Survey: Majority of Catholics share bishops’ religious liberty concerns
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
A majority of Catholics say they share the U.S. bishops’ concerns about the federal contraceptive mandate and other government restrictions on religious liberty, and the percentage of Catholics who say they are satisfied with the bishops’ leadership has increased sharply in the past 10 years.
Catholics who attend Mass more frequently are more likely to agree with bishops’ concerns on social issues, and those who attend less frequently show less support for their views on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.
Those opinions, made public Aug. 1, were among the results in a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
The survey showed that 64 percent of Catholics have heard about the bishops’ objections to the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate. Twenty-two percent say they have heard a lot about it, and 32 percent of Catholic churchgoers say their priest has spoken about the issue at Mass.
Among Catholics who are aware of the bishops’ concerns on this issue, 56 percent agree with the bishops and 36 percent disagree. In the American population at large, 41 percent agree with the bishops and 47 percent disagree.
Although the survey showed that most Catholics aware of the bishops’ concerns also agree with them, about half (51 percent) of Catholic voters said President Barack Obama best reflects their views on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, while 34 percent said the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney best reflects their views on these issues.
The survey results also gave high marks to Catholic leadership. Eighty-three percent of Catholics expressed satisfaction with women religious; 82 percent, with their own parish priests, 74 percent, with their diocesan bishop and the pope; and 70 percent, with U.S. bishops in general — a significantly higher figure than a decade ago when the satisfaction rate for bishops was 51 percent at the height of the abuse scandal.
White Catholics who attend Mass frequently are more satisfied with the leadership provided by the pope, bishops and parish priests than are those who attend less frequently.
Those surveyed who said they were former Catholics are much less satisfied with Catholic leadership, rating their satisfaction level at 31 percent for U.S. bishops; 38 percent for the pope; and 55 percent for women religious.
According to the survey results, neither Obama nor Romney has established a consistent lead among Catholic voters. Currently, 51 percent of Catholic registered voters said they support or favor Obama, while 42 percent said they support or favor Romney. Among all registered voters, 50 percent favor Obama, while 43 percent back Romney.
The Pew survey was conducted by phone June 28-July 9 with 2,973 adults, including 619 Catholics. It had an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
54 Comments
One cannot both be Catholic and an Obama supporter; not any longer, if ever it was possible. Obama successfully hid his socialism from most people until after he was elected President. But now Obama has laid his agenda out for all to see — it’s so obvious that all will see, except those simply unwilling to see.
From socialized medicine to coercive envirosocialism, from supporting abortion to denial of personal property, Obama is a pure coercive socialist opposed to everything Catholic. There is no respect for individual free will in Obama’s policies; there is no respect for inalienable rights to either life or liberty. Obama’s policies foster “pursuit of happiness”, but only a perverted vision that requires coercive wealth redistribution and even coercive denial of life and liberty in the process.
But this is nothing new, that socialism and Catholicism are wholly and inherently incompatible. Pope John Paul 2nd stomped “Liberation Theology” when visiting Mexico in 1979, practically as soon as he’d been made pope. But he wasn’t the first to be clear about socialism’s inherent evils. Four decades earlier, Pope Pius 11th (1922-1939) stated, “No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist.” And Pius 11th wasn’t the first, either. Pope Leo 13th (in “Rerum Novarum”, 1891) said, “Socialism does not help the poor. Rather, it reduces everyone to the same lowest common denominator of poverty and misery, while at the same time drying up the sources of capital.” As wise as Margaret Thatcher was (“Socialists always run out of other people’s money”), she clearly was but leading the secular world in catching up to Catholic realization. Popes had studied and been clear on socialism since just shortly after Karl Marx invented it.
Obama, as a now overt socialist, cannot be legitimately supported by any true Catholic. This may be shocking to some who claim to be Catholic, since our bishops have for so long ignored the “go along to get along” crowd, and have tolerated the Koombaya Catholicism for so long. But going along and Koombayaing have only led to too many Americans who claim to be Catholic, to instead never really learning what “Catholic” really means.
One cannot both be Catholic and support Obama. Our bishops are finally starting to be clear on the dangerous slippery slope that is called “New Deal”, “Great Society”, and “Obamacare” … now that it (socialism) finally directly challenges Catholic morality.
Paul — let me reinforce the first sentence in your post — this if for my friends like Florian and almondwoodturner — “One cannot both be Catholic and an Obama supporter; not any longer, if ever it was possible.” Right on the money.
Jim. Moving to the top.
There is only one credible source – the Bible.
The two scripture references you point to I will have to read but I am sure they will not directly support your argument.
How about this zinger tough guy:
1) The Bible itself never mentions abortion – except to command a priest to perform it (Num. 5.11-27).
2) Psalm 139 says that the embryo is not a fully formed human person, with a rational “soul” or mind; it is merely an “unformed substance,” whose “days” as a human person have not yet begun.
3) The Catholic Church to be sure, says abortion is bad; but how bad is it? The Church’s two main theologians and saints – St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas – following the Bible, agreed that the young embryo does not have a rational soul, and is not a human person.
4) Two current Cardinals spoke against any dis “proportion”ate emphasis on just “one issue,” like abortion.
Finally:
5) The Pope himself said that voting for pro-abortion candidates “can be permitted” (Card. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, “Worthiness,” 2004 memo). He did not say that we can only vote for the most anti-abortion candidate.
Pro-Lifers therefore, are not obeying the Bible, or the Church. The anti-abortion movement is simply, a new heresy. It is a false doctrine, from the new false priests: lay “Catholic” talk show hosts, and one-issue extremist sects.
DENNIS — I’m assuming in your reference to Numbers five that it is verse 22 in particular that you claim is a reference to abortion. Here is Numbers 5:22: “May this water, then, that brings a curse, enter your bowels to make your belly swell and your uterus fall!” Note that a uterus falling is not the same as an abortion — there is nothing in this stretch of Scripture that would make one think that a uterus falling is anything other than her having a problem conceiving in the future. If it was referring to an abortion — something that important — the Scripture could be expected to be explicit in that regard. Also, with regard to your reference to Psalm 139, with which I have some familiarity: I just reviewed that entire Psalm, and NOWHERE does it say that the embryo is “not a fully formed human” — so, this is what I mean about your posts — they are not logical. If you continue to hold to your claim, give me the precise verse in Psalm 139, and I’ll have a look at that and provide a comment to you. But again, I just read the entire Psalm 139, and none of the verses contain what you say they do. So, on both counts — Numbers and Psalms — what you stated in your post is factually incorrect, and is plainly clear to anyone who reads those stretches of Scripture. With regard to Aquinas and Augustine — well, their writings are not so readily available as Scripture. All I have is your word for it. And, your word with regard to your Scriptural references has proven to be untrustworthy. Further, other than referencing Augustine and Aquinas, you provided no further reference: the specific work within which they say what you claim they said, and the precise section of that work. So, again, all I have is your word about this matter: and your word is proving untrustworthy for those things that are verifiable. Further, frankly, I seriouly doubt Aquinas and Augustine said the embryo “is not a human person” — sorry, I just don’t believe they said that, and again, you have provided no specific reference to their writings to support your contention. All I have is your word, DENNIS, which is not good enough for me. With regard to Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment: I am aware that one can vote for a pro-choice candidate and not commit a sin, as long as they are voting for him not because he is pro-choice, but for some other moral reason. However, the Church clearly says not all issues are of the same gravity. Denial of the right to life is the most grave matter possible. My wife and I just bought five pro-life bumper stickers today after Mass, and one of them quoted JPII, who said (similar to Mother Teresa) that a country that aborts its children is a very poor country.
addendum: your point four: “two current Cardinals spoke against any disproportinate emphasis on just one issue” — it’s interesting that you did not name those Cardinals, DENNIS. Not very convincing support for your position. One would think you would at least provide the names of those Cardinals.
Well Jim.
I do respect you for your response.
You come up with such obtuse arguments to support your position that the Bible has anything to say about contraception/abortion. If the Bible had such a terrible problem with it, it would have been there in BOLD letters and in many passages. But it is not there and like everybody in your losing position you create your own fantasy land and find a bunch of people that think like you and follow them around.
I will continue to knock you out of the water at every turn and I will back up those points with specific references.
BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG!!!
I love you too, DENNIS.
addendum #2: also, notice the illogicality of your post: you say, “there is only one credible source — the Bible” — and then you proceed to reference non-Biblical sources: Augustine, Aquinas, two unnamed Cardinals, and Cardinal Ratzinger.
I must say, I am now starting to wonder if you have the professional background you say you do; and, if you do, if you haven’t been afflicted with a mental illness.
Actually you caught me.
I never went to college and I can barely read.
And as far as mental illness:
“I have always been crazy but it keeps me from going insane.”
Jim.
Moving to the top.
The Roman Catechism (also called, the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the Catechism of Pius V) was first published in 1566.
Not exactly the Bible.
DENNIS — I am referring to the Catechism that was published in 1994, then slightly revised and published in 1997.
And, further, while the Catechism is not the Bible, it does represent the definitive teaching of the Catholic Church. For Catholics who take their faith seriously, it it the equivalent of the Bible with regard to authority.
DENNIS, I’m going to bed — I have to get up early for morning Mass. I’m sure we’ll be chatting in the future. BTW, were you being honest when you said you’ve been married and divorced twice, with two (or three) beautiful children?
Of course – a boy and two girls. My first wife was a psychologist which is why I know a little about mental illness. BTW many students major in psychology to figure out what is wrong with them.
Bless you.
Good night.
Well back to an old saying:
If you look hard enough you can read anything you want to read.
Nice of you refer to a new version wouldn’t want you to read any of those stale old Catechisms from way back in 1566. Which is still over a millennium after the Bible. I’ll bet you like your wine fresh too – forgot you don’t drink alcohol.
The Catechism is not relevant to our discussion.
Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is highly relevant. It is a summary definition of the little that Catholics are supposed to believe, and the little they are to not believe. Note that the vast majority of things that can be believed are optional, since they have no real bearing on salvation.
The Catholic Church is what created both the Catechism and the Bible; the Church’s teaching authority came directly from Jesus. Jesus commanded, not suggested nor offered, that the Catholic Church speak in His name, from which we even today can see the authority to define the bible and also compose the Catechism… like the Catholic Church has done.
Beautiful comment, Paul — thanks.
I wasn’t polled either. But I’m one of the new 20 percentage points now supporting the bishops. Most of my friends also are now supporting the bishops. (Most of the rest are withholding, as they remain unconvinced the bishops are now finally of firm resolve.) Neither I, nor any of my friends, were polled either. Most of us attend Mass weekly, sometimes more often; most of us seek Reconcilliation at least twice annually. Catholicism is nothing, if not a holistic respect for life: spiritual salvation first, secondly to live a mortal life from conception to natural death, during which we have the chance to orient our minds and works towards salvation. Obama-Sebelius are nothing other than coercive socialists who indeed are trying to muscle Catholicism into something it’s wholly opposed to.
Paul — I’m glad you and your friends can see Mr. 666 and Kathleen Sebelius for what they are. BTW, I have confirmed this myself: the very first three-digit lottery drawing in Obama’s home state (IL) after he won the election was 666. Check it out yourself. That’s a huge heads-up for America.
Hi Jim.
Shouldn’t that be Mr. 616?
Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the Oxford University’s Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast’s number as 616. This fragment happens to be the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 to date.
Enjoy.
DENNIS — well, the Catholic Bible has not been changed in light of this finding, so, unless and until it is changed, I’ll leave this archeologic investigation to the experts. Even if the original text said 616, though, I don’t know that it would matter. God knows what is in our Bibles, and, to communicate with us, he will use our current language. And, our current language says 666 is the mark of the beast. I beleive Obama is not an American; and, when you start poking around the internet about this issue (just Google Obama 666), it’s impressive what you find. I’m sure many things are a hoax or distorted (witness the many distortions of reality on this blog), but I do believe there is converging evidence that Obama is a scourge on America, and that he is not an American citizen. My proposal: how about if you build a rocket, aim it at Pluto, and I’ll be in charge of getting him on the rocket.
Well your position is clear and somewhat extreme. Which makes you rather interesting.
On a side note. I was impressed how quickly you identified the passage on Onan with my vague reference to it. The fact you had the correct interpretation of the passage (correct since it is the interpretation I recall) didn’t impress me. I admit I was hoping you would fall for the contraception argument but you didn’t.
Much to my surprise, there are a lot of religious figures that think he was punished for practicing contraception.
Either both of us are correct or both of us are wrong.
Dennis — well, now you have me confused. In fact, Onan was indeed punished for practicing contraception (coitus interruptus) — he was NOT punished for masturbating. The reference to Onan came up in our back-and-forth posts when you asserted the Bible condemned masturbation, and I pointed out it did not (even though the Church does) — and I further pointed out that often the story of Onan gets INTERPRETED as a masturbation story, when in fact it is a story of contraception.
Well shut my mouth.
How many Jims are on this site.
I thought you said he was punished for not completing his obligation to his brother to impregnate his brother’s widow.
I got it wrong again.
Dennis — that is what I said — i.e., he got punished for not impregnating his brother’s wife. And, he avoided impregnating her by practicing contraception; specifically, coitus interruptus. So, he was having the pleasure of sex, but separated it from its procreative function.
Jim.
Now I see. If I want you to fall for one of my traps, I have to tell you it is a trap.
So you agree with my original absurd argument that the bible considers masturbation a sin just like abortion.
Until relatively recently, the Church thought the semen contained a fully formed human being that was planted in the womb. So given your argument that the passage is about “spilling the seed” and the belief at that time about how life is formed it naturally follows the passage condemns masturbation because it is a form of abortion.
Dennis — well, we’re losing something here in terms of the clarity of our communication on this blog. No, I did not change my mind — I continue to assert that the Church does NOT regard masturbation and abortion as equivalent. If you read through this exchange, it seems that somehow you are misinterpreting what I am posting, and / or not following the thread of the conversation. I’m not meaning to offend my rocket scientist friend.
addendum to Dennis: so, in summary, here is what I have said: (1) the Bible never mentions masturbation; (2) the Church considers masturbation a grave matter, although it is not a mortal sin unless done with full consent of the will. Any attempt to resist the temptation to masturbate is prima facia evidence that full consent of the will was not given; (3) although masturbation is a grave matter, and is a mortal sin if done with full consent of the will, nevertheless it never is as objectively sinful as abortion. Thus, both might be mortal sins, but one mortal sin (abortion) is worse than the other (masturbation); (4) Onan was punished (killed by God) not for masturbation, but for practicing birth control (coitus interruptus).
Jim, what dose this story about Onan do for the people who look to artificial insemination, or surrogate motherhood. Doesn’t even make it easy for us who want to talk about the sanctity of marriage.
Tony — I apologize, but I’m not sure what you’re saying in your post. I’m sure you know that the Church opposes artificial insemination (but I’m not sure you were saying that you favor it).
addendum to Tony: also, I’m not getting the connection between artifical insemination and the sanctity of marriage.
Jim. Moved this response to the top so it can be read.
Point 1 – agree.
Points 2 through 4 – disagree.
And point number 4 goes right back to your argument that Onan was killed for committing abortion.
You just can’t accept the FACT that contraception and abortion are never mentioned in the Bible.
Unless you put together some rambling discourse that twists together several different passages into some baffling interpretation that only you and people with your beliefs can follow.
DENNIS — you can disagree with my points two through four if you want, but I am certain I have rendered the teaching of the Church accurately on these matters; therefore, effectively you are defining your own dogma. And, with regard to your conclusion that I “can’t accept the FACT that contraception and abortion are never mentioned in the Bible” — oh yes I can. I never claimed that contraception and abortion are mentioned in the Bible, at least not by those names. I did say that Onan was slain by God for practicing contraception, but the Bible does not call it contraception. Another interpretation (probably more to the point) of that passage is that Onan was slain not for contraception per se, but because he did not honor the Jewish expectation of taking his brother’s wife for his own and impregnating her. However, by implication, he was slain for contracepting.
Moved it to the top so you can read it and you can be exposed for your ignorance.
In fact your position is so weak you know I can find hundreds of references going back centuries (thanks to the Internet) like this:
For a long time, one of the false beliefs of the early church was that the male’s semen contained a fully formed human being and the female’s womb was simply a place for it to grow. These early church fathers considered any male semen that was not implanted in the female (i.e., “blocked” or “wasted” in any way) to be a form of abortion.
By your desire to drop the subject, I take that as an admission you are wrong. I’ll drop it since you are obviously wrong. You shouldn’t take such weak positions.
Regardless, DENNIS, even if there is SOME truth in what you say, I will reiterate what I have said in the past: if the Church equated masturbation with abortion, I would know that. I have read tons about what the Church teaches over many many years, and I feel confident that, if the Church taught what you assert, I would know that. So, I have you telling me you have tons of references, but then you need to find either a Scriptural reference for me, or a reference in the Catechism, or a reference in a Church document (e.g., documents of Vatican II) to support your position. I don’t care what you’ve found on the internet. I can find all kinds of assertions on the internet. I imagine there are internet assertions that Obama is an alien. Again, I need one of three things if you want to support your position: (1) Scriptural reference; (2) Catechism reference; (3) Church document reference; (4) credible Catholic website reference. Internet references don’t count, unless they are to one of these four sources.
You are the one making the specious argument. You are the one lacking any scripture references.
That is like Romney saying I have always paid at least 13% in taxes but won’t produce his tax return. Notice neither he nor his wife ever say income taxes. He can simply resolve the issue by producing the tax returns (like his father who set the precedent).
You can simply resolve the argument by pointing to a passage that supports your argument. You can’t.
DENNIS — this is a prime example of your post not following logically. In fact, I provided two Scripture references (Ephesians 5 and 1 Thessalonians 4) to support my assertion that the Bible condemns masturbation. To see this clearly, though, you need to understand that “impurity” in the Bible refers to any sexual sin, including masturbation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2352) also states that the Church, from its beginning, always has considered masturbation gravely disordered. So, now, I’ve provided two Scripture references and one Catechism reference. If you respond with some emotional comment that my argument is weak, etc., but don’t logically defend your position, it doesn’t make much sense to continue the conversation.
Jim.
Have Ephesians 5 and 1 and Thessalonians 4 in front of me.
Maybe I’m not to bright but I don’t see anything there that remotely supports your argument.
Point out the words to me.
DENNIS — I already quoted the exact Scripture to you in a prior post, but I will do so again. The following is Ephesians 5:3-5: “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,
no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”
Remember, DENNIS, impurity refers to any sexual sin, including masturbation. The other reference is 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8. Again, impurity is code for any sexual sin.
And, to support my claim that impurity is code for any sexual sin, including masturbation: the Church most definitely uses that word in referring to masturbation. I don’t have a Catechism in front of me, but I am virtually certain that exact word is used in the Catechism to refer to sexual sin, but especially masturbation. And, Catholic clergy use it as a polite way of referring to masturbation. Now, remember, not every instance of masturbation represents a mortal sin; in fact, there may be many cases where it is not a mortal sin, as the person at one or more points resisted the urge to masturbate before they gave in. So, I am not claiming that masturbation is the worst sin ever. In fact, I have said the exact opposite. I have said, for example, that abortion is far worse than masturbation, even if masturbation did occur with full consent of the will. Nevertheless, it behooves one to eliminate or at least work at eliminating masturbation, in large part by using the Sacrament of Reconciliation with regularity after each instance of masturbation, as sexual sins lead one very quickly away from God.
Also, DENNIS, your last post dodged my request: provide references for me from one of the four credible sources I have requested. Notice how you responded to my request: you ignored it, and instead accused me of not providing references. Even if I hadn’t provided any references (which I did), it doesn’t matter: I am asking you for references, and if you can’t provide any, then you have nothing to back up your arguments except on the basis of your own say-so.
addendum: also, DENNIS, your comment that “point number 4 goes right back to (my) argument that Onan was killed for committing abortion: that never was my argument. I do not equate contraception and abortion, especially when the contraception is via coitus interruptus. Admitedly, hormonal contraceptives do at times induce the abortion of an embryo that can’t implant itself into the uterine lining, but of course Onan was not having his wife use hormonal contraception. Therefore, Onan was not slain for abortion — nor did I ever assert he was.
Once again, given your argument that the passage is about “spilling the seed” (which it is not) and the belief at that time about how life is formed it naturally follows that your interpretation of the passage condemns masturbation because it is a form of abortion.
Maybe I am missing something here. Maybe at that time in history they didn’t have a word for abortion or contraception and when the subject came up among prostitutes they used hand signs. Lets face it we all know a few hand signs. I can think of a few for you (just kidding).
Or maybe there were no prostitutes and nobody knew anything about contraception or abortion.
There are lots of petty lessons in the Bible – why is there no comment on something you think is so important.
DENNIS — I hear you, but don’t agree. I am not at all convinced that the Church believed that masturbation was tantamount to abortion because sperm contained fully-formed life — I’ve never heard or read that before, and I feel confident that if the Church equated masturabation with (essentially) murder (as abortion is murder), I would know that. But, I don’t know that we can communicate precisely on the internet, so maybe we should let this go. With regard to your last sentence: why is there no comment on something I think is so important (I’m assuming here you mean masturbation): the Bible does not comment about a lot of things, at least not in the precise terms we use. However, the issue of sexual purity is all over the Bible — and masturbation is referred to as “impurity” by Catholic clergy. So, the Bible doesn’t come right out and say, “don’t masturbate,” but it clearly says we need to be sexually pure. The following is from Ephesians chapter five: “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,
no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving.” This is from first book of Thessalonians, chapter four: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication;8 that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor:9 not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God. … For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto sanctification. Therefore he that despiseth these things, despiseth not man, but God, who also hath given his holy Spirit in us.” So, in summary, whenever the Bible mentions impurity, it is referring to all manner of sexual sin, including masturbation.
I told you how you how you would respond and you did just as I predicted – twisted logic.
I am happy to drop the subject since your position is so weak.
DENNIS — I don’t follow you at all, particulary with regard to the issue of “twisted logic” — but, let’s let it drop, because I believe I have been clear in laying out a straight-forward, rational argument with supporting documentation.
And, I have nothing to add to what I already have said.
[...] [...]
As a Catholic who attends Mass more than once a week, I clearly DO NOT share the Bishops concern re freedom of religious liberty. I do have significant concerns re the Hierarchy and the direction they are trying to lead the Church – away from Vatican II. Of course I was not polled, and I have heard of no one whom we are involved with in our Catholic community who were polled.
Almondwoodturner — you go to Mass more than once a week, but — when’s the last time you’ve been to Reconciliation?
Jim, that is the dumbest comment you’ve had in a long time.
Here’s the point, TM — you can go to Church every day, but if you receive the Eucharist unworthily, you drink condemnation unto yourself. I find it irreconcilable that someone can receive the Eucharist more than once a week, be in a state of grace, and post the kind of things almondwoodturner does. “By its fruits you will know it” — and the fruits of almondwoodturner, at least as far as his posts are concerned, are not good.
Almondwoodturner — I hope you give me a response here. This is a serious question.