Sunday we had the Homilies of all Homilies. Our newly ordained Deacon gave a homily on the Social Teaching of the Church in light of the election around the corner and the importance of this election. He mentioned that life was sacred at all levels, not just from conception. I agree with this. But it was obvious that he had an agenda. He went on to talk about the need for the faithful Catholic to vote his conscience when it comes to the election. And that if after much prayer, studying the issue, and discussion , if you as a faithful Catholic disagreed with what the Church teaches (abortion) then you must vote your conscience. Okay, fine, I understand that not all Catholics will be voting for the candidate that is pro-life. They will look to the war as a “life issue”, even though there is a good argument to be made that abortion is the main issue on which to make your decision. But the main thing that troubles me is that I don’t think the pulpit is the place for our deacon to be discussing this. Especially, since I knew where he was heading in the future because of how our priest leans.

Oh my. I had to pray earnestly before receiving Holy Communion to help me forgive the Deacon. I had to fight back tears so as not to make a scene. This Church that I have come to BECAUSE of Authority and Eucharist, to have those that were born into her or who are in the Seminaries dissenting from the Magisterium and not appreciating the Church’s Authority just breaks my heart.

So I prayed for forgiveness “Help me to Love and forgive, Lord.” And then I received the Precious Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity from the Deacon’s hands. Afterwards I kneeled in prayer and thanksgiving and adoration. I even truly had forgiven our Deacon.

But then Father-right before dismissal-added his two cents. He said that he agreed with all that the Deacon said during the homily, but that he would only add one other thing regarding conscience. ANd that would be something that Cardinal Newman had said after the Pope’s infallibility doctrine was declared (I think that’s what he said). Cardinal Newman said (I’m paraphasing my priest), “I drink first to conscience and then to the Pope.” And then Father went on to talk about how we must examine our conscience because the Holy Spirit speaks to our conscience (I agree) and also because the Holy Spirit can impress upon the laity whether a teaching of the Church is true or not. Also, he never talked about how we need to have a PROPERLY FORMED conscience. The part he omitted was how we can use the Catechism, the Teaching of the Church and Scripture to help PROPERLY form our Conscience. Otherwise, our conscience can deceive us, but he never mentioned this. He just repeated that if our Conscience is going against the Church’s teaching, then we must go with our Conscience. And to illustrate this, he used the example of how 90% of Catholics disagree with the Church’s teaching on birth control. And so they practice birth control. And so it is acceptable and not a sin (nevermind the Church calls contraception intrinsically evil) because they are only following their conscience.

He said that during the 70’s he almost lost his position because of his stance on birth control and how he believed the Church was WRONG on this teaching. But praise be to the Blessed Mother, he did not lose his position. He then went on to say that since 90% of Catholics believe that birth control is wrong, that therefore the Church MUST BE WRONG ON THIS TEACHING. Can you believe that?!?!?!?!? A teaching of the Church is wrong, because the laity think it is. Nevermind that perhaps the reason the laity don’t like it is because it’s a hard teaching. Or perhaps the laity aren’t being taught why “no contraception”. Nevermind that the 90% of Catholics he is talking about are American Catholics, not Catholics of the whole world and of all time. But just because it’s unpopular does not make it wrong anyway. I would suggest that the opposite is true. Most likely, the more unpopular the teaching, the more likelihood it’s TRUE. After all, Our Lord didn’t come preaching things that were popular. His teachings were “hard teachings” as well. Turn the other cheek. Pick up your cross. Deny yourself. Even the Eucharist was a hard teaching and many disciples left him at that time. (See John 6)

Besides morality is not something one votes on. A thing is either moral or not! It doesn’t cease being moral. A thing is either True or Not. It doesn’t cease being TRUE just because we human beings change our mind on the thing.

Anyway, our priest thinks that this is a correct understanding of the “Sensus Fidelium”. I asked my spitfire members for help. Here is what one member replied with:

The Latin term you’re looking for is “sensus fidelium” – the “sense of the faithful”, if you will. The classic case is the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX. It is crucial to understand, contra your pastor and deacon, sensus fidelium is meant as a gift given to the faithful as a whole not as individual people. To use an ancient definition, it would be the faith “held always and everywhere, and by everyone”. As such, to attempt to use sensus fidelium as an argument for individual dissent on a topic of faith or morals long held by the Church is at best a mistaken misappropriation of a term and at best an attempt to confuse the people by and intentional mis-statement of a somewhat complex (in action, if not definition) concept.

So I just had to get this off my chest. We ain’t leaving this parish. DH says no way. We are not Protestants anymore, he says. We stay and do our part. He says that if we leave this parish for the orthodox one down the street, what’s to keep that parish from having a liberal priest come in a few years down the road, and then we’re faced with the same problem. So, we will stay and do our part, he says.

Pray for me. I’m not gifted with eloquence of speech. I have to speak in RCIA (as a catechist) and the topic I have been asked to speak on is LIFE of all things, and the Church’s teaching on LIFE. So I know that Fr. will come to sit in on this class, and obviously we will have a disagreement. I’m not so good at disagreements or butting heads. I fear I will not act with as much charity as I should. I fear I will stumble the new catecumen who is in our RCIA class.

Sigh.

The following is an email I sent to the catholicspitfiregrill yesterday. I’m recording it here so I will not forget my present struggle, nor get prideful in the future when I get past this struggle, and to remind myself of WHOM I came to the Catholic Church for, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I’m also recording it here in case it helps someone else along the way who is experiencing this same struggle:

Okay….tell me again how as a Catholic I only have to agree to what the
Magisterium of the Church teaches, that the official Church Teaching is
what I look to regarding doctrine, that the Saints are who I look to as
an example of what the Catholic Church teaches on how to follow Christ,
and that I don’t have to agree or even like what my priest
says/does….that it doesn’t matter if my particular priest is vocal
about wishing the Church would allow married priests, women priests, gay
married priests, etc. Okay, he didn’t say he hopes for gay married
priests, but I was afraid to ask after everything else he said. He was very
vocal about the other two though. He also scoffed at some of the new
changes coming in regards to particular language of the Mass (something
about “dew” of the Spirit instead of “power” of the Spirit). He also
stated that we would find in the Catholic Church both liberal and
conservative branches and while he agreed more with the liberal side he
tried to keep things down the middle during Mass, etc.

He also mentioned knowing a man who was very involved in the Mormon
church who later in life read his way into the Catholic church but never
converted. So I asked him to elaborate on that for me more. Why would
someone knowing the Catholic Church was THE Church, NOT convert? (Cause
after I knew the Truth I felt compelled to. There was no other choice
for me, but I didn’t tell him that though). He said, it was okay, one
didn’t have to be Catholic. That he didn’t worry that God wouldn’t save
that Mormon, because He would save him. That it simply affected our
happiness here in this life by coming into communion with the Catholic
Church. And that in heaven there would be more happiness for us there
than if we had not come in here. And one of the sponsors gave an
example that St. Therese said about a thimble and a cup filled. They are
both filled as much as they can hold….that will be what it’s like in
heaven. The Catholic Church enables the cup rather than the thimble.
The Catholic Church gives us so much joy here. I’m sure I’m botching it
a bit. There was just so much said today, I’m trying to remember it
all. This on the heels of last week when my RCIA director didn’t know
about Hebrews and the “cloud of witness” being Biblical support for
communion of the saints. He basically said it was not, that the cloud
of witnesses was referring to “eyewitnesses” watching us here on earth.

I’m having trouble trying to describe what I’m wrestling with here

And while I like to think of God accepting everyone into heaven. It’s
just that this isn’t what I’ve been taught my whole life. Jesus is the
way, the only way, no one gets to the Father but through me. Does this
mean that Jesus died and one’s entrance to heaven is not dependent on
one’s belief in Him as the Way? If the Mormon comes in….and don’t get
me wrong….I want everyone to come in. I guess its dependent on what
we do with what knowledge we have? And so the Mormon not having the
complete Truth is not guilty? (I’m just using them as an example).
Sometimes….like today…..I think I’ve been brainwashed my whole life, and
now I’m seeing the light for the first time. Either that or I’m very
confused. I’m not sure which.

I’m experiencing those doubts again. The tapes of “Whore of Babylon”
and all those other anti-Catholic baggage tapes are playing in my head.
The conversion part is very difficult. Some days are easy, and some
days are plagued with doubt. Just yesterday I was sharing with a new spitfiregrill
member that I was afraid in the beginning that I was losing my salvation
but what JOY now. And mostly I am experiencing great JOY until those
doubts come creeping in again. But here I am today having those doubts
again!

I’m looking for some good tapes that would help me counter those
anti-Catholic tapes playing in my head. Specifically ones that would
counter Chuck Missler (if any of you are familiar with him. I think he
refers to Dave Hunt alot).

I have this feeling that I came from a VERY fundamentalist and narrow
minded background and God is trying to undo all of that now. Perhaps
that is why He has placed a liberal priest over me, to show me that it
is HIM I am to look to, not a man.”

Boy-oh-boy am I reading a good book right now! “Theology for Beginners” by F.J. Sheed. It’s very deep and I have to read it s-l-o-w-l-y and really think about what the author is saying, try to let it sink in. And so I prayed for help in understanding this particular book that I’m in the middle of…at the author’s suggestion. Like I said, there are some deep theological questions in here that I have thought of over the course of my life from time to time, like for a split second and then the thought is too hard to think of any further. You know the kind, like how we are created out of nothing by God. And then my mind starts thinking about how God came into existence, and the idea of how He always was in existence. And then I sort of freak myself out with those thoughts and push them away for another day.

Also, I prayed for confirmation that I’m in God’s will in moving to the Catholic Church, that I haven’t gone off on some rabbit trail in search of something more intellectually stimulating for its own sake, that this is important my search for Truth. I prayed and then I picked up my book to read.

I’m reading along and I get to the last part of Chapter 8, on page 64 when Mr. Sheeds words just jumped out at me:

“Our Maker has told us what he made us for–to come to the fullest development of our own powers in total union with him.

Let us first take a look at this. Man’s highest powers are intellect, by which he knows, and will, by which he loves (and according to his love, chooses). The object of the intellect is truth, of the will, goodness. Our intellect is to come to the fullest knowledge of the supreme truth–which is God. Our will is to come to the fullest love of the supreme goodness which is God.

In knowing and loving God we shall achieve the purpose for which God made us. “

Wow….this hit me like a ton of bricks. Goosebumps all over!!! I have such a strong need to know the Truth because God made me to want to know the TRUTH! It’s not my own intellect I am following after or ego that is driving me. He made me this way. How liberating this idea is. He made me to want to know Him and love Him and in the Knowing and Loving Him, I am achieving the purpose for which He made me.

That is why I feel so fulfilled in this quest for the Truth. He made me to WANT to know Him FULLY!

Thank you Lord.