Poll on Catholic Use and Beliefs Regarding Contraception

[Joe_5859]

I see. Tnx. Is there a link to this survey or study?

How the White House’s 98% Contraception Figure for Catholics is Wrong

This article by Tom Hoopes is based off the more thorough analysis conducted by Lydia McGrew. Hoopes’ article gives the snapshot version, which I find helpful.

 

[LemonAndLime]

CatholicSistas.com is taking a poll on this very issue as well… we’re LOOKING for FAITHFUL CATHOLICS to respond…

catholicsistas.com/2012/02/13/98-of-non-mass-going-women-who-identify-themselves-as-catholic-contracept-where-do-the-faithful-fall-in-line/

What’s the point of only asking for ‘faithful’ Catholics to respond to a contraceptive poll? Surely you’re only going to get one guaranteed result?

It’s a bit like the government asking for only healthy people to fill in a health survey to find out the health of the total population.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What’s the point of only asking for ‘faithful’ Catholics to respond to a contraceptive poll? Surely you’re only going to get one guaranteed result?

It’s a bit like the government asking for only healthy people to fill in a health survey to find out the health of the total population.

Sorry, my bad on wording … maybe “practicing” is more appropriate as you pointed out in my cross-post.

We’re just trying to get some more realistic statistics to counter this “98%” notion in the news media.
What does 98% really mean? Obviously you can use statistics to say anything you want.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Sorry, my bad on wording … maybe “practicing” is more appropriate as you pointed out in my cross-post.

We’re just trying to get some more realistic statistics to counter this “98%” notion in the news media.
What does 98% really mean? Obviously you can use statistics to say anything you want.

No need to apologise! I agree, the wording could be better. We should have statistics about practicing Catholics, not polls which include non-practicing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Seems the pole is affirmative against the use the contraceptives. Probly is also true though that more informed Catholic’s who follow the CC teaching also exist on CAF.

At least from hearing the Catholic’s Pro-Choice I have on the news it would seem apparent. Wow, is all I have to say about some of that logic. Most resides in our present Democratic party. Lots of rationalization going on their.

Goes like this…

1] Its my body

2] Cost effective

3] Most Catholics use contarceptives anyway

In fact I believe they even somehow concluded 98% I’d say anything goes in this election. Never mind smear campaigns, we’re at outright lies now.

Peace

 

[iloveangels]

Seems the pole is affirmative against the use the contraceptives. Probly is also true though that more informed Catholic’s who follow the CC teaching also exist on CAF.

At least from hearing the Catholic’s Pro-Choice I have on the news it would seem apparent. Wow, is all I have to say about some of that logic. Most resides in our present Democratic party. Lots of rationalization going on their.

Goes like this…

1] Its my body

2] Cost effective

3] Most Catholics use contarceptives anyway

In fact I believe they even somehow concluded 98% I’d say anything goes in this election. Never mind smear campaigns, we’re at outright lies now.

Peace

You need some categories for converts. Some of us were terrible sinners before we became Catholic. We try not to be terrible sinners now.

 

[anp1215]

Are they Catholics according to their own criteria, or according to the Catholic Church, who alone determines who remains in communion? Secondly, a lot of lapsed or ex-Catholics still refer to themselves as Catholic in a cultural sense, eg, they were raised Catholic by their parents, but have not practiced for quite some time.

I plan to start a thread addressing this strange phenomenon. The Catholic Church has a lot of hangers on who don’t agree with next to anything the Church teaches, but who can’t can’t seem to let it go either. It’s so strange to me; it would be like me joining the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in hopes that I could convert it to a pro-life organization by attending meetings and participating in other activities of the organization.

The plight of lapsed Catholics who have not completely broken with the Church is both a hopeful and dreadful prospect to traditional Catholics like myself.

It is hopeful inasmuch as it speaks to the fact that these lapsed brothers and sisters in Christ have not completely surrendered to worldly temptation. There are many reverts on CAF who now embrace the Church.

It is dreadful in so far as their solution to their inability to choose between the Catholic Church and aspects of secular culture that are anathema to Catholicism is to moderate Catholicism and marry it to aspects of secularism, which cannot be accomplished without infringing on the right of more orthodox Catholics to worship according to our millenia old traditions. In essence, they want drag us all with them, or failing that, fracture the Body of Christ in a schismatic revolt.

They are Catholics according to the Catholic Church.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

They are Catholics according to the Catholic Church.

Yes and no.

One’s status in the Catholic Church is determined not only by intiation via Sacraments of Baptism and/or Confirmation but also one’s fidelity to Catholic teaching. In other words, it isn’t enough to have been ‘raised’ or ‘brought up’ in the Church, Catholics are also Catholic according to their beliefs and actions, just as pro-lifers have to believe abortion is wrong in order to be pro-lifers.

Stubborn people can insist that being pro-life and pro-abortion are compatible stances, but that doesn’t make it true. Impenitent apostates (I use the word ‘apostates’ only because people who were never Catholic don’t necessarily wind up in Hell, indeed, many righteous among them will go to Heaven) or heretics die in complete separation from the Catholic Church, and more importantly, from God Himself.

That complete separation from the Church does not mean that reconciliation with the Church is not possible. For example, a child who runs away from home. That child is completely separated from home, by virtue of him not being present anywhere on the property, but he can still return anytime he wants to. He need only turn around and go back.

The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, does not have to formally excommunicate someone for the separation to be real, but people can also bring that separation on themselves by virtue of their rejection of the Church’s authority or a particular teaching that is held to be inviolable, such as the prohibition of contraception among the faithful.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Yes and no.

One’s status in the Catholic Church is determined not only by intiation via Sacraments of Baptism and/or Confirmation but also one’s fidelity to Catholic teaching. In other words, it isn’t enough to have been ‘raised’ or ‘brought up’ in the Church, Catholics are also Catholic according to their beliefs and actions, just as pro-lifers have to believe abortion is wrong in order to be pro-lifers.

Stubborn people can insist that being pro-life and pro-abortion are compatible stances, but that doesn’t make it true. Impenitent apostates (I use the word ‘apostates’ only because people who were never Catholic don’t necessarily wind up in Hell, indeed, many righteous among them will go to Heaven) or heretics die in complete separation from the Catholic Church, and more importantly, from God Himself.

That complete separation from the Church does not mean that reconciliation with the Church is not possible. For example, a child who runs away from home. That child is completely separated from home, by virtue of him not being present anywhere on the property, but he can still return anytime he wants to. He need only turn around and go back.

The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, does not have to formally excommunicate someone for the separation to be real, but people can also bring that separation on themselves by virtue of their rejection of the Church’s authority or a particular teaching that is held to be inviolable, such as the prohibition of contraception among the faithful.

Well, I just want to say briefly, that while most people often think of excommunication as a punishment which is doled out by no less than a Bishop on someone. It is really referring to not being able to receive Communion. Ex-communication. They’re not able to receive communion because of their sin.

The only difference in today’s society, is that people persist in their sin for very long times, perhaps until the day you die. If you are pro-choice, that alone prevents you from being able to receive Communion. If you confess and repent, you can receive… but most people don’t view being pro-choice as a sin. So, if you go on for years and years as a pro-choice person… you are indeed separate from the Church. I mean, if you don’t receive the Eucharist for this long (validly at least)… you’re certainly outside of the Church for all intents and purposes.

So, in that light 99% of all excommunications happen automatically. IE: You commit mortal sin, you can’t receive communion. The Bishop can potentially tell you that you can’t, but 99% of the time he doesn’t have to worry about it, because you’ll probably confess anyways.

New Petition to Obama, only 1100 people have signed it!
wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/rescind-hhs-mandate-requiring-catholic-institutions-provide-insurance-covering-contraception-their/mG8SwXxj

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Deus_lo_vult;8962136:

Yes and no.

One’s status in the Catholic Church is determined not only by intiation via Sacraments of Baptism and/or Confirmation but also one’s fidelity to Catholic teaching. In other words, it isn’t enough to have been ‘raised’ or ‘brought up’ in the Church, Catholics are also Catholic according to their beliefs and actions, just as pro-lifers have to believe abortion is wrong in order to be pro-lifers.

Stubborn people can insist that being pro-life and pro-abortion are compatible stances, but that doesn’t make it true. Impenitent apostates (I use the word ‘apostates’ only because people who were never Catholic don’t necessarily wind up in Hell, indeed, many righteous among them will go to Heaven) or heretics die in complete separation from the Catholic Church, and more importantly, from God Himself.

That complete separation from the Church does not mean that reconciliation with the Church is not possible. For example, a child who runs away from home. That child is completely separated from home, by virtue of him not being present anywhere on the property, but he can still return anytime he wants to. He need only turn around and go back.

The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, does not have to formally excommunicate someone for the separation to be real, but people can also bring that separation on themselves by virtue of their rejection of the Church’s authority or a particular teaching that is held to be inviolable, such as the prohibition of contraception among the faithful.

Well, I just want to say briefly, that while most people often think of excommunication as a punishment which is doled out by no less than a Bishop on someone. It is really referring to not being able to receive Communion. Ex-communication. They’re not able to receive communion because of their sin.

The only difference in today’s society, is that people persist in their sin for very long times, perhaps until the day you die. If you are pro-choice, that alone prevents you from being able to receive Communion. If you confess and repent, you can receive… but most people don’t view being pro-choice as a sin. So, if you go on for years and years as a pro-choice person… you are indeed separate from the Church. I mean, if you don’t receive the Eucharist for this long (validly at least)… you’re certainly outside of the Church for all intents and purposes.

So, in that light 99% of all excommunications happen automatically. IE: You commit mortal sin, you can’t receive communion. The Bishop can potentially tell you that you can’t, but 99% of the time he doesn’t have to worry about it, because you’ll probably confess anyways.

Exactly. Excommunication does not have to be a formal punishment administered by the Bishop or the Pope, it can be a de facto status that one ‘chooses’ for oneself, by being obstinate and refusing repentance and reconciliation.

 

[anp1215]

Yes and no.

One’s status in the Catholic Church is determined not only by intiation via Sacraments of Baptism and/or Confirmation but also one’s fidelity to Catholic teaching. In other words, it isn’t enough to have been ‘raised’ or ‘brought up’ in the Church, Catholics are also Catholic according to their beliefs and actions, just as pro-lifers have to believe abortion is wrong in order to be pro-lifers.

Stubborn people can insist that being pro-life and pro-abortion are compatible stances, but that doesn’t make it true. Impenitent apostates (I use the word ‘apostates’ only because people who were never Catholic don’t necessarily wind up in Hell, indeed, many righteous among them will go to Heaven) or heretics die in complete separation from the Catholic Church, and more importantly, from God Himself.

That complete separation from the Church does not mean that reconciliation with the Church is not possible. For example, a child who runs away from home. That child is completely separated from home, by virtue of him not being present anywhere on the property, but he can still return anytime he wants to. He need only turn around and go back.

The Catholic Church, to my knowledge, does not have to formally excommunicate someone for the separation to be real, but people can also bring that separation on themselves by virtue of their rejection of the Church’s authority or a particular teaching that is held to be inviolable, such as the prohibition of contraception among the faithful.

Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. There is no getting rid of it. Anyone who has been baptized Catholic (or formally received into the Catholic Church) is Catholic forever, no getting around it. They may hold beliefs in conflict with the Catholic Church, but they never cease to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church will claim them for their entire lives. They place themselves outside of Communion, but remain Catholics. If they were not Catholic any longer, the Church would not demand that they follow Her laws and precepts, and yet She does.

Even the excommunicated are Catholics.

 

[anp1215]

and Deus lo vult, I answered your PM but you cannot receive it until you clear your messages, fyi

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul. There is no getting rid of it. Anyone who has been baptized Catholic (or formally received into the Catholic Church) is Catholic forever, no getting around it. They may hold beliefs in conflict with the Catholic Church, but they never cease to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church will claim them for their entire lives. They place themselves outside of Communion, but remain Catholics. If they were not Catholic any longer, the Church would not demand that they follow Her laws and precepts, and yet She does.

Even the excommunicated are Catholics.

My answer to this is complicated. I know what I’m trying to say but it’s hard for me to put it to words, so please be patient with me. If it turns out that your understanding of Canon Law is superior to mine, I am completely open to the possibility of conceding my point, as I consider myself married only to the Truth, and if it should be proven I am wrong, I will be the first to say it.

I agree with most of what you say, but to reject Church teaching is a sin, it is a sin of heresy, and what is sin, if not separation from God? Baptism and Confirmation DO leave indelible marks on the soul. You and I have no disagreement there. What is not clear to me, however, is how one may act to the contrary of something, teach others that that thing is wrong, and yet still be a proponent of that thing, and my understanding of Canon Law (which may wrong) seems to support my position that one cannot be both.

What I’m concerned with is what seems to be a logical fallacy in your argumentation. For instance, you cannot call a murderer, (who teaches others through scandal and obstinacy that murder is good), a non-violent person. How then, can you call someone who not only exhibits a contradictory behavior, but insists that behavior is the correct behavior, the opposite of what he is?

For instance, how can obstinate, vocal, excommunicants still be Catholic in the same sense as you or I? I agree that they are Catholics insofar as they have been blessed (through Baptism and/or Confirmation) to receive the revelation of the Catholic faith, and that that blessing imposes a permanent obligation on them to live as Catholics (as you noted, in the sense that the Church lays claim upon them) but they are not Catholic insofar as they exhibit and teach opposite behaviors.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

and Deus lo vult, I answered your PM but you cannot receive it until you clear your messages, fyi

I just did, so you can send it now, if you like.

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

My answer to this is complicated. I know what I’m trying to say but it’s hard for me to put it to words, so please be patient with me. If it turns out that your understanding of Canon Law is superior to mine, I am completely open to the possibility of conceding my point, as I consider myself married only to the Truth, and if it should be proven I am wrong, I will be the first to say it.

I agree with most of what you say, but to reject Church teaching is a sin, it is a sin of heresy, and what is sin, if not separation from God? Baptism and Confirmation DO leave indelible marks on the soul. You and I have no disagreement there. What is not clear to me, however, is how one may act to the contrary of something, teach others that that thing is wrong, and yet still be a proponent of that thing, and my understanding of Canon Law (which may wrong) seems to support my position that one cannot be both.

What I’m concerned with is what seems to be a logical fallacy in your argumentation. For instance, you cannot call a murderer, (who teaches others through scandal and obstinacy that murder is good), a non-violent person. How then, can you call someone who not only exhibits a contradictory behavior, but insists that behavior is the correct behavior, the opposite of what he is?

For instance, how can obstinate, vocal, excommunicants still be Catholic in the same sense as you or I? I agree that they are Catholics insofar as they have been blessed (through Baptism and/or Confirmation) to receive the revelation of the Catholic faith, and that that blessing imposes a permanent obligation on them to live as Catholics (as you noted, in the sense that the Church lays claim upon them) but they are not Catholic insofar as they exhibit and teach opposite behaviors.

I think in conclusion, anp1215, because you and I have points of agreement, I am saying they are ‘catholics’, de-capitalized and with apostrophe marks, (because you are right, they are Catholic in certain irrevocable ways that cannot be taken back, but in practice they are heretics) whereas you and I are Catholics in that we both believe in the teachings of Catholicism and preach it through our words and actions as well.

Do you object to any of my conclusions in the quoted portion of this post?

 

[cjmclark]

I think in conclusion, anp1215, because you and I have points of agreement, I am saying they are ‘catholics’, de-capitalized and with apostrophe marks, (because you are right, they are Catholic in certain irrevocable ways that cannot be taken back, but in practice they are heretics) whereas you and I are Catholics in that we both believe in the teachings of Catholicism and preach it through our words and actions as well.

Do you object to any of my conclusions in the quoted portion of this post?

I will note here the following from the “New commentary on the Code of Canon Law” -

Once a Catholic by baptism or reception, one always remains a Catholic (semel catholicus, semper catholicus). Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics.

books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+commentary+on+the+code+of+canon+law&hl=en&ei=xAOzTcnVMIi6hAeTs5nkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22excommunicated%20remain%22&f=false

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

I will note here the following from the “New commentary on the Code of Canon Law” -

books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+commentary+on+the+code+of+canon+law&hl=en&ei=xAOzTcnVMIi6hAeTs5nkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22excommunicated%20remain%22&f=false

I think we (anp1215 and I) agree, but our disagreement arose over semantics. She is right
insofar as the rites of initiation are permanent and binding, and I am right insofar as sin is a turning away from God and a conversion to creatures, as the Church Fathers put it.

Augustine appears to make this point when discussing the fall of Satan and the Angels who joined him:

Originally written by St_Augustine,_Doctor_of_the_Church:

Thus the true cause of the blessedness of the good angels is found to be this, that they cleave to Him who supremely is. And if we ask the cause of the misery of the bad, it occurs to us, and not unreasonably, that they are miserable because** they have forsaken Him who supremely is, and have turned to themselves who have no such essence.**

…

For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil— not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked. Therefore it is not an inferior thing which has made the will evil, but it is itself which has become so by wickedly and inordinately desiring an inferior thing. For if two men, alike in physical and moral constitution, see the same corporal beauty, and one of them is excited by the sight to desire an illicit enjoyment while the other steadfastly maintains a modest restraint of his will, what do we suppose brings it about, that there is an evil will in the one and not in the other?

…

if both are tempted equally and one yields and consents to the temptation while the other remains unmoved by it, what other account can we give of the matter than this, that the one is willing, the other unwilling, to fall away from chastity? And what causes this but their own wills, in cases at least such as we are supposing, where the temperament is identical?

The City of God, Bk. 12 Chap. 6

I consulted the book The Teachings of the Church Fathers by John R. Willis S.J., but the tract is also available here

My whimsical touch to this post in the quotation box was NOT a shot at anyone who disagrees with me, by the way, I just thought it was funny!

In light of this, I’M still confused about who is right, or whether we are both right. I guess I’ll see if anp1215 can persuade me that she is right, and failing that, I think I’m going to ask a priest, or submit the question to Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P. in the Ask an Apologist forum.

If anyone wants to submit the question ahead of me, by all means, be my guest! Until then, still confused…

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Deus_lo_vult:

In light of this, I’M still confused about who is right, or whether we are both right. I guess I’ll see if anp1215 can persuade me that she is right, and failing that, I think I’m going to ask a priest, or submit the question to Fr. Vincent Serpa O.P. in the Ask an Apologist forum.

Well, I followed the points by both of you, and then went through them again, and I’ve determined that in my belief, anp1215 is right… if the sole question y’all are debating is whether excommunicated people, or obstinate sinners who are so convinced that evil is good… that they actively spread contraception/ convince others that it’s good, etc.

I think, it is certainly interesting to note that “Ex-Catholics” are said to be the second largest religious group, after Catholics and before Southern Baptists.

It’s something like: Catholics 65-70 million
Ex- Catholics 20-30 million
Southern Baptists 16-18 million

At least 3 or 4 Catholic sources on the net were saying that.

Of course, this is probably the only group of people that does this. At least in religion. Obviously you might do this is you’re an immigrant or something. But, no one says “I’m a former Methodist, but now I’m ________” etc. For some reason Catholics, after they have left the fold of the flock to become atheists, agnostics, or other faiths are for some reason compelled to STILL identify with the term “Catholic”, or to identify as “I’m an ex-Catholic”.

This could be how the theoretical indelible mark on the soul left by Baptism, Confirmation, etc. is played out in the practical every day world. That mark on their soul compels them to at least say they are an ex-Catholic… perhaps this is because some part of that person subconsciously wants them to come back to the Church.

However, in a spiritual sense, if they do no good works they have no life in them… so spiritually I think it just comes down to they’re probably more likely to go to hell. But, those probablies and liklies should always be left to the Om(name removed by moderator)otent Judgement of the Lord.
So, I’ll leave stuff up to the Man upstairs…

 

[cjmclark]

Well, I followed the points by both of you, and then went through them again, and I’ve determined that in my belief, anp1215 is right… if the sole question y’all are debating is whether excommunicated people, or obstinate sinners who are so convinced that evil is good… that they actively spread contraception/ convince others that it’s good, etc.

I think, it is certainly interesting to note that “Ex-Catholics” are said to be the second largest religious group, after Catholics and before Southern Baptists.

It’s something like: Catholics 65-70 million
Ex- Catholics 20-30 million
Southern Baptists 16-18 million

At least 3 or 4 Catholic sources on the net were saying that.

Of course, this is probably the only group of people that does this. At least in religion. Obviously you might do this is you’re an immigrant or something. But, no one says “I’m a former Methodist, but now I’m ________” etc. For some reason Catholics, after they have left the fold of the flock to become atheists, agnostics, or other faiths are for some reason compelled to STILL identify with the term “Catholic”, or to identify as “I’m an ex-Catholic”.

This could be how the theoretical indelible mark on the soul left by Baptism, Confirmation, etc. is played out in the practical every day world. That mark on their soul compels them to at least say they are an ex-Catholic… perhaps this is because some part of that person subconsciously wants them to come back to the Church.

However, in a spiritual sense, if they do no good works they have no life in them… so spiritually I think it just comes down to they’re probably more likely to go to hell. But, those probablies and liklies should always be left to the Om(name removed by moderator)otent Judgement of the Lord.
So, I’ll leave stuff up to the Man upstairs…

Interestingly, this whole question is actually playing out in real life.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=642045

A French gentleman who has left the Church has demanded that his name be struck from the baptismal rolls. The Church told him, “Sorry, we can’t un-Baptize you,” so he took them to court. The French court ruled against the Church (though I’m not sure what kind of validity that has, seems like that would be similar to me suing my state of birth to nullify my birth certificate), but the case has been appealed. Interesting.

 

[anp1215]

My answer to this is complicated. I know what I’m trying to say but it’s hard for me to put it to words, so please be patient with me. If it turns out that your understanding of Canon Law is superior to mine, I am completely open to the possibility of conceding my point, as I consider myself married only to the Truth, and if it should be proven I am wrong, I will be the first to say it.

I agree with most of what you say, but to reject Church teaching is a sin, it is a sin of heresy, and what is sin, if not separation from God? Baptism and Confirmation DO leave indelible marks on the soul. You and I have no disagreement there. What is not clear to me, however, is how one may act to the contrary of something, teach others that that thing is wrong, and yet still be a proponent of that thing, and my understanding of Canon Law (which may wrong) seems to support my position that one cannot be both.

What I’m concerned with is what seems to be a logical fallacy in your argumentation. For instance, you cannot call a murderer, (who teaches others through scandal and obstinacy that murder is good), a non-violent person. How then, can you call someone who not only exhibits a contradictory behavior, but insists that behavior is the correct behavior, the opposite of what he is?

For instance, how can obstinate, vocal, excommunicants still be Catholic in the same sense as you or I? I agree that they are Catholics insofar as they have been blessed (through Baptism and/or Confirmation) to receive the revelation of the Catholic faith, and that that blessing imposes a permanent obligation on them to live as Catholics (as you noted, in the sense that the Church lays claim upon them) but they are not Catholic insofar as they exhibit and teach opposite behaviors.

I do get what you are trying to say, and appreciate your charity. Of course they are not Catholic in the same sense as you or I, because they have made themselves ineligible for Communion and thus separated themselves from the flock. But they will always be Catholic because of the indelible mark on their souls.

Think about it like this, let’s say you have Kathy Smith, a politician who supports gay marriage, abortion, pornography, whatever, things that are against the Church. She was raised Catholic, baptized, confirmed, everything. She doesn’t really go to Mass much anymore because of her political beliefs.

One day, she wakes up and feels a profound sadness about her beliefs. She hears the voice of God tell her that she is wrong and needs to repent and change her ways.

So, what should she do? I think the obvious answer is that she needs to go to Confession at the first available opportunity. But the Sacrament of Confession is available only to Catholics (barring extraordinary circumstances, or in the case of converts when they have First Confession).

If she had truly ceased to be Catholic, why would this Sacrament still be available to her?

I hope what I’m trying to say makes sense.

I just did, so you can send it now, if you like.

Did it go through? I think it would have gone through after you cleared your inbox.

I think in conclusion, anp1215, because you and I have points of agreement, I am saying they are ‘catholics’, de-capitalized and with apostrophe marks, (because you are right, they are Catholic in certain irrevocable ways that cannot be taken back, but in practice they are heretics) whereas you and I are Catholics in that we both believe in the teachings of Catholicism and preach it through our words and actions as well.

Do you object to any of my conclusions in the quoted portion of this post?

There are certainly differences between us (me and you) and the Catholics who flaunt their disagreements with the Church, but we are all still Catholics. I don’t disagree with the quoted post, I don’t think it is at odds with what I’m saying.