Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


Sr. Pat on Sexual Ethics (part 1)

July 8th, 2010, Promulgated by benanderson

UPDATE: If you want to cut to the chase and listen to the full audio, here it is:

If you want a transcript, click here.

Last night I had the joy of attending my second Theology on Tap session. Although Sheridan’s Irish Pub was a good host, I must say that the content was not nearly as good as the one I attended last year. Instead of making this one long post which would probably take me weeks to do and bore you all to death, I’m going to follow Bernie’s lead and post it as a series.

In one discussion I had after the session ended, this person (with whom I enjoyed talking) mentioned to me that they were surprised that someone of my theological viewpoint would be found in a bar.  I assured them of my love for beer and in that spirit I am currently sipping a Genny Cream Ale as I write this.  That’s right folks – only the best for this CF blogger.  I should also note that my specific theological viewpoint is simply Catholic.

This Theology on Tap session featured as the speaker Sr. Patricia Schoelles, PhD, SSJ. Sr. Pat is the president of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry.  Remember folks, your CMA dollars are hard at work here.  This is the person responsible for training many of our parish leaders.  From what I heard from Sr. Pat, it seems as though she does not see the Catholic Church as a holy institution created and sustained by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God.  Instead, she presents it as a man-made institution as an end in and of itself.  If you’re skeptical of the assertion I’ve just made, rest assured that you will have the opportunity to come to your own conclusion as you listen for yourself.

My reason for attending this session was twofold; 1) to see if St. Bernard’s teaching is really as suspect as I’ve heard people say it is and  2) to share the positive impact that John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has had on my life. To accomplish the latter, I printed out 30 copies of this flyer.

Sr. Pat will say a few things that are problematic and don’t square with Church teaching.  I will address those things as we work through this series.  However, I think what’s much more problematic is not what she said, but what she didn’t say.  An analogy can be made to sins of commission versus sins of omission.  Consistent with most of the messages presented by this diocese, God is an afterthought.  In my life experience thus far I can tell you that when I take my eyes off of Jesus and focus only on the problem at hand I find myself faltering just as St. Peter did.  I’m as baffled now, as I was then, as to how a Catholic can give a talk on sexual ethics w/out even mentioning John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, but that’s exactly what Sr. Pat did. She presents Church teaching in about the most negative light you possibly could.

Without further ado, let’s get to it.  This introductory audio clip will probably be the longest in this series.  Sr. Pat has already begun talking before the audio recorder was turned on, but if I remember correctly I don’t believe we missed much.  At the end of the series, I’ll post the session in its entirety.  Don’t be turned off by the quality of the audio at the beginning.  It either gets better or your ears will adjust.

So there you have it, folks. The 70s called – they want their theology back. According to Sr. Pat, there are 2 sources for the Church’s teaching on human sexuality:

1) Order of the Entity.  (the good of society and economics)

2) Natural Law.  And of course this was an extremely primitive and medieval understanding of natural law unenlightened with the biological and psychological scientific data that we have available for our use today.

I assume most of us are educated enough to realize what’s missing here, but I’ll let you chew on it first.  Feel free to offer your opinions in the comments.  Here’s a hint to get us started.

You may also have noticed Jefferson Airplane’s Somebody to Love playing in the background:

When the truth is found to be lies
and all the joys within you dies
don’t you want somebody to love
don’t you need somebody to love
wouldn’t you love somebody to love
you better find somebody to love

Why, yes, I do want somebody to love and I’m sure glad He loved me first.  His name, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.  As I listen to this again, I find myself paying more attention to the background music.  Another very fitting message you’ll hear is from the book of Ecclesiastes in the Byrds’ rendition of Turn! Turn! Turn!.  Surely the hosts preplanned this music!

Tags: , , ,


26 Responses to “Sr. Pat on Sexual Ethics (part 1)”

  1. avatar Gen says:

    Am I the only one who thinks Fr. A should host the next Theology on Tap get-together? That would prove to be an exhilarating night.

  2. avatar Mike says:


    A few years back Fr. Joseph F. Wilson of the Diocese of Brooklyn wrote this commentary on Paul Likoudis’ book, “AmChurch Comes Out – The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda.” The whole essay is worth a read, but these paragraphs stand out for me.

    As I was writing the preface to “Amchurch Comes Out,” a lay theologian offered a thought on this subject which I found so illuminating in its simplicity, I asked his permission to quote him. He said, “Years of watching the situation carefully have convinced me that it really IS all about sexual autonomy. People don’t turn institutions upside down because they’d rather hear the Mass in English. You can do that without destroying buildings and the structure of religious life, and catechesis. You turn institutions upside down to support a ‘complete change in teleological purpose’ in your life — and eliminate unpleasant reminders that maybe your new purpose, sexual autonomy, isn’t such a great idea.”

    And the more I thought about it, the more sense that made. Perhaps you’d prefer to say simply, “personal autonomy,” rather than “sexual autonomy” — although you might revisit that after reading Paul’s book. But I think my theologian friend hit a bull’s-eye. If sexual autonomy is one’s goal, one will not want the traditional Mass as the central symbol of the Faith, for the very form it takes will always seem a reproach: one will want a pliable liturgy, something one can shape to one’s whims. One will obviously want to deconstruct Religious Life as well, that living image of the words of the Lord Jesus, “Seek first the Kingdom of God.” And as for catechesis: well, why else would one promulgate religion textbooks that avoided subjects such as commandments, precepts of the Church, original sin; why else would one find situation ethics attractive — unless one were anxious to usher in a new religion, one much more amenable to one’s whims.

    The elimination of everything which reproaches our constant search for gratification goes a long way to explaining the postconciliar crises.

    In my experience Sr. Pat’s views on moral theology fit in quite well with Fr. Wilson’s (and Paul Likoudis’) analysis.

  3. avatar benanderson says:

    @Gen – that’d be something. Even better – how bout a debate before a live audience? Fr. A takes on Sr. Pat?

    @Mike – very interesting insight.

  4. avatar Gen says:

    @Ben – shortest debate ever. “You’re stupid.” “You’re not engaging in honest and open dialogue.”

    @Mike – I echo Ben’s sentiments. I know I’ve spoken with some priests who say that Latin, cassocks, incense, and lacey vestments are to liberals what garlic is to vampires. They can’t deal with something outside of themselves, let alone their comprehension.

  5. avatar Monk says:

    Where did you get the flyer?
    Thanks for “enlightening” us!

  6. avatar benanderson says:

    I created it. I copied the Fr. Loya inserts are from 1460’s newsletter.

  7. avatar Richard says:

    Remember in the early 1990’s. She was responsible for St. Barnyards directed parish renewal. She and others would go to various parishes spouting their filth. On several occasions she expoused situational ethics stating people could contracept and engaged couples could have sexual intercourse.

    What this bishop has done is to cook the frog by plunging him into lukewarm water and slowly and gradually turn up the fire. Had he put the frog in boiling water, he would hav jumped out but the poor frog, (Most people in the DOR), never knew what hit them.

  8. avatar Mary says:

    This is CRAZY! Sorry for the caps, Ben-but seriously. Marriage is merely for the protection of the offspring? Are you kidding me? I loved when Sr. Pat said “You wouldn’t go to St. Bernard’s (in the Middle Ages), which would have really helped everybody. Sr. Pat clearly didn’t put on this shindig to present Catholic teaching. She spent less than 15 minutes mocking the Church, and then begged everyone to ask for scandal. I can’t wait for the showdown in the next snippet.

  9. avatar Christopher says:

    Many thanks to Ben for creating that flyer and going to this event. There was approximately 15-25 kids that walked away with that flyer and will hopefully read it. Though I appreciate that sister explained the Church’s position on various aspects of sexuality, I was disappointed that the explanation for that teaching was based solely on “natural law”. I think Ben tried to draw out of her that the Church’s teaching is much more complex (and rich) on these various controversial topics.

    I was confused why she had to go over questions and ideas “we already knew existed” in the 2nd part after going over Church teaching. I think the time could have been better spent as Ben suggested going into what the scripture says about sexuality and/or the theology of the body rather than talking about ideas people have about various issues of sexuality. This is just my personal opinion, but I’m more interested and concerned with what the Church teaches and advises us on rather than what excommunicated “Catholic theologians” such as Rev. Callan have to say on the matter.

    I trust that the Church is looking out for us despite the fact we may not always like the answer. It becomes a matter of respecting authority and part of respecting authority means acknowledging it and that we are all held to it if we want to be practicing Catholics.

    As St. Peter reminds us, “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” 2 Peter 2:9-10.

    St. Peter was talking about antinomians which existed back then and exist today, this passage comes after the passages on private interpretation of scripture and false prophets. We should all heed the warnings within the scriptures and observe from afar what has happened to our Protestant brethren who have not respected and recognized a central Church authority (and been protected by her wisdom and teaching). 33,000+ denominations of confusion.

  10. avatar Richard says:

    Dr. Janst Smith, a world renouned expert on contraception spoke at a medical meeting in the DOR in the early 1990’s. Sister Scholes was invited to debate her but declined.

    Forgive me but these leaders in the DOR are cowards and bullies. THey use the bully pulpit and have one sided discussions but flee when anyone of knowledge and presteige enters the arena to offer an opinion dofferent than their’s. And if any opposition becomes too much a nuisence, they suppress it, like they did with the Catholic Physician’s guild.

  11. avatar Nerina says:

    Oh, Richard, Dr. Janet Smith would have charitably cleaned Sr. Schoelles’ intellectual/philosophical clock! BTW, love “St Barnyard’s.”

    Ben, I’ve only listened to 1/2 of the audio that was posted on the Staff board, but I love how Sr. Pat realizes she is somewhat trapped by your question about 1/2 way through. She goes to great pains to say that she simply stated the Church’s official teaching even though her implication was clear: the Church has failed to “move with the times” (e.g. homosexuality and the APA removing it as a mental illness in 1973). She is also cornered when she says “questions have been raised” about the Church’s clinging to natural law arguments but then realizes that she has given these questions credibility. It was clear to me that she really agreed with the questions. She is not interested in dialogue, she only wants change as she defines it (e.g. homosexuality, divorce and remarriage – and did she REALLY say something to the effect that we can’t expect people to remain faithful to one spouse for a lifetime? – premarital sex, reproductive technologies and artificial birth control).

  12. avatar benanderson says:

    @Richard – I’ve heard Janet Smith on the radio a few times and read some of her articles. She is terrific.

    @Nerina – Good analysis. Just wait – there’s more :-), but probably not for a few days. I need a blogger break.

  13. avatar Nerina says:

    @Mike – excellent excerpt from Fr. Wilson and I believe his theologian friend was/is right on the money. Sr. Schoelles personifies the vision well. Think of all the people led astray by her “talks.”

  14. avatar Nerina says:


    I’ve read Fr. Wilson’s commentary in full and now I think I have to purchase the book to which he referred. I am currently writing a review of “Goodbye, Good Men” for the blog and I think Paul Likoudis’ work will dovetail nicely. I expect the book “AmChurch Comes Out” will explain so much about the overall direction and driving forces in our diocese. God help us.

  15. avatar Mike says:


    I’ve already ordered my copy. It will be interesting to compare notes.

  16. avatar Christopher says:

    My mistake, I meant Fr. Curran and he’s not excommunicated. I mixed him up with Mr. Callan.

    Thanks for the important correction. Please forgive me.

  17. avatar Nerina says:

    Hi Christopher,

    I notice that Sr. Schoelles was quick to point out that our bishop recognizes Fr. Curran’s status as priest and that he is “an active priest from the Rochester Diocese.” She fails to mention, however, that he was removed from his teaching position at Catholic University of America and now teaches at Southern Methodist University.

    I went to hear a talk given by him about 5 years ago. It was what you would expect from a dissenting voice focused specifically on “pelvic issues.” And of course he was in suit and tie. Many older women were in attendance. Sadly, my priest and the director of adult faith formation was there too. Sigh.

  18. avatar Richard says:

    My heart bleeds for those people who have been duped by her and the other leaders in the DOR.

  19. avatar Jean Lloyd says:

    Sr. Scholles was a student of Fr. Curran. I went to St. Anthony’s Church (now closed) right after Fr. Curran caused an uproar with his statement (signed by many other theologians and priests) disenting from Humanae Vitae. She defended his position.

    “By their fruits you will know them.”

  20. avatar Lisa Marcelletti says:

    “And they’ll know we are Christian by our love…” I think it’s wonderful that a group of dissident Catholics in our Diocese have a forum in which to air their copious complaints. This is another sign of the imminent coming of the Kingdom, I’m sure. But, I’m curious about a couple of things and don’t know who among you could provide me with legitimate answers. First, why is there only one person among your staff willing to use his name openly? Second, since clearly one of your forum’s issues is lay leadership within the Diocese, how many of your staff are ordained? And third, are you aware that the Church has been constantly undergoing change by both human and divine efforts since the moment Jesus ascended into heaven? There has been no one moment in time or one location in geography that the Church could claim to be any more licit or “right” than any other. The Church of Rochester is as surely guided by the Holy Spirit today as it has always been and will continue to be – we have Jesus’ word on that.

    A little charity and open-mindedness would certainly give this web site a lot more credibility. The “cloak-and-dagger” stuff (aliases, secret video and audio tapings, etc.) just don’t seem like the work of disciples of Christ.

  21. avatar benanderson says:

    I thank you for coming to Cleansing Fire and sharing your thoughts. Feel free to read, digest, and contemplate what is said here, but check your emotions at the door. Also feel free to present reasonable arguments to any ideas presented here. If you do so, you’ll find we are quite pleasant to debate w/. But if you wish to start a flame war, I will delete your comments. Sorry – we’ve been down this road enough times.

    And they’ll know we are Christian by our love…

    The sure fire cop out for anyone not wishing to engage in debate – cry “foul” to the other party:

    I think it’s wonderful that a group of dissident Catholics in our Diocese have a forum in which to air their copious complaints.

    dissident: In a manner that disagrees; dissenting; discordant; different.

    hmmm – dust off your CCC and tell me which group teaches something “different” – CF or the DOR?

    This is another sign of the imminent coming of the Kingdom, I’m sure.

    Thank you, Pat Robertson

    First, why is there only one person among your staff willing to use his name openly?

    You happened to have commented on this one. As to the others – I believe the attitude you’ve shown here answers your question.

    Second, since clearly one of your forum’s issues is lay leadership within the Diocese, how many of your staff are ordained?

    What are you implying? That one must be a priest to be able to read Church documents and the Bible? That’s clericalism at its worst is it not?

    And third, are you aware that the Church has been constantly undergoing change by both human and divine efforts since the moment Jesus ascended into heaven?

    Sure – some things change, some things don’t. One thing that has never changed is the authority Jesus gave to Peter.

    There has been no one moment in time or one location in geography that the Church could claim to be any more licit or “right” than any other.

    wow! really? I’m not even sure what exactly your claim is, but I’d like to hear more about it.

    The Church of Rochester is as surely guided by the Holy Spirit today as it has always been and will continue to be – we have Jesus’ word on that.

    ummm – actually no. Many, many bishops (and popes for that matter) have done much damage to the Church. Remember, the Holy Spirit also selected Judas (no – I’m not saying Bishop Clark is Judas).

    A little charity and open-mindedness would certainly give this web site a lot more credibility.

    Since when did giving rational arguments for or against ideas become equivalent to being uncharitable? I may agree w/ you that our society is trouble, but not necessarily from the direct wrath of God. We will be our own undoing.

    Again, I do truly thank you for stopping by and I will be more than happy to respond to any of your concerns in writing or in person.

    -Ben Anderson

  22. avatar Dr. K says:

    “And a heartfelt thanks to John Horan for his thought-provoking article, “Let’s welcome back married priests,” highlighting the tragic loss of their gifts to us and the sinful wrong that is done them (and us) [my emphasis] in having to choose one call over another. “Source

    What was that about dissident Catholics, Lisa? I see you have put that St. Bernard education to good use. Let’s hope that this is not what you teach our children in your Faith Formation program. The discipline of celibacy in the Latin rite is NOT sinful, nor the cause of a “sinful wrong.”

    “First, why is there only one person among your staff willing to use his name openly?”

    Last I checked there were at least five…

    Second, since clearly one of your forum’s issues is lay leadership within the Diocese, how many of your staff are ordained?

    I’m lost. What’s the problem with the staff not being ordained? Are you ordained?

    There has been no one moment in time or one location in geography that the Church could claim to be any more licit or “right” than any other.

    How about the Arian heresy?

    The Church of Rochester is as surely guided by the Holy Spirit today as it has always been and will continue to be – we have Jesus’ word on that.

    Until the next bishop ends lay administration, homilies, etc.. Then I’m sure you’ll change your tune. That’s the thing with progressives, the Holy Spirit is only at work when things go their way.

    A little charity and open-mindedness would certainly give this web site a lot more credibility.

    Submission to the dissent in this diocese would be a betrayal to the Church, to the desires of the Holy Father, and to Christ. There is no need for open-mindedness when laypeople like Sr. Joan Sobala give the homily or have a special bishop-led installation Mass for themselves.

  23. avatar Nerina says:


    I echo Ben’s welcome, but also ask that you engage us with respect and we will do likewise. I am a staff member who uses her real name. No, I don’t include a surname, but honestly, my first name is so unique that you could easily figure out who I am (I would bet my bank account that I am the only Nerina in the Rochester diocese. Plus, if you read any of my posts, you find enough clues to figure out where I live and where I go to church).

    I don’t understand the label “dissident.” Can you explain further? Have we gone against Church teaching in our posts? Do we foment discord? Are we the ones “proposing questions” that clearly undermine the teaching authority of the Church? When you charge people with the crime of “dissension” I expect some evidence.

    After reading your comment, I believe you need a wider view of Church history. Similarly, you say “A little charity and open-mindedness would certainly give this web site a lot more credibility” – might I suggest the same for you? Further, calling out error is not uncharitable in and of itself. No one has expressed

    I’d be interested to know how you found our site. Please, read more. Don’t make your judgment on just one post. As for “secret audios,” any presentation in our diocese should be available for public consumption. No one should fear a recording, secret or otherwise. If one does, then one is clearly doing something wrong.

  24. avatar Mike says:

    Hi Lisa,

    I, too, am not really anonymous. Mike is my real name and that is my photo above and to the right. And, like Nerina, I have left more than enough clues in my posts and comments that anyone with even a mild level of curiosity could figure out my last name. If, however, you’re short on time you could always just call Karen Rinefierd. We’re old friends.

    I see that you have given us a Bible verse. Is it your favorite? One of my favorites is 2 Timothy 4:1-4:

    I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

    The second half of that quote pretty well sums up how I see the situation in the Diocese of Rochester. This is a diocese that has wandered off into myths, led by Pied Pipers like Richard Gaillardetz, Joan Chittister and Charles Curran, to name but a few. And, in case you haven’t noticed, fewer and fewer Catholics are following that parade each year, as shown by the drop in our weekend Mass attendance (well over 25% in a mere 10 years). Also falling precipitously have been the number of Catholics getting married in a DOR church, along with the number of infant baptisms. Any impartial observer would call this a dying diocese.

    I note that you accuse us of being “dissenters.” Would you please be so kind tell me which truths of the Catholic faith, which articles of Canon Law and/or which sections of GIRM any of us have dissented from? We would be more than happy to correct any erroneous positions we might have taken.

    As regards ordination, I certainly cannot claim to have received that sacrament. But, so what? I once heard a DOR deacon – an ORDAINED DOR deacon – give a homily wherein he claimed that Catholics ought to be the happiest people on earth. And why was that? Because, according to the deacon, God had promised that we we all going to heaven. And where did he make that promise? Why, in Romans 10:9, according to the deacon: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Brother Jimmy Swaggart couldn’t have preached it any better!

    I think your real concern might be with the quality and quantity of our Catholic education or formation. I cannot speak for the others, but I can assure you I attended Catholic elementary school, high school and college at a time when the Catholic faith was taught at a much higher level than it is today. At St. Charles it was the nuns and the Baltimore Catechism. (Yes, we actually memorized things like the Three Theological Virtues, the Seven Deadly Sins and the Precepts of the Church, but – and this is always overlooked by the anti-memorization crowd – we also we taught what they meant.) At Aquinas just about every class I took was taught by a priest or a guy studying to become one: As a result the Catholic faith permeated the entire day. And at John Fisher it was one Theology and one Philosophy class every semester for all four years.

    Of course, this was all pre-Vatican II Catholicism and, as everyone knows, the “spirit” of Vatican II changed so much in the Church. (The actual documents of Vatican II did not change Catholic dogma and doctrine one iota, but that’s a reality largely ignored by many in DOR.)

    I’m a little confused as to the exact point behind your third question. If you are implying that the Church grows develops over time, I completely agree with you. But that growth has to be organic – it has to come out of what has gone before and be consistent with those antecedents. The oak and the acorn are certainly not the same thing, yet there can be no doubt that the essence of the former is contained in the latter. If the oak starts to bear apples or peaches, however, we would know that some kind of non-organic development had taken place. My point in all of this is that many of the post-Vatican II “developments” in the Church are like those apples and peaches: They represent a break, a discontinuity, with their antecedents and, as such, cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. If they were, dioceses like DOR would not be dying, while dioceses like Lincoln would be hanging on for dear life. Just the opposite, however, is true. Can you tell me why that is so?

    Finally, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, but he gave no such assurance regarding individual dioceses. Did you know that the Church has well over 2,000 titular sees? At one time most of these were actual dioceses, complete with churches, clergy and lay people, but the gates of hell or some other factor managed to prevail against them and they now exist in name only. I fear that, should things continue as they are, DOR just might become the Church’s newest titular see.

  25. avatar Christopher says:

    Lisa, thanks for your post. I am not on the staff here but I hope your not too overwhelmed by practically everyone from this site weighing in on your post and will respond to at least some of it. Educated and intellectually stimulating dialog (in charity with love of course) is good and I am curious to know your viewpoints further as I think you made a sample cursory overview of them above in your short paragraph.

    I am confused by what you mean by secret audio and video? The only reason I say that is because all of the TOT seminars in Buffalo are recorded and published as they are public. I thought the Rochester ones were as well (but I may be wrong). If they aren’t then I’d ask why aren’t they?

    You can find the archived talks here:

    I don’t see anything wrong with TOTs being recorded, perhaps you feel otherwise which I would like to know why. Most of the talks are great in Buffalo and I send them to several of my young adult friends who are fallen away Catholics or Protestants. I would be happy to do the same for Rochester TOTs as well as I think there is some interesting points and discussion raised that should be heard beyond the same 10 people who show up weekly. Perhaps if we were able to publicize these talks further by sending young people to the archived talks, they might start coming more to the live talks and we could reach 100+ people like the last TOT in Buffalo on Theology of the Body.

    Ben Anderson was present there as well as myself for this TOT. I do not believe he edited any of the audio out unfairly and he merely made a critique of the talk. Perhaps he was too hostile for your liking, if so, then I would encourage you to take it up with him via email. A lot can be accomplished through dialog. I would be happy to read your critique of the talk as well if you had a blog, please point me to it. I actually hate the sound of my voice (and I stumbled a bit) so I’m not happy it’s publicized, haha. Though my beliefs do not always align with those on this site, I must say I was confused in person as I mentioned above during this TOT. I was expecting to goto this TOT, as I’m sure other kids were going to get a greater understanding of why the Church teaches what it does. I think Sr. Patricia did a good job explaining the natural law origination/explainaton of the teaching however, to Ben’s point, I would have liked to have seen greater emphasis on church teaching, apostolic tradition and scripture reinforce the teaching on issues of contraception, premarital sex, etc. I think most young adults (including myself) understand what the church teaches, but we do not fully grasp why. Perhaps Sr. Patricia was pressed for time and I will admit it was very hot that day in that sauna of a bar so I will cut her some slack obviously. However, that said, sexuality is probably the most critical topic for young adults in this day and age when we are flooded with suggestive images and reading material. I know speaking for myself, and others my age, lust is clearly of the most difficult and prominent sins we struggle with in today’s secular world. We clearly need solid extensive teaching and training on how to stay pure and chaste.

    Again, I would encourage you and any lurkers to continue to dialog on this site even though the posts may reflect the opposite of your ideals. I’d encourage the admins on this site not to delete the posts as long as they are respectful (which I think are good about doing). I think a lot can be accomplished via dialog over the web where emotions can be better kept in check than in person. Sometimes emotions get the best of us and I’d encourage everyone to have patience with those people who fall short of charitable discussion (including myself of course). We must always remember the things we are unified on (which we all, hopefully, proclaim each Sunday in the Nicene creed) and discuss with love and charity the things we may differ on striving for unification or (at the very least) full understanding of each other’s views in those things as well.

    Peace be to you!

  26. avatar Eliza10 says:

    As to this Part I of ToT: wow. Pat Schoelles. She sounds like someone ready to steamroll her agenda but carefully holding back; she has a job she doesn’t want to lose! And its okay to work for an organization she doesn’t believe in, because she’s going to patiently and diligently work to change it from within! That’s what it sounds like to me. I don’t know when I will be ready to stomach the next parts of this. Thank goodness we have the soaringly beautiful Theology of the Body which makes Sr. Pat’s theology look like limp and lifeless drivel.

    Excellent replies to Lisa Marcelletti. Wow, Lisa, you do sound like a St. Bernard’s graduate!

    I am one of those few anonymous people here. I have my reasons, some of which are cited already. Also I don’t trust DoR leadership. They don’t seem trustworthy, and, sometimes, some have been said to be vindictive in given circumstances. They certainly seem trigger-happy about detracting anyone who doesn’t share their opinions. And have been known to collect names of those dissenting from their personal agenda, for what purpose I have no idea. Its creepy, though. So I am happy being anonymous. Its not important to me to be known, only to be able to speak my mind freely. Freedom of speech. Yes. Its a good thing. I am so glad that CF provides this opportunity, because I do not think the DoR cares one whit for my opinions, or for the opinions of a great many people in this Diocese who dare question their doings. Dare express ourselves to them and a blank look crosses their faces, that reads, “This is one of those people that they tell us don’t matter..” So, here we can state the truth. Its awesome, actually. While we wait for the tide to completely turn, for good, next year when the bishop retires…

    I do use the same name every time I write, though. I think that’s reasonable.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-