Michael

“Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?

I’ve had a priest, after I finished confessing, ask me “what am I absolving you for? What’s the sin?” That’s not asking for explicit details, but even that simple question can make the penitent say to himself, “oh, I didn’t actually tell him what I did. I was tiptoeing around the truth.” God bless prudent priests that aren’t lazy with matters that concern the fate of souls.

This shows how the far right is plagued by the sin of despair: the conviction that none of us can make it to heaven anyway, so there’s no point trying. The far left (to the extent it isn’t explicitly atheist) is plagued by presumption: the idea that God can’t judge them because they’re good people, even if they don’t obey His commands or respect His authority.

Republicans being moronic Zionists does not seem to me a “proportionate reason” to vote for the other party, either.

I for one am shocked that Stacy Garrity’s AI-generated ads didn’t flip the election!

Uh, yeah, clearly it makes much more sense that they just decided to launch a missile at a random public street, right?

You’ll never guess what this is in response to. Okay, maybe you will.

True or false: even if the material element of original sin (concupiscence) were also taken away in baptism, original sin would still pass on to the descendants of baptized Christians.

The idea that doctors can’t administer lethal injections because of their oaths is one of the most absurd things I’ve heard in a long time. Only if it’s an unborn child or a terminally ill patient, not a murderer…

Please pray.

Pray for God to grant His grace for a lost sheep to return to the holy faith.

My wife is having terrible third trimester symptoms, please pray for her.

Calvinist limitarians trying to defend the historical pedigree of their doctrine always throw a bunch of Protestant names in there (I don’t know or care if all those taught it) and then…St. Augustine. But St. Augustine was unaware of this limitarian doctrine, he speaks so clearly against the Pelagians regarding the universal efficacy of baptism, even for infants (and it certain that no sacrament is efficacious without the blood of the one Mediator). “If you are not too obstinate, Julian, I believe you will see I have answered and refuted all the arguments you have brought forth in your four volumes to show that we should not believe in original sin and that we cannot regard the concupiscence of the flesh as evil without also condemning marriage. It has been shown that he alone is not bound by the ancient paternal debt who has changed inheritance and father; where he who is himself adopted through grace discovers the sale co-heir who is heir through nature; that carnal concupiscence does not inflict death after death on him alone who in the death of Christ has found the death by which he dies to sin and escapes the death by which he had been born in sin. For, one died for all: therefore, all died; and He died for all. Nor can there ever live any for whom He did not die, who, Himself alive, died for the dead. Denying these things, attacking them, trying to destroy these defenses of the Catholic faith and to rend the very sinews of the Christian religion and of true godliness, you dare assert you are waging war on the ungodly, when as a matter of fact you are using the weapons of ungodliness against the mother who gave birth to you spiritually.” Against Julian, 6.26.83

In keeping with Unam Sanctam and the doctrine of the two swords, why didn’t St. Peter simply depose Agrippa and Caiaphas and have them arrested?

If he’s ever missed with this quote, I have yet to see evidence of it.