Our redemption includes our sexuality

| Bishop Andrew Cozzens | February 8, 2018 | 32 Comments

Many wonderful organizations have been working to highlight the terrible issue of sex trafficking, which has been shown to increase when a city hosts the Super Bowl. The Jan. 25 edition of The Catholic Spirit showed what some wonderful organizations were doing to help the victims of this crime and even to reach out to perpetrators. Recently, the bishops of Minnesota, through our Minnesota Catholic Conference, listened to a presentation that helped to open our eyes to the magnitude of this problem in our state, a problem that won’t go away now that the Super Bowl is over.

According to the FBI, the Twin Cities is one of the nation’s 13 largest centers for child prostitution. By very conservative measures, a November 2010 study found that, each month in Minnesota, at least 213 girls are sold for sex an average of five times per day through the internet and escort services. Law enforcement told us this number has continued to grow.

Once I learned how to recognize some of the signs of a woman being trafficked, I sadly was able to think back to my own experience where I had likely met a woman who was in this dangerous position. Had I known how to recognize the signs, and what I know now about organizations available to help, like Breaking Free, I could have offered that young woman a helping hand. This is why it is important for all of us to learn the signs that a woman might be in danger, and to know what kind of help we can offer.

The other reality that this presentation made clear was the connection between pornography and sex-trafficking. Several studies have been done by various organizations to show that increased use of pornography makes men more likely to seek out prostitution. According to the nonprofit Fight The New Drug, which relies on dozens of studies for its pornography data, “Men who go to prostitutes are twice as likely to have watched a porn film in the last year compared to the general population.” FTND’s research also found that “when these customers show up, many come ready with porn images in hand to show the women they’re exploiting — many of which are human trafficking victims controlled by pimps — what they’ll be forced to do.”

We know that pornography use has grown to epidemic proportions in our society. According to Enough.org, the online pornography industry makes $3,000 every second, and 30 percent of the internet is used for porn. Not to mention that the average age for children being exposed to pornography is 14, which means half of them access it younger. Priests who hear confessions know how many people struggle with pornography addictions of various degrees. These people don’t want to look at pornography but find it difficult to resist.

Ninety-three percent of men have seen pornography by the time they are 18, and 23 percent of them said they tried to stop watching it but could not. Studies show that pornography creates a drug-like addiction that distorts the individual’s view on sexuality. It also trains the mind to expect sexual fulfillment on demand, and to continually seek more explicit or violent content to create the same high.

To help deal with this difficult issue, we have invited FTND to come to this year’s Archdiocesan Men’s Conference, 9:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. March 10 at St. Thomas Academy in Mendota Heights. Its presenters will help educate all the men about the dangers of pornography as well as offer practical resources for those who are trying to break free from this addiction.

These issues point to an important aspect of the Catholic Church’s teaching about redemption. We have deep in our tradition this understanding that all of us need to be redeemed and to be made holy — even our sexuality. This was the purpose of St. John Paul II’s incredible writing on the theology of the body, to show us how to redeem our bodies as Christ wants. All of us are wounded to varying degrees in our sexuality. All of us need this healing that Christ offers through his teaching on the beauty of chaste love. If we ignore this teaching, as history has shown us since the sexual revolution, the wounds created by broken sexuality will grow.

It is important that we help everyone wounded by the effects of the sexual revolution learn about the healing power of Christ’s love. Through the sacraments, through prayer, through the right kind of love and support, Christ wants to heal the wounds of sexuality in everyone. I especially invite men to come to this year’s men’s conference to learn how to help heal these wounds.

For more information about Fight the New Drug, visit fightthenewdrug.org. For information about internet filters, visit covenanteyes.org. For more information and to register for the Archdiocesan Men’s Conference, visit thecatholicwatchmen.com.

Nuestra redención incluye nuestra sexualidad

 

Tags: , ,

Category: Only Jesus

  • Luis Gutierrez

    Our redemption includes our sexuality, but does not include sexism. For the redemption, and the sacramental economy, the masculinity of Jesus is as incidental as the color of his eyes. Patriarchy is passing away. We need women priests!

    • Amanda Huggins

      Luis, Amen to that! I doubt it will happen with the current management/thinking. I pray that it will. I’ve been talking with the bishops of the American Catholic Church to see if they will open a Church here.

      • Luis Gutierrez

        Only by the power of the Holy Spirit will the Roman Catholic Church, and the Vatican authorities, be able to overcome the conflation of revealed truth and religious patriarchy. PRAYERS!

        • Charles C.

          What? You want the Holy Spirit to set aside revealed truth? You can’t mean that. At least, I hope you don’t mean that.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            NO, I pray that the Holy Spirit will help the Church to CLARIFY the difference between revealed truth and cultural patriarchy. It is the conflation (i.e., the MIX) of both that is causing so much confusion and harm to the entire body of Christ; and I think the confusion will continue until this issue is resolved.

          • Charles C.

            Dear Luis Gutierrez,

            Thanks for clearing that up, I misunderstood.

            But you say there is much confusion. Where? The Church’s teachings on this are as clear and direct as any I can think of. There is no confusion. Granted, there are people who don’t like the Church’s position, but that’s true of more than one Church declaration.

            If there is confusion and harm, it is self-inflicted. The rule has been firmly and frequently announced. People can either accept it, find some team with different rules, or twist their minds and consciences to make it acceptable for them to pick and choose which Church teachings they will accept.

            The “Pick and Choose” people are just creating their own, non-Catholic, religion. That’s their right. People can believe anything they want and be a part of any religion they choose, but we’ve been told clearly what fully believing Catholics are to accept.

            That’s hard, and it doesn’t seem fair, but there it is.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Charles, the confusion is in our sacramental theology. Patriarchy is a human culture, not revealed truth. My understanding, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see, for example, sections 239, 370, 2779) is that revealed truth is not intrinsically patriarchal.

            Yet, we keep excluding women from one of the sacraments. So the patriarchal hierarchy of the Church is a source of confusion, and will continue to be a source of confusion as long as it is not recognized that, for the redemption, and the sacramental economy, the masculinity of Jesus is as incidental as the color of his eyes. Thus, it is confusing to keep saying that apostolic succession is contingent on masculinity; something that, by the way, has NEVER been infallibly defined as revealed truth.

            My faith is that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, but NOT dogmatically patriarchal. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the dogma on the institution of the priesthood of the New Law, by the Council of Trent, does NOT mention a masculinity requirement for apostolic succession. The recent (1994) decision by St John Paul II to stop further official discussion of this issue was a tragedy (saints can make mistakes!) and it is clear that he was not teaching infallibly.

            This is not a minor issue. It is a CRUCIAL issue, and all Church doctrines in matters of human sexuality are tainted as a result. Most people are afraid to say this, but the sense of the faithful is not buying the patriarchal package any longer; as a result, the entire body of Christ is suffering, and it is not that it doesn’t seem fair; IT IS NOT FAIR, and it is not fair for Christ and his body, regardless of how women and men feel about it.

            Sorry, but the Vatican better get ready to face the music: the 10,000 years era of patriarchy as the prevailing human culture is passing away, and religious patriarchy is passing away as well. Hierarchy is not the problem: PATRIARCHY is the problem!

          • DebraBrunsberg

            No, patriarchy is not the problem. The problem is the falling away into the relativism of the current, ever sinful world. The ever narcissistic bent of our society. When you realize it isn’t about you or your feelings, but about the salvation of souls, you may see a little clearer. It is about the incredible gifts of the Church. The Sacraments. The Eucharist. Jesus Christ present and we, in our unworthiness, being allowed to receive Him. If your relationship with the Church isn’t first and foremost on the Eucharist and the one who suffered and died for you, then you need to work on that first before you decide the Church must change to accommodate your inadequacies. If this boils down to your problems with human sexuality as the Church sees it, then you might want to just be honest about that. After all, that is what our secular society revolves around.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Patriarchy, like any other human culture, is tainted by original sin. RELIGIOUS PATRIARCHY, to the extent that is obscures revealed truth, is also relativistic by way of uncritically endorsing the patriarchal culture. That such patriarchal culture has been prevalent since the inception of known human history doesn’t make religious patriarchy any less relativistic. It just has been relativistic for a longer period of time.

            The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ and therefore Mother the Eucharist, was also the precursor of the apostles (cf. Catechism 773). If a woman, while still under the Old Law, was the one who brought us physically the Eucharist for the first time, as flesh of her flesh, why is it that baptized women cannot be ordained to do it, sacramentally, under the New Law? My discernment is that, in the sacramental life of the Church, nothing is more relativistic than the exclusively male priesthood.

      • Charles C.

        I’m sorry to hear that you want to leave the Church. And over such a relatively small issue. Well, it’s your call. I hope God has mercy on me, shall I wish the same for you?

        • Amanda Huggins

          Well, I’m not leaving the Church but joining the Church, the real American Catholic Church. It has women priests and don’t treat us like 2nd rate citizens. It’s not a ‘little thing’ like you say. Of course, you’re a man so it doesn’t affect you. I’m am blessed since my eyes have been opened

          • Charles C.

            Dear Amanda Huggins,

            If you’re not leaving the Church, does that mean you will belong to two churches? No, you have to give up one.

            If you choose a denomination based upon how good it makes you feel, you will chase the wind forever. A church, or a religion, has no duty to make anyone feel good. In fact, if it spends a lot of time in that pursuit its principles need to be reexamined.

            A church (Christian) has the responsibility for passing on the unchanged truths of God necessary for the health of our souls and eventual life with Christ. Every truth will make some people unhappy, but they are there for our good. Happiness is a good thing, but it is not the final or essential thing.

            Do you believe that the Catholic Church is absolutely correct in all of its beliefs and teachings with the exception of the priest question? If so, any other church is a step away from truth.

            But you will do as you want. Putting feelings ahead of truth never works in the long run, but it may make you happy for a while. It’s just too bad that you are sacrificing a greater good for a lesser one. And the lesser one won’t even last.

          • DebraBrunsberg

            That would not be a Catholic Church. You can give it that name, but you would not have any Sacraments, nor would you be living the teachings of Christ. I am a woman and I have never been treated like a second class citizen in the Church. That is the secular world talking, not a person who has a relationship with the Lord. Be careful whom you follow. Your eyes may have been opened, but to the lures and lies of the enemy.

    • Charles C.

      Saint Pope John Paul II wrote in 1994 (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis):

      “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

      “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

      Pope Francis said, last year:

      “Saint Pope John Paul II had the last clear word on this and it stands, this stands.”

      Find a different battle, this one is over. Either hold to the Pope’s declaration, find a different church which allows for priestesses, or stay separated from the Church in mind and heart on this issue.

      • Luis Gutierrez

        Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is NOT an infallible definition of revealed truth.

        1. The letter is addressed to the bishops, not to the entire Church.

        2. It does not say it is a dogmatic definition, so it is not infallible as either extraordinary teaching (Pope ex cathedra) or ordinary teaching (Pope and bishops together have never taught infallibly that women cannot be ordained to the sacramental priesthood).

        3. It is entirely written in past and present tense.

        4. It says nothing about what the Church can or cannot do in the future, so it is “definitive” for the the past and the present, but cannot possibly be “definitive” for the future, since it says nothing about the future.

        In this case, “ROMA LOCUTA, CAUSA CONFUSA.” This battle is not over. The current “hiatus” will come to en end. The patriarchal phase of human history is passing away. The Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” but not intrinsically patriarchal.

        • Charles C.

          Dear Luis Gutierrez,

          Thank you very much for bringing up points which I hadn’t thought about in depth. That’s how I learn. So I did a little digging.

          You’re probably familiar with the idea of dubia, some Cardinals submitted five to Pope Francis with the idea of clearing up some points about Amoris Laetitia.

          Well, a dubium was submitted to the Vatican after the statement on allowing women into the ranks of the priesthood. Here’s the dubium, and the response approved by Saint Pope John Paul II.
          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          “Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as
          belonging to the deposit of faith.

          “”Responsum: Affirmative.

          “This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal
          Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

          “The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.”
          +++++++++++++++++++++++++

          In other words; yes, it’s been declared infallibly, and yes, it binds the future. It is to be held by all, and for always. No wiggle room here.

          Oh, I will have very little reason to use the word “priestesses,” as the Catholic Church will not ever have any.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            With all due respect for the dubious Dubium, the CDF is never infallible and, specifically, is not infallible when fallibly judging that a Pope had spoken infallibly even though he had not said he was teaching infallibly *at the time* of publishing the fallibly infallible letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. So we are back to SQUARE 1.

            Using terminology that is more common these days, my discernment is that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an “executive order” for the bishops to stop official discussion of the issue. The Responsum ad Dubium was a piece of “fake news” concocted by the CDF in response to widespread concern that the document had not been solemnly proclaimed as an infallible definition *at the time* of publication, which is itself another sign that it was not infallible.

            I readily admit that this was an admirably astute exercise in buying time for ecclesiastical patriarchy. I DO NOT believe that this was an infallible teaching. On the contrary, I DO believe that, while undoubtedly well intended, this deceptive act by the CDF merely transformed a tragedy into a travesty; and the entire body of Christ is already paying the price.

            My faith is that the church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” but NOT NECESSARILY PATRIARCHAL. I you can produce a legitimate dogmatic definition to the contrary, please let me know. But, please, BE SPECIFIC: give me the title of the document, date of publication, and name of the signing Pope explicitly saying that he is infallibly teaching that the exclusively male priesthood is revealed truth under the New Law, and explicitly saying that apostolic succession is contingent on masculinity.

            PLEASE be advised, that if you use the highly offensive term “priestess” again, I will not reply anymore. The proper term to use is “priest” (Latin “sacerdos”).

            As for the future, we shall see what happens between now and 3000 AD… my entirely fallible prediction is that, long before the start of the 4th millennium, we shall hear a Cardinal deacon crying, “HABEMUS MAMAM”! 🙂

          • Charles C.

            Dear Luis Gutierrez,

            Thank you for your replies which cause me to think and explore.

            I wish I knew how to highlight portions of text in these responses. If I had, I would have highlighted the portion of the text I quoted which answered your question. At the risk of repeating myself, and with no intent to offend, I offer:

            The document is “Responsum ad propositum dubium concerning the teaching contained in ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ ” (1995). This document was approved by Saint Pope John Paul II, and he ordered it to be published.

            Why was it published? Because of a question over the 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which he signed on May 22, 1994.

            To paraphrase, the Pope told all of the Bishops that the Church cannot ordain women, that judgment is to be definitively held by all of the faithful (not just the bishops), and that he is making the declaration “in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren.” The phrases the Pope used in his letter make his declaration an example of ordinary universal magisterium.

            Canon law section 750 holds that “all that is proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith.”

            But you demand, as a requirement, that the pope personally sign a document declaring that he is infallibly teaching something. Any Catholic who thinks those are the only teachings which he must accept is making a grave error. That’s not a standard which has ever been followed or ever will be followed. Even the Catechism doesn’t meet those standards.

            Anyone who sincerely believes that a Catholic need only accept two teachings about Mary to be a good Catholic has invented a new religion.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Oh my… is this a discussion about “creeping infallibility”?

            Nothing in canon law is infallible. Nothing in the catechism is infallible. The CDF is never infallible. Vatican II specifically refrained from defining any dogma infallibly, so the idea that ordinarily teaching and doing something for a long time makes it infallible (based on Lumen Gentium 25) is not infallible. A Pope approving a document saying that he had spoken infallibly when he did not said so when he had spoken does not make what he had said infallible. Only the Pope is infallible when he says he is at the same time of speaking. Those who push every traditional church doctrine as infallible are the ones who are inventing a new religion that freezes the Church in a patriarchal era that is passing away. In this case, “Roma locuta, causa confusa.”

            Ours is a living tradition that cannot be reduced to a mere repetition of the past. The faith is always the same, yet the source of ever new light. In my view, ordaining women to the priesthood and the episcopate would be in perfect continuity with apostolic tradition. It would be nothing new, just a clarification of the tradition. God the Father is not exclusively masculine. God the Son was not a male bodily and was not exclusively masculine before the incarnation; and the redemption is based on the Word becoming flesh, not the Word becoming male. For the redemption, and the sacramental economy, the masculinity of Jesus is as INCIDENTAL as the color of his eyes.

            In this regard, it is significant that the dogmatic definition on the institution of the priesthood of the New Law (Trent) does NOT mention a masculinity requirement for apostolic succession. Check it out. The sacramental priesthood of the New Law is a priesthood of redeemed flesh, not a patriarchal priesthood like in the Old Law. After the redemption, the Church is given full authority to mediate all vocations. Canon 1024 is a human precept, not divine law. Catechism 1577 is a crude patriarchal rationalization of canon 1024, fallibly formulated by the CDF in 1976, and so ludicrous that it necessitated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to stop discussing it. Catechism 1598 LITERALLY says that the exclusively male priesthood is a choice (first sentence) and who can make the choice (second sentence).

            Frankly, my discernment is that canon 1024 is an artificial contraceptive (if not an abortifacient!) of female priestly vocations. Could this be a reason that the collective sense of the faithful is reticent about accepting the wise pro-life teaching of Humanae Vitae? So, my concern is that rigid adherence to patriarchal cultural norms in the hierarchical constitution of the church is compromising much that is good and sound in our Catholic tradition.

            So there is a conflation of patriarchal gender ideology and revealed truth that must be clarified, in my opinion. My faith is that the Holy Spirit is not finished with us yet…. 🙂

          • Charles C.

            Dear Peter Gutierrez,

            Quickly: you are mistaken in your belief about infallibility (see, for example, the Ordinary Magisterium); Church teaching has always required a male-only priesthood; all Popes discussing the issue (including Pope Francis) have said it isn’t ever going to happen; and Pope John Paul II pointed out that even if the Church wanted to admit women it doesn’t have the authority to.

            (Oh, and by the way, the Church teaches that His masculinity is not incidental.)

            Now, shall we go back to the article involved? We’ve drifted.

            (And I was reminded of the C.S. Lewis quote: “Let barbarous things have barbarous names.”)

          • Luis Gutierrez

            Charles, just telling me that I am mistaken is not helpful, and pointing me to vague references is not helpful either.

            The article is about the redemption and sexuality, so why not start with the sexuality of Jesus?

            WHERE is it that the Church has infallibly defined that our Lord’s masculinity is ESSENTIAL for the redemption?

            Not sure what you mean by “barbarous things” having “barbarous names.” C.S. Lewis wrote this in the context of penology. Are you suggesting that sexuality is barbarous, or a crime deserving punishment?

            Look, to continue having a meaningful conversation, let’s try to discuss specific points in some order and in proper context. May I suggest you go Google and search for:

            “Meditations on Man and Woman, Humanity and Nature”

            Scroll down to the section on:

            “Religious Patriarchy in the Judeo-Christian Tradition”

            This is a timeline of the ongoing discernment process. Please BE SPECIFIC. Let me know if you find anything that is *historically* or *dogmatically* wrong.

            If you find any SPECIFIC statement that is historically or dogmatically wrong, please REFUTE it with SPECIFIC reference to a CONCRETE dogma of the Catholic faith.

            Hope we agree that this is a fraternal dialogue, not a zero sum debate. No rush, take your time.

            Prayers. Peace be with you.

          • Charles C.

            Dear Luis Gutierrez,

            You speak again of infallibility. It may be that I have made some assumptions which I should not have.

            Do you agree with and accept the following statement? If not, where do you disagree?
            ++++++++++++++++
            “Now the Church teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

            1) solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff, meeting all of the conditions defined by the First Vatican Council,

            2) solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, meeting a similar set of conditions but from the body of bishops led by the Pope, not the Pope alone,

            3) the teachings of the Universal Magisterium, meeting the conditions taught by the Second Vatican Council.”
            ++++++++++++++++
            When one is lost, going back to the start is often a wise move. That is what I am doing here.

          • Luis Gutierrez

            What is the source for these? I agree with 1 and 2, but I strongly disagree with 3, because it has never been dogmatically defined to be revealed truth. Keep in mind that the Second Vatican Council specifically refrained from defining any new dogma. NOTHING in the documents of Vatican II is infallible, because NOTHING was infallibly proclaimed.

            Have you examined my timeline? Again, go to Google and search for:

            “Meditations on Man and Woman, Humanity and Nature”

            Scroll down to the section on:

            “Religious Patriarchy in the Judeo-Christian Tradition”

            Can you find, in my annotated timeline, anything that is *historically* or *dogmatically* wrong?

          • Charles C.

            Dear Luis Gutierrez,

            First, congratulations on being the editor of “Mother Pelican.” I’ve run a site myself, with much more discussion, but in any event it must be a challenge for you. I can see that your comments here are taken from your working draft of a book (an article?), and that you’ve spent a lot of time on it.

            I looked at your annotated timeline. When you note that an event happened at such and such a time, I suppose you’re right, it doesn’t make any difference if you are. The problem is your understanding of what those events mean and how you disregard the ones you don’t like and emphasize the ones you do. That’s not honest research.

            I also looked at a couple of your other articles. Frankly, I wish I hadn’t. They show me that you have no interest in the Church or spiritual matters, but have a burning passion to eliminate all societal differences between men and women. Your interest in the Church seems entirely based on the fact that it is one of the few powerful organizations which treats, in a few situations, men and women differently. A situation which is intolerable to you.

            I also learned that you are not quite a careful researcher (I prefer that to thinking that you might be less than honest. As an example I would point out a comment in your article “Consubstantial Complementarity of Men and Women” discussing “The Theology of the Body.”

            You write that address 31, section 2 declares:

            “Imbalance of male domination/female submission must be corrected.”

            Had you more thoroughly read that section, you would have found that it said:

            “Starting from this ‘sacramental’ expression, which corresponds to the communion of persons—of the man and the woman—in their original call to conjugal union, we can understand better the specific message of Genesis 3:16: that is, we can establish and, as it were, reconstruct what the imbalance, in fact the peculiar distortion of the original interpersonal relationship of communion, to which the ‘sacramental’ words of Genesis 2:24 refer, consists of.”

            In short, the Pope didn’t say the imbalance was to be corrected, but to be understood.

            I also find that you seem only interested in trying to find a way to avoid Church teachings; the unanimous teachings of history, the Popes, and Church documents. Since that is your apparent goal, and not the honest teaching and learning which is important in a “dialogue,” I will say again that I am sorry that I read some of your works, I was hoping for more from you.

          • DebraBrunsberg

            You seem to have a problem with men. Maybe you should pray on that. Sometimes we have a tendency to transfer our own unaddressed wounds onto others and to blame others for them. There is no such thing as women priests. They never existed during the entire history of the Bible and they will never exist in the True Church that Jesus Christ is the Head of. If you really want a woman priest, try voodoo.

    • Roy Hobbes

      Heretic.

      • Luis Gutierrez

        Heretic? What is the heresy?

        • DebraBrunsberg

          Definition of heretic. 1 religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (see dogma 2); especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth. The church regards them as heretics. Hmmmmmmm, what could this refer to?

          • Charles C.

            I would agree with you that Mr. Gutierrez expresses a heresy (that the Church has the authority to ordain women), but in order to be a heretic he has to be a baptized member of the Church. I don’t know that he is.

          • Roy Hobbes

            For purposes of this discussion forum, a distinction without a difference.

  • BKB

    Another helpful resource for overcoming pornography habits and addictions is the book Power Over Pornography.

    • jimmyj

      A good reference for priests!