11 thoughts on “Kansas Catholic has the right idea”

  1. I’ve got a prime, central spot on my living room wall and an elaborate gold leaf frame awaiting my letter of excommunication from the anti-church. C’mon Jorge. Get off your fat ass and excommunicate me now.

  2. Why don’t Catholics see that priests are being tempted to not focus on the world to come but devote their efforts on making this world better? Why can they not see this is like the deception of antichrist? Jesus will let fire destroy this world, so why are pretending you will live here forever? He promised to return so why are you living like it will never happen?

    1. If recent polls are to be believed, Catholics, like many others, are increasingly beginning to believe that neither Heaven nor Hell exist… only Earth. Just as Our Lady of Fatima warned!

      “Belief in God, heaven, hell, angels and the devil is slowly falling in the United States, according to Gallup data.

      As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, while most U.S. Americans still believe in each of the religious entities, they have all seen a downward trend of between three to five percentage points in the past seven years.

      When looking back to the turn of the millennium, a more pronounced trend can be seen, with belief in God having fallen from 90 percent of respondents in 2001 to 74 percent in 2023, while belief in heaven slid from 83 percent to 67 percent in that time.

      A closer look at the data shows that frequent churchgoers, Protestants and Republicans are the most likely groups to say they believe in the polled entities. Women were also slightly more likely than men to believe in God, angels, heaven and hell, while both sexes were tied over their belief in the devil.

      Gallup has polled respondents on their belief in God using slightly different wording over the years, which produces slightly different results each time.”


      So if they imagine as John Lennon did that there is no Heaven, saving the Earth and building paradise on it is all that matters. And of course, the means of achieving it will be to vote our way there!

      1. Thank God he fives me the graces to still have faith!

        It is terrible that the clergy and religious cannot discern what is going on or tell themselves that everything will get better when there is another pope. Right now I am convinced that we are not in ordinary times. The real Catholics will be persecuted by the state like in China, for being right wing, fundamentalist, rigid, against LGBT.

        1. Struck me when you used the term “ordinary times” when that’s exactly what the NO Church has renamed the Time After Pentecost.

  3. On the whole munis/ministerium thing, in my head it comes down to this: does an invalid resignation invalidate the resignation or the retention? I think the stronger argument is it invalidates the resignation but I don’t know enough about canon law to be certain.

    1. assuming the resignation was invalid because it tries to resign the “practice” but not the “office” of Pope, and such thing can’t be split. I say assume, but I think this is pretty much a given.
    2. there are two possibilities – (A) the invalid attempt to split prevents Benedict from retaining anything (invalid retention) or (B) the invalid attempt to split invalidates the resignation in total.
    3. If Pope is a unified office that cannot be split, I think B is the stronger argument because any attempt to retain even a portion is an intent to retain, not resign. Therefore, there is no intent to resign the whole and only the whole can be resigned.

      1. But that begs the question- you are assuming the transfer is invalid rather than showing an invalid retention invalidates an otherwise valid transfer.

        Say Nixon resigned by saying he resigns the Presidency but remains CiC. The Constitution does not allow for CiC to be separated from other aspects of the presidency. The resignation is otherwise valid (putting aside issues of duress, capacity, etc.). Is Nixon still president? Is the resignation invalid in total, or just his ill-conceived attempt to remain CiC?

        Another area is perhaps transfer of land. A conveyance that contains a restriction such as no blacks. It is not valid, meaning future sales cannot be restricted to non-blacks, but the deed otherwise transfers the land. The deed is not invalid in total because of the unenforceable restriction. Only the restriction is invalid. Like I said, I don’t know enough about canon law and how it is interpreted to know for certain.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.