager (or been a teen), knows that “because I said so” is not sufficient for people who will eventually not have to obey you any more. So when people became empowered to use their minds, they didn’t know the reasons (or that there ever were reasons) for all of these rules of Catholicism. And they rejected what appeared to be senseless rules.

Makes perfect sense to me WHY it happened. This is true also of just about all of the “liberalism” and dissent in the Church that has happened in the wake of the hippy movement. People rightly recognized that our leaders were not passing REASON along with the faith, and they promptly threw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is very important, therefore, for the upcoming generation of Catholics - laity and religious - to learn WHY our Church teaches what it does. And to be very careful to teach the WHY of our faith to those who don’t know. So that we can pass on the faith to our descendants as something beautiful, not something arbitrary and foolish.

It’s not just about birth control. It’s about almost every aspect of our faith.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Normally, I prefer to be more gentle about responding to error, but the these statements flow from evil lies that must be countered.

First, you clearly have no understanding of actual Church teaching. If you did, you would not be so dismissive, and you would not so unjustly misrepresent what the Church teaches. What you have done is setup a strawman regarding what YOU say the Church teaches so that you can convince yourself that you are right.

The Church does not force a man to father children. The Church teaches that for just reason, including economic ones, a married couple my use natural family planning (the Creighton method) to avoid conception. Contrary to the lies propagated in the media and popular culture, it is a demonstrated scientific fact that it is as effective as hormonal birth control, more effective than condoms, and safer for the woman.

To state that a celibate man cannot have a deep understanding of sexual and sociological issues is an unjust dismissal of anything that man has to say. I could use the same argument to state that your beliefs and arguments are to be ignored because you are not a priest. Both statements would be wrong.

Finally, the Church’s teachings are not simply legalisms created from thin air to make people’s lives miserable, as you have implied. They are based on the Truth of human sexuality, on the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and the goodness of sex and life. In contrast, those who cling to artificial contraception and abortion promote a culture of death, literally death.

What is reckless and dishonest is to be so willfully ignorant of hard facts. Margaret Sanger would be vilified even by so-called liberals today. Here are some of her actual quotes:

From her own mouth we may clearly judge her opinions to be evil. Outright evil. I challenge you to defend them.

Additionally, your statement regarding families considering their family complete denies the Truth that children are gifts from God - not commodities that a family can plan as they alone desire.

Finally, your statement regarding families also ignores the fact that a couple can decide for just reason to use NFP effectively to avoid conception.

I challenge you to learn what real Church teaching is. If you apply real logic to Church philosophy, you will find it difficult to be so dismissive.

Again, I am normally not so harsh in responding to error - but there comes a time when the Truth must be defended vigorously.

God Bless,

God bless YOU for so thoroughly defending the truth.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Yes she was a eugenicist and she promoted contraception but WHY was she these things is what is important. Why was someone who was raised in a strong Catholic family pushed to change her views. Along with what some Priests are saying, this is of dire important to us as faithful Catholics, especially those of us with children. Ignoring the cause of distention by just saying “it’s Satan” will only cause it to proliferate.

Joe

How can you possibly defend Sanger, or excuse her evil actions, regardless of how they came about?

How can you ignore the fact that Satan exists and is working hard among us even now?

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

How can you possibly defend Sanger, or excuse her evil actions, regardless of how they came about?

How can you ignore the fact that Satan exists and is working hard among us even now?

I can’t speak for jwashu, but I don’t see his comments as an excuse of her actions, or a denial of the existence of Satan. The way I see it is that certainly Satan exists, and certainly he is at the root of all of her evil actions/words. But knowing that Satan is the root of evil doesn’t enable us to teach OUR children the faith in a more effective way than perhaps the “greatest generation” did for their own children.

I am a child of the 70’s and 80’s. A cradle catholic, born to cradle catholics. My parents were taught in the pre-Vatican II Church, and when they became adults they rebelled against the Church’s rules, and began to dissent. They loved enough things about their Church to not “fall away,” but rebelled against enough things, that they taught their children (and all the kids in the religious ed classes they taught) many wrong things about the faith. They are not alone - There are a myriad of their peers who led their children astray from the truths of the faith.

What happened with my parents, and with a huge % of their generation, is that they reacted against the faith of THEIR parents (my grandparents’ generation - the greatest generation). The greatest generation and older, passed on Catholicism in a domineering, just follow the rules/don’t ask questions sort of way. The faith was right, but their style was extreme. Our parents generation (baby boomers and hippies) rejected that, and swung the pendulum the other way, rejecting everything about the faith (except that they didn’t leave the faith). Some did it intentionally and behind the screen of intellectualism. Others did it less intentionally, as they settled dumbly and happily into the secular mainstream. Either way, they rejected what they had been poorly taught, and that rejection is the foundation of the faith (or lack thereof) of my generation. Now it’s up to our generation, as we raise our children. If we just blindly swing the pendulum back the other way again, what do you think will happen? The pendulum will just keep on swinging, both extremes will keep on dominating, and we won’t get anywhere. We have to look at what the “greatest generation” and their predecessors did wrong, and we have to understand why so many of their children felt alienated from our beautiful faith. Otherwise we will just repeat the same mistakes they made, and we will raise a new crop of Margaret Sangers and Church authorities who lead their flocks astray.

Of course, the devil will not stop, and there WILL always be an assault on the faith, no matter how well we do. But the devil doesn’t only work through Margaret Sanger. He also works through the sins of the faithful and well intentioned Catholics. We NEED to recognize that as well, and think critically about the past generations of well intentioned Catholics, otherwise we are leaving ourselves open to become fools yet again.

 

[jwashu]

I don’t know if Sanger’s family was a “strong” catholic family or not. Maybe someone does. But the mere fact that the family goes to Mass and has several children does not necessarily mean they understood, taught, and lived their faith in all aspects of their lives. It is more likely to mean that now (although not certain), but back then, it was the cultural norm to go to church and have your kids.

But the question you’re asking is “WHY” and it is a good question. One that we need to be very careful to understand as we seek to return to the truths that have been abandoned over the last 50 years. In my understanding, the pre-vatican II Church was beautiful in many ways, but had its flaws. Many of the flaws were lack of understanding of the faithful. “Obey because I said so” seems to be the main reason why most Catholic followed their Church’s rules. This is not what the Catholic Church has ever wanted of her people, but in practice, it is what happened. Anyone who has parented a teenager (or been a teen), knows that “because I said so” is not sufficient for people who will eventually not have to obey you any more. So when people became empowered to use their minds, they didn’t know the reasons (or that there ever were reasons) for all of these rules of Catholicism. And they rejected what appeared to be senseless rules.

Makes perfect sense to me WHY it happened. This is true also of just about all of the “liberalism” and dissent in the Church that has happened in the wake of the hippy movement. People rightly recognized that our leaders were not passing REASON along with the faith, and they promptly threw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is very important, therefore, for the upcoming generation of Catholics - laity and religious - to learn WHY our Church teaches what it does. And to be very careful to teach the WHY of our faith to those who don’t know. So that we can pass on the faith to our descendants as something beautiful, not something arbitrary and foolish.

It’s not just about birth control. It’s about almost every aspect of our faith.

Awesome post! I agree on so many levels!

One of the issues I believe is the lack of understanding the Priests and some of the Bishops had after Vatican II. In one of Scott Hahn’s books he even talks about one of his first visits with a Priest who said… well we are really no different the Protestants anymore. As a Biblical Scholar who was still a protestant he was astounded by this lack of understanding.

However as a convert myself I know many “cradle Catholics” who freely admit they don’t know a lot about their faith, and most of these people went to Catholic School. It’s like we lost an entire generation after Vatican II. Not because the teachings were wrong as some schismatics my say but because the truth of those teaching were not only misunderstood by most of the laity but also by too many Priests and Bishops. That coupled with the me generation of the 60 and 70s lead to a lot of misunderstanding.

I meet Fundamentalist all the time who left Church because of every misunderstood anti-Catholic teaching you can imagine. Why do we call Priests Father, Why do you worship Mary? Why do you try to re-sacrafice Christ every Sunday? etc… The understanding of these should be Catholic Theology 101 taught to EVERY child before first communion and reinforced throughout CCD or Catholic School. Another problem is that so many Parish Schools don’t teach the CCC anymore. Look at the flack Boulder is getting right now because they are trying to teach the CCC.

I’m not sure what the answer is yet… like the Abortion issue though it’s not going to be solved by the left or right political parties in the US. Each one has a reason to keep abortion legal no matter what they “say” they believe and the right has had twice the amount of time since RvW to do something about it… the key to me is education, education not fear.

The Protestant Mega Churches of the 80s and 90s and early part of this Century have caused definite problems for Christianity in general, couple that with our scandals and many people are turned off before they even give us a chance. Education and honesty can make a difference… but how to get the word out is probably the most difficult… the issue is how to get the message out without seeming judgmental.

Praise the Lord for Catholic Answers, where we can talk about stuff like this and for all the great work they do. Not to sound like the emails you might get I would encourage everyone who can to help support this great resource God has given us.

 

[jwashu]

How can you possibly defend Sanger, or excuse her evil actions, regardless of how they came about?

How can you ignore the fact that Satan exists and is working hard among us even now?

Sailor is English your primary language? I’m not trying to be a facetious rather I’m trying to figure out what words in my post lead you to say I’m defending Sanger OR ignoring the fact that Satan exists.

I said no such thing on either point. What I said was that Sanger WAS all of those things but she also came from an Irish Catholic family, many of which were pretty devout in that time. THEN I said that you can’t JUST say “it’s because of Satan” and ignore the person’s reasoning… because other people are going to follow that exact same reasoning and probably already have.

Could or is Satan behind it trying to tear down Christ Church? Most definitely. However just saying “it’s Satan” is not going to solve anything… We must understand his lies that others are believing so that we can deconstruct them and present people with the truth.

That make more sense?

Joe

 

[Sasha]

Awesome post! I agree on so many levels!

It’s like we lost an entire generation after Vatican II.

Without responding to the rest of the debate, I agree whole-heartedly with this. I am a cradle Catholic who was raised in the 70’s and 80’s, but I had NO IDEA what the church really taught. My parents didn’t revolt at all against the church, they just never explained the “why” behind any of it, and neither did Sunday school (Catholic school didn’t exist where I grew up so I don’t know if it would have made a difference). I know so many people my age who say the same thing. One of the most important thing a parent can do is explain the WHY to their children.

I am a “revert” who is blessed to have a wonderful orthodox parish and priests, but in the same city, I know someone who is going through RCIA who has been told by his sponsor, the people who run RCIA, and the priest that birth control and masturbation is no problem.

 

[revert_jen]

To state that a celibate man cannot have a deep understanding of sexual and sociological issues is an unjust dismissal of anything that man has to say. I could use the same argument to state that your beliefs and arguments are to be ignored because you are not a priest. Both statements would be wrong.

Really great post!

I wanted to comment on this bit though. I think part of the problem is that there are different ways to use the word “understand.” There is intellectual understanding, and “empathetic” understanding. Intellectual understanding deals with comprehension of the moral, philosophical, and ethical realities of a particular action. Empathetic understanding is more about being able to feel what someone else feels–to get in their head, more or less.

It is important to note that empathetic understanding is helpful only in trying to apportion the amount of blame a person should receive for their bad action. Since we are NOT to make these kinds of judgements, it is really not useful in this context at all. It is of course useful in other aspects of life, like in friendship (including marriage), when you are trying to make someone feel better, and the emotional insight helps you out, and possibly in psychological counseling (although one could certainly make the argument that it would be a hindrance there, too).

However, it is intellectual understanding that will give you knowledge about what is objectively a bad action. This is what you need to determine whether it is OK for someone to perform the action in the future, and whether s/he needs to confess having performed it in the past.

There is no reason whatsoever that a priest cannot come to an accurate intellectual understanding of marital issues, just because he is not married. This is what is needed to guide people.

OTOH, I would imagine that most priests (I am talking about truly celibate priests here) also have an empathetic understanding regarding sexual temptations. Just because one has overcome a temptation, doesn’t mean that one hasn’t experienced it. Somewhere in the Screwtape Letters (not going to look it up now as it is late), C.S. Lewis makes the point that you really only understand temptation when you do overcome it. You know more about a forest by walking all the way through it, than you do by going a little of the way in and giving up. Likewise, you don’t know how strong a temptation really is until you overcome it. If you give up, you only know how strong your will to resist temptation is, and that the temptation was some unknown amount stronger. Possibly, the temptation was only a tiny amount stronger and just a little more prayer would have done it!

Anyway, thanks ContegoFides for a great post!

–Jen

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sailor is English your primary language? I’m not trying to be a facetious rather I’m trying to figure out what words in my post lead you to say I’m defending Sanger OR ignoring the fact that Satan exists.

I said no such thing on either point. What I said was that Sanger WAS all of those things but she also came from an Irish Catholic family, many of which were pretty devout in that time. THEN I said that you can’t JUST say “it’s because of Satan” and ignore the person’s reasoning… because other people are going to follow that exact same reasoning and probably already have.

Could or is Satan behind it trying to tear down Christ Church? Most definitely. However just saying “it’s Satan” is not going to solve anything… We must understand his lies that others are believing so that we can deconstruct them and present people with the truth.

That make more sense?

Joe

No.

What’s your problem with a basic and simple approach to the lies of the devil? Must we always over-complicate issues?

Remember Satan and his intellectual pride. I would rather be a simpleton.