Can the “immature” be “good” Catholics?

Can the “immature” be “good” Catholics?

Recently, in the context of discussing the research findings purporting to show that atheists are more intelligent than believers, I found myself in conversation with a variety of readers on the subject of maturity, on whether it is possible to be a truly mature adult Catholic while lacking  any of the qualities generally associated with mature adulthood: check out the article below to identify which of the qualities on the list you think defines a truly mature adult, without which it’s just not possible to be a “good” Catholic…

How can one classify a true adult?  Many people directly attribute age to adulthood.  The problem with this methodology becomes evident when you discuss the topic with various people of different cultural backgrounds.  If you ask each of them what age they believe constitutes the point at which a person progresses from childhood into adulthood, their answers will always be different.  Why?  Because every one of the answers are based on subjective opinion.  Adulthood is not based on age; it’s based strictly on emotional maturity.

So what constitutes emotional maturity, and thus adulthood?  Here are 20 defining characteristics of a true adult:

  1. Realizing that maturity is  an ongoing process, not a state, and continuously striving for self  improvement.
  2. Able to manage personal jealousy and feelings of envy.
  3. Has the ability to listen to  and evaluate the viewpoints of others.
  4. Maintains patience and flexibility on a daily basis.
  5. Accepts the fact that you can’t always win, and learns from mistakes instead of whining about the outcome.
  6. Does not overanalyze negative points, but instead looks for the positive points in the subject  being analyzed.
  7. Is able to differentiate between rational decision making and emotional impulse.
  8. Understands that no skill or talent can overshadow the act of preparation.
  9. Capable of managing temper and anger.
  10. Keeps other people’s feeling in mind and limits selfishness.
  11. Being able to distinguish between ‘needs’ and ‘wants’.
  12. Shows confidence without being overly arrogant.
  13. Handles pressure with self composure.
  14. Takes ownership and responsibility of personal actions.
  15. Manages personal fears.
  16. Able to see the various shades of grey between the extremes of black and white in every situation.
  17. Accepts negative feedback as  a tool for self improvement.
  18. Aware of personal  insecurities and self-esteem.
  19. Able to separate true love from transitory infatuation.
  20. Understanding that open communication is the key to progression.

Above all, true adults do what they have to do when it is required of them, and they do what they want when they can.  They are able to distinguish between the two and manage their time and efforts accordingly.  Source

Comments (42)

  • Nicky

    I’ve yet to meet a mature Catholic! Most parishes are full of sniping gossips who don’t have a good word to say about anyone.

    I suppose the first two traits on the list are really the most important but the whole article is a good read for examining our consciences.

    September 3, 2013 at 9:20 pm
    • editor


      I think that’s a bit harsh – not everyone in every parish is a “sniping gossip” who doesn’t have a good word to say about anyone. Far from it.

      I think most Catholics have to be assumed to be at least trying (I know some very trying Catholics!) to be faithful followers of Christ – that’s the least we ought to assume, surely?

      Your suggestion that the list is very useful as a kind of “examination of conscience” exercise is an excellent one.

      The most important one, if I had to choose myself, is the first one; recognising that we have to continuously strive for “self-improvement” or, more appropriately for us, holiness of life.

      And here endeth the lesson – for now, at least!

      September 3, 2013 at 10:13 pm
  • editor

    Well, it seems they’re not too mature over at the Catholic Herald blog after all. I say “after all” because I’ve always praised their non-moderation policy and I’ve commented from time to time myself on their articles.

    When Augustine alerted us (yesterday, I think) on the General Discussion thread to a blog they’re running on Pope Francis’s praise of Cardinal Martini, RIP deceased dissenter, I couldn’t resist putting in my tuppence-worth. Well, also my threepence and fourpenceworth. I posted a few short and to the point remarks for all the world to see.

    They have been removed. So, faced with the dilemma of chucking my rattle out of the pram and flouncing off in contrived rage or asking why they removed my posts, my curiosity got the better of my temper and I posted said question to the blog editor which, at time of this writing, remains unanswered

    Since we always give advance warning on this blog to those in danger of excommunication, I’m of the opinion that I should have been given said warning and since said warning was not issued, said above mentioned temper is very immaturely in danger of erupting. I have my toys at the ready to chuck out of my Catholic Herald pram but will await a response from said blog editor before making that irrevocable decision. To date, in other words, I’m in possession of quality no. 7 in the above “true adult” list. Right now, I’m a true, mature adult, although for how long this happy state will persist, depends on said blog editor at said Catholic Herald. I was alerted to this shocking development by a reader who emailed to say “we may be dealing with the phenomenon of the “internet shill” i.e. someone paid to represent a particular point of view on internet forums.” That’s a new one on me. Wonder how much a “shill” costs? I hope it’s not too much or our regulars will be demanding a pay rise. And said pay rise is out of the question right now, what with the price of cream cakes going up every day.

    You may be wondering from whence I obtained my love of “said” as per above comment. I have a love of “said” dating from my childhood when I learned the following popular Irish poem: says she to me “is that you?” Says I, “who?” Says she,”YOU”, says I – “ME?” Says she, “aye”, says I “no”, says she “it’s awfy like ye…”

    September 4, 2013 at 9:53 am
  • Lily

    That is a very interesting article indeed. I agree that it’s not fair to say most Catholics are immature and gossipy but I think far too many do behave immaturely with little or no provocation.

    From my own observations around people, I think jealousy is usually at the root of animosity. It’s not possible to say that to them, of course, but I can’t see any other explanation. I think no. 2 and no. 6 are very important for someone who wishes to act maturely all the time.

    September 4, 2013 at 11:29 am
  • editor

    N O T I C E . . .

    Please take a moment to post a comment on this disgraceful blog – seems anyone who has emailed opposing the Hillary Clinton invite to St Andrew’s University is guilty of “abuse”. Odd that any opposition to abortion, homosexuality etc is labelled a “hate campaign” while murdering babies in their mother’s womb is “a choice”.

    If you use the Guest feature, you can comment under your own username OR you can make up a new username. Only takes seconds.

    September 4, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    • editor

      I’ve just paid another visit to the blog at The Courier where they are claiming that the University Principal has been receiving hate mail – I’ve posted my own email to her on our website, and offered to publish any such hate mail (which I do not believe exists.)

      If anyone here can spare a few moments, please go onto The Courier blog and comment, however briefly, to log your objections to the honouring of Hillary Clinton. at St Andrew’s University. There are viciously pro-abortion comments on there and only a handful of us giving the pro-life message.

      September 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm
  • crofterlady

    For me it would be nos. 1,3 and 7. Otherwise I’m perfect.

    September 4, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    • editor

      Well, Crofterlady, I’ve just been discussing the maturity (or otherwise) of the Bishop of Aberdeen with specific reference to numbers 2 & 7.

      Allow me to explain…

      I’ve just read Monsignor Basil Loftus’s latest article in the Catholic Times – absolutely horrendous – headed FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN CHURCH’S TEACHING* – he totally rubbishes the doctrine of Original Sin (again) and yet Bishop Gilbert is worried about a small group of people who may attend a TLM offered by Fr Nicholas Mary – see p.14, current newsletter.

      Truly, the world has gone mad.

      * Note: this is also a banner headline on the front page of this week’s Catholic Times. Our strong recommendation to our readers and bloggers is not to buy or read this rag.

      September 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm
      • crofterlady

        How do you mean? I don’t get no.2. Maybe the bishop doesn’t read those papers. How do I get to read those 2 papers for free online?

        September 4, 2013 at 8:47 pm
      • editor


        Well I think no. 2 (able to manage personal jealousy and feelings of envy) and no. 7 (is able to differentiate between rational decision making and emotional impulse.) are closely related and I believe Bishop Gilbert’s determination to stop even a small group of people attending an SSPX Mass on Shetland reveals both envy and emotionalism.

        I say that because why on earth would he bother about a handful of parishioners inviting a Society-associated priest over to Shetland to offer Mass for (I repeat) a handful of Shetlanders, unless deep down, or maybe not so deep down, he knows perfectly well the attraction of the old rite and fears the attraction of the Society clergy? Jealousy, in other words. After all, consider this: did he write or telephone to put a rational case to that little group? Nope. He made an appointment to see them while he was there for Confirmations – in other words, he made an appointment to see them in order to argue an emotional case – as fully reported in our newsletter, see the current edition, details in my previous post, with link.

        As for reading the Catholic Times online – no chance. Last time I checked (a while ago, I admit) there was no Catholic Times website.

        Mgr Loftus is a very dangerous man, who writes mischievously, in a way that appears to be designed for the very purpose of leading the uneducated and the unsuspecting astray, relying heavily, I suggest, on the fact that very few people, if any, will have the time or the know-how to check out his statements.

        When you say check out those “2 papers” – are you referring to Catholic Truth? That is available at the link I gave in my previous post on this subject or you can go to the Newsletter page of our website at and click on “August edition”.

        The Catholic Times, however, is not available online. It’s not even available in all parishes. A lot of parishes don’t take it – laughably (wait for this) because when it was launched with its “Follow Peter” logo at the top of the front page, the Modernist clergy thought it was going to be an orthodox publication and decided they’d stick with the Scottish Catholic Observer and The Tablet with the Catholic Herald as a kind of half-way house. Priceless!

        September 4, 2013 at 10:53 pm
  • Josephine

    Sorry, but I’m going to break the consensus here and say that I do not think it is possible to be a truly mature Catholic if we are missing any of the qualities on the list. It may be that we need to work at some or all of them, but how can a jealous person be a good Catholic? (no.2) By “good Catholic” BTW I just mean a Mass-going, regular practising type, not a saint, obviously.

    How can someone who isn’t striving for self-improvement (1) really be a good Catholic? How can someone who isn’t capable of managing temper and anger (9) really be a good Catholic? I could go on and on, but really that list is really only the very basics of being a good human being and if we’re not that, how can we be a good Catholic?

    September 4, 2013 at 10:28 pm
    • editor


      I think the only answer to the conundrum you present is the Sacrament of Penance. That’s how we can be practising Catholics while lacking virtue as per the items you quote from the list – and the rest!

      September 4, 2013 at 10:57 pm
  • Josephine

    Bishop Gilbert is not going to stop Mgr Loftus writing in the Catholic Times because he obviously agrees with him. It’s not rocket science. If he travelled all the way to Shetland to talk to that group (p.14 Catholic Truth, August 13) to get them not to attend the Latin Mass, then it’s obvious that he agrees with Mgr Loftus or he would travel to Sutherland to tell him so! I think it’s amazing how many people thought he would be a good bishop just because he was a Benedictine.

    September 4, 2013 at 10:31 pm
    • editor

      100% spot on – no, 200% spot on!

      I agree, and it is the stark comparison between the Bishop’s speed to act to prevent Father Nicholas Mary darkening the shores of the Shetland Isles, with his total disregard for the heresies published by Mgr Loftus week after week after week in the Catholic Times AND in the Scottish Catholic Observer, that make it very clear that he is most certainly NOT a mature Catholic, let alone a dutiful bishop – not by any standards.

      September 4, 2013 at 11:00 pm
      • Margaret Mary

        I suppose it might be that Bishop Gilbert wants the other traditional priests, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer I think they’re called, used to be called the Transalpines, to provide the Mass in Shetland. Could that be it? It seems too incredible that the Bishop would be jealous of a traditional priest when he has them in his own diocese. I know there was a problem about them but now that they are reconciled with Rome, I’m sure the bishop will be glad of their ministry on the islands, unless I’m missing something.

        September 5, 2013 at 11:08 am
    • editor


      Bishop Gilbert didn’t just go to Shetland to see the small group about the Mass. He was there for Confirmations and arranged to see the group while he was there.

      Still, you make a key point. I think if he’d ever travelled to Sutherland to see Mgr Loftus and ask him to lay off the heresies for a bit, we’d know about it – Mgr Loftus does not take kindly to being corrected, so methinks his bishop would soon feature in his column – big time – if he ever hinted that his writings were less than perfect.

      September 5, 2013 at 11:02 am
      • sixupman

        I thought +Gilbert was to herald a new start in the Scottish Episcopate? Bang goes that theory!

        September 5, 2013 at 11:13 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    The combox moderators who decided to delete your comments form the Catholic Herald website certainly were not mature. Which figures, since they aren’t Catholic. lol

    September 5, 2013 at 12:27 am
  • Margaret Mary

    I think no. 2 and no. 18 match. It’s really people who are insecure, lacking confidence in themselves who are jealous types.

    I saw that headline on the front page of the Catholic Times, “Fundamental Changes in Church Teaching” last week and I thought it a disgrace. It’s all part of the subliminal message that the Church can change its teaching. How anyone could see that lie on the front page and still buy the paper is anyone’s guess.

    In general, I don’t see how anyone can be a faithful Catholic if they are immature people. Obviously, we have Confession, but I wonder how many people actually make a firm purpose of amendment when they go to confess or is it more common for people just to continue as before? I know people who go to regular confession but won’t make up with people, family or friends, that they’ve fallen out with. How can that be right? To me, that’s immaturity and being an unfaithful Catholic, rolled into one.

    September 5, 2013 at 10:52 am
    • sixupman

      The “subliminal message” broadcast on BBC Religious Programme, last Sunday a.m., I paraphrase:

      ‘Catholic Church teaching will change – but slowly’. Stated by, who else but, +Conry.

      September 5, 2013 at 11:08 am
      • Margaret Mary

        That’s just amazing. How can a bishop say that the Church’s teaching will change when he must know that is not the case.

        Was Bishop Conry talking about teaching in general or any particular teaching?

        September 5, 2013 at 11:10 am
      • Lily

        I guess + Conry is talking about homosexual teaching. This is from Protect The Pope website:

        Terence Weldon, member of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council and writer of Queering the Church, has written that one of the highlight’s of Quest’s 40th anniversary conference was the public reading of an ‘incredibly supportive letter from Bishop Conry that has encouraged Quest to plan to expand its presence in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, and other selected dioceses. Quest is a homosexual Catholic group banned by Cardinal Hume from being included the Catholic Directory as an approved Catholic organisation because of its dissent from Church doctrine by promoting homosexual sex.

        Terence Weldon writes:

        ‘At the Chichester conference itself, a highlight was hearing Ruby read a letter from the Bishop of Arundel & Brighton, Kieron Conroy, in reply to our invitation to him to attend the conference. In his remarkably supportive reply, he noted “with regret” that he would be unable to attend as he would be away in Lourdes.’

        ‘Also during the conference, in formal meetings and in informal conversations, I noted a bubbling up of ideas for new initiatives to expand our activities.

        ‘Then, the day after the conference, came the really exciting news: reports of Pope Francis’ press conference in the flight returning from Brazil, including his insistence that gay people should not be judged. (In effect, he was saying what +Kieron had implied in his letter to us – that he was not judging us). Francis also said that gay men are welcome in the priesthood, and that gay people should be fully included in society. The obvious corollary is that we should similarly be fully integrated in the Church.’

        ‘Taken together, these developments represent an astonishing opportunity for Quest, quite literally a “Kairos moment” for movement toward full inclusion and recognition in the English Catholic Church. For years, the Quest name has been what was described at conference 2012 as a “toxic brand” to the English bishops. This could now change. Supported by Pope Francis’ words on a refusal to judge, and his earlier statements in Brazil warning against clericalism, and the need to “shake up the dioceses”, we should now arrange to meet with +Kieron to discuss ways in which we can co-operate in expanding LGBT ministry in his diocese. Thereafter, we should aim to do the same for other selected dioceses.’

        Protect the Pope comment: Either Terence Weldon is misrepresenting Bishop Conry’s letter to the Quest conference or Bishop Conry has decided to dismiss Cardinal Basil Hume’s judgement that Quest is not an approved Catholic organisation because it promoted homosexual sex. In a letter to Charles Keal, Quest’s chairman at the time, Cardinal Hume wrote explaining that his decision to remove it from the list of approved Catholic organisations was that if an organization was listed with ecclesiastical approval, “the assumption must be that it accepts the church’s teaching set out in a manner that is in no way ambiguous.” The cardinal further explained Quest’s rejection of living ‘chaste lives in accordance with the church’s teaching’ raised concern about the direction Quest was taking. ”It is one thing for the church officially to recognize a support group for Catholic homosexual men and women, struggling, as we all do, to live up to the demands of our shared Christian vocation,” but was clear that an explicit part of Quest’s agenda is “to encourage and recognize loving same-sex partnerships,” which the church cannot accept.’ If Terence Weldon is being honest then Bishop Conry has decided he can accept ‘same-sex partnerships’.

        September 5, 2013 at 11:18 am
      • Augustine

        This man is on his way to eternal damnation unless he repents. It’s as simple as that.

        September 5, 2013 at 11:23 am
      • Margaret Mary

        I completely agree with you Augustine. And if Sixupman is right, this same bishop also wants married priests, Communion for the divorced and remarried etc.

        Is it not true to say then that + Conry is an apostate Catholic? Is that a fair objective judgment to make?

        September 5, 2013 at 11:26 am
      • Augustine

        To be a formal apostate is to have explicitly renounced the Catholic faith. And this he has not done (yet). Here we have someone – not much different from countless other bishops – who rejects the rule of faith in favour of his own preferences and yet remains a bishop. Thus, he is, at the very least, a material heretic in that he asserts that the Church’s moral teaching is subject to change.

        Frankly, I am sick of these wolves in shepherd’s clothing. However, until we have a Pope who upholds Catholic teaching against Modernism we will not see an exodus of heretical bishops. They have things very good at the moment.

        September 5, 2013 at 12:00 pm
      • editor


        I wonder how long it will be before we see some of the bishops do exactly that: explicitly renounce the Faith? Sounds like Bishop Conry has come pretty close.

        And, for the record, given our repeated assertion, in the Catholic Truth newsletter, that these faithless bishops more likely than not have something wrong in their “personal lives” (to use a popular euphemism) we have quoted from a lengthy Christian Order report on Bishop Conry in the past, which might well be subtitled Not the most edifying bishop you’ll ever meet…

        Christian Order wrote this about Bishop Conry back in 2002. (Emphases added by Editor, Catholic Truth)

        Bishop Kieran Conry

        Father Summersgill, of course, can afford a ‘sticks and stones…’ response to all this, because he is on track for the episcopal heights and controversies are not about to derail him. Should he ever strike trouble, however, he need only phone Bishop Kieran Conry for reassurance. Recently installed in Cardinal Murphy O’Connor’s former diocese of Arundel and Brighton (or what is left of it after his tenure), the former Mgr. Conry was earmarked for higher things by Cardinal Hume during his time as Director of the Catholic Media Office. Despite one priest’s assessment of his time there as being “by any objective standards a disaster,” Mgr Conry became one of the sponsored ‘untouchables’ – and acted accordingly. “For a period I saw quite a bit of Conry,” a deacon confided. “He seemed to live in a secular, corporate world rather than a priestly one. I never once saw him dressed as a priest. His point of view was unfailingly liberal.” In other words, he was left to do his own thing. And if that is considered par for the priestly course nowadays, I guess one could say the same about his ‘special friendship.’ “Kieran was often seen out and about with his female friend,” a London priest informed me. “Everyone knew about it in the same way that everyone, including the bishops, knew about the homosexual relationship between Martin Pendergast [ex-Carmelite priest] and Julian Filochowski [Director of CAFOD, the bishops’ overseas aid agency].”

        Several years ago, around the time of the Roddy Wright scandal, I explored how British bishops turn a blind eye to the “occasion of sin” in which a priest “keeping company” places himself, tempting fate and grave scandal [“Six Bishops and a Funeral: Why The Common Good was Dead on Arrival,” CO, Jan. 1997]. At that time, in commenting on the routine breaking of vows of chastity acknowledged by the hierarchy in a message to the Pope, Mgr (now Bishop) Arthur Roche had assured The Times that “… the bishops of England and Wales are realists.” Just how “realistic” they are I indicated by relating, among other cases, the example of the London priest well known to be living with his Pastoral Assistant, who he took along to Deanery meetings at the Bishop’s house! In that context, Mgr Conry ‘merely’ keeping regular company in such public fashion is hardly surprising. Yet even if such increasingly common ‘relationships’ are purely platonic, the point is that scandal is given, above all to those of simple and delicate conscience who are offended by it and interpret it in a bad sense. St. Joseph Cafasso, a nineteenth century version of the Cure of Ars, called this kind of scandal “the scandal of the little ones.” A priest’s life is not his own, and so the Saint exhorts him to absolutely abstain from any behaviour which might give scandal, even if caused by appearance only and the result of the ignorance of others.

        One assumes that this is the case with Mgr Conry. But regardless, does it not leave the gravest questions about ecclesiastical propriety? Not to say about his prudential judgement and ability to offer wise moral leadership and counsel to others? Especially when shortly before his episcopal consecration Mass he is seen in Italy strolling hand in hand and enjoying leisurely outings with his lady friend at Palazzola, the residence on Lake Albano belonging to the English College. Again, it was the appearance of scandal that upset those who viewed the liaison, including one priest who was sufficiently disgusted to make representations to a Vatican Congregation. Word quickly spread and it is said that Church authorities may have queried Mgr Conry about the matter. Whatever the case, it is a measure of the unqualified protection afforded to Modernist cronies that not only did Mgr Conry’s less than discreet romantic entanglement not disqualify him from consideration for a bishopric in the first place, but that the Palazzola coup de grace did not even delay his elevation by a single day. It is especially shocking in light of the numerous sexual scandals in recent years which have caused such harm to the Church in general and episcopate in particular, and which, one might have thought, would have seen Rome acting swiftly to snuff out the slightest possibility of further tabloid headlines. Not on your life. Ensconced in a plum see, Bishop Conry is now fulfilling the standard expectations of his liberal patrons: Protestantising and bureaucratizing his diocese behind a welter of Modernist buzz-words about “community,” “renewal” and “change.” END OF EXTRACT ON BISHOP CONRY

        September 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm
      • crofterlady

        I’ve just read that (LONG!) Christian Order linked above and it is stupendous. I had no idea how deep and prolonged the crisis in the Church has been in these isles. I was truly gobsmacked at some of the revelations about negligent (to put it mildly) bishops even from the 90’s and beyond. How come we don’t get to know these things? I know my mother always had a question mark over Cardinal Hume but I didn’t understand why. I think that article should be sent to every bishop in this country as sometimes I think they are just deluded.

        September 5, 2013 at 2:12 pm
      • editor


        I have said often, and I say it again: the bishops have lost the Faith. They are apostates.

        That’s why anyone who has the opportunity to speak to their bishop – or any bishop – needs to speak out. They need to be asked to openly affirm their belief in every single dogma of the Faith without reservation. Anyone so committed to ecumenism cannot do that, in my humble opinion. It takes a huge leap to move from an ecumenical (let’s not focus on what divides us) mindset to an affirmation of belief in every doctrine that divides us from Protestants and non-believers.

        I suggest you read over, once again, the Fly on the Wall in Aberdeen article published in the current newsletter. Note the Bishop of Aberdeen’s conviction about ecumenism; note his position on the TLM. A deluded person stands a chance of being convinced by superior evidence that he or she is wrong. Do you really think the same is true of an apostate – someone who no longer holds to the most elementary truths of the Faith?

        September 5, 2013 at 3:35 pm
      • Augustine

        Would it make difference if they read it?

        There was a time I would have said “yes”. Sadly, that time is no more.

        Faith is the first purification of the intellect, as St Thomas Aquinas observed, and if faith has been lost the intellect is then darkened to the point that blatant contradictions can no longer be perceived.The habit of first principles which equips us to assent to the self-evident truths (the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of identity, and the principle of the excluded middle), and to detect whatever violates these self-evident truths, is corrupted.

        These Bishops appear to have lost – if they ever had it – the supernatural virtue of faith and, thus, to have fallen into deep irrationality: how can they reconcile post-Vatican II ecumenism with the crystal-clear words of our Lord in His Great Commission to preach the Gospel to all nations? They can’t. But it certainly doesn’t bother them.

        We should really pray for them. I am guilty of such resentment against these false shepherds who have abandoned their flocks that I – at times – take a perverse comfort in the thought of their stringent judgement. But, really, this is contrary to the will of our Lord and these men are in such clear danger of being lost eternally that we should pray for their salvation. Let’s fact it: they probably aren’t praying for their own.

        September 5, 2013 at 7:27 pm
      • editor


        I was suggesting that CrofterLady re-read the article – not the Bishops. They truly don’t care.

        I’ve quoted, at length, the information from Christian Order about Bishop Conry (see above), sent it to him with a note directing him to my editorial comments, and not heard a whiff from any lawyer. Changed days. In the beginning we were receiving legal threats like they were going out of fashion. Things have moved on from then. They truly do not care. Brazen, I believe, is the word.

        Yes, of course, we should pray for them and I believe you are right to suggest that they aren’t praying for their own salvation – why should they when they believe it to be secured, already and that for one and all – whether we believe in this God or that God or no God at all…

        September 5, 2013 at 7:34 pm
  • sixupman

    Married clergy; divorced/re-married Communion; “gay” understanding; grrater part for women: you name it, he is for it.

    September 5, 2013 at 11:16 am
    • Lily

      I knew he wanted the homosexuals in his diocese so he is highly unlikely to be against other changes sought by liberals. What is going on with bishops like him and + Gilbert?

      September 5, 2013 at 11:20 am
      • editor

        Er, “the diabolical disorientation” is what’s going on with bishops like him and + Gilbert, Lily. The “diabolical disorientation” warned of by Our Lady of Fatima, through the seer, Sr Lucia. Simple as that.

        September 5, 2013 at 12:47 pm
  • Lily

    The more I think of this topic, the more I realise that “immaturity” in a personality must impact on the maturity of their faith. Bishops Conry and Gilbert are not at all mature people and thus they cannot be mature in the spiritual life.

    September 5, 2013 at 11:23 am
    • editor


      I’d say that you’ve about summed up this topic nicely. In the proverbial nutshell.

      September 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I remember a story of a Priest who lived near to me, and he refused to give a first communion to a little boy who had Down’s Syndrome. I believe that if someone is ‘immature’ through no fault of their own, then that should not preclude them from being a good person, let alone a good Catholic. Therefore, that little boy should have been given his first communion, and that priest should have been disciplined.

    As for people who are spiritually immature, i.e so called Catholics who support gay marriage, abortion etc, they are not ‘immature’ they are imbeciles. To be a good Catholic, one must not only go through the motions and just go to Mass every Sunday, one must read the Bible and the Catechism properly to gain a true understanding of sound Church doctrine. I sometimes wonder how many imbeciles have ever read the Catechism?


    September 5, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    • Josephine


      I was so shocked at the idea of a priest refusing Holy Communion to a Down’s Syndrome child that I Googled to see if there were other cases like this. I found this on Catholic Answers

      Near the end it says that the priest didn’t refuse him because he was Down’s but just for the present – everyone has to understand Who it is they receive, before making First Communion. One commentator pointed out that since Down’s children often operate around 7 years, there wouldn’t normally be a problem with them being allowed to receive the Eucharist.

      September 5, 2013 at 7:21 pm
  • Josephine


    “I sometimes wonder how many imbeciles have ever read the Catechism?”

    I think the Catechism says something about not calling people “imbeciles” so maybe you should take another look!

    September 5, 2013 at 7:23 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    They are imbeciles because they claim to be something they are not and obstinately refuse to admit they are wrong.

    September 5, 2013 at 7:59 pm
  • editor


    I can think of at least a dozen folk upfront whom I could happily dub “imbeciles” (all of them Catholics who fit your description of an “imbecile”!) – but it’s better not to name-call, only adds to your list of matter for Confession.

    It would have been just as easy to ask how many Catholics have read the Catechism – or how many Modernists/ “liberals” etc. Those are recognised terms for people whom one would rightly expect to have read the Catechism.

    Cast your eye over our About Us page again before you next post. It gets kinda wearing for me, an adult, to have to “keep an eye” on the behaviour of other adults in any given discussion. A blog is a discussion in writing so really we shouldn’t treat people differently from we would in oral discussion.

    Anybody called me an imbecile in conversation and they would find that a certain imbecile had landed them in the nearest Casualty Department with a very sore nose!

    September 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I wouldn’t call you an imbecile would I because I have no reason to. Talking of the Confession, is it a sin to miss Mass on a Sunday, but with a good reason, i.e looking after a seriously ill parent?


    September 9, 2013 at 8:28 pm
  • spiritustempore

    Comment removed.

    Note: your posts are moderated, which means two things:

    (1) only those comments which engage, seriously, with the topic will be released. Outright acrimony and/or smart alec remarks won’t make it through.

    (2) anyone responding, who names “spiritustempore” will also go into moderation and cannot be released if I’m not around to release them. The system recognises “spiritustempore” as being moderated, so please take care. Obviously, there is nothing to respond to in this post, but take note that if you type “spiritustempore” your post will go into moderation so that I see if before it is published.

    September 12, 2013 at 12:08 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: