Sin and that sort of thing

Jester Minute

Following a conversation I had today with a friend, I wanted to start a Catholic-only poll for Catholic members living in Ireland, whether north or south.

wolfsbane

Jester Minute wrote: »

Following a conversation I had today with a friend, I wanted to start a Catholic-only poll for Catholic members living in Ireland, whether north or south.

A very interesting poll! If I knew how to set one up for Protestants, I'd do the same.
___________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jester Minute

Yeah, all the time

wolfsbane wrote: »

A very interesting poll! If I knew how to set one up for Protestants, I'd do the same.
___________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

It is very easy - just start a new thread as usual BUT BEFORE you click 'post' make sure you tick the option at the bottom to begin a new thread Choose the number of options you want and if you want folks to be able to choose one or more option. Choose your poll question and specific options and you're done.

Dewdropdeb

Occasionally

I voted rarely. I hear hell mentioned from time to time, but have never heard a priest get into the specifics of sin. Everything is so watered down these days. Pre-marriage courses don't even touch on contraception for goodness sakes. And when truth is preached, the logic and reasoning behind it is rarely explored. This is an age of reason and people need to understand the principles behind teachings if they are to be expected to live by them. I used to think half of what the church taught was BS, but when I actually familiarised myself with the reasoning behind things, I realised it was a very different story altogether.

prinz

Not often a specific sexual sin, nor would I particularly want to. Yes to other sins, infrequent mentions of hell, because that should be a given tbh. Sermons can be more useful than that IMO.

Jester Minute

Yeah, all the time

prinz wrote: »

Not often a specific sexual sin, nor would I particularly want to. Yes to other sins, infrequent mentions of hell, because that should be a given tbh. Sermons can be more useful than that IMO.

I'm not so sure its a given. One often hears about how easy and often people go to heaven. Especially at funerals, where people are often 'canonised'.

Many Catholics now believe in universal salvation. Which is heresy btw.

Many people at Mass are co-habiting, addicted to porn, fornication etc.... and they are still trooping up to Holy Communion. Most married RCCs are contracepting and some are aborting. Some don't care and many haven't a clue and most of the priests are happy to leave them in their ignorance. Ignorance, is bliss, right? Right? So, no need for confession, and everyone is welcome to receive Holy Communion, whether they be in mortal sin or not. What odds seems to be the order of the day.

prinz

Jester Minute wrote: »

I'm not so sure its a given. One often hears about how easy and often people go to heaven. Especially at funerals, where people are often 'canonised'..

I agree with that, especially with some of the worst criminal elements in our country. They always seem to manage to find a priest to wax lyrical on what a great father/friend/community person x was, despite the fact that he was a drug dealing, murdering scumbag.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Many people at Mass are co-habiting, addicted to porn, fornication etc.... and they are still trooping up to Holy Communion. Most married RCCs are contracepting and some are aborting. Some don't care and many haven't a clue and most of the priests are happy to leave them in their ignorance. ..

You have a couple of options here, (a) the priest is speaking in general terms about people outside of the Church or (b) the priest is referring to particular people inside the Church. If it's a case of (a) I'd rather not hear it, the Church is in a bad way precisely because they spent too much time worrying about what everyone else was getting up to rather than minding their own house and if it's (b) again, I don't need to hear it day in/day out. Our Church shouldn't be about naming and shaming. Turning people away is not always the best option, wouldn't be better to try to bring people in and share a better way with them?

Jester Minute wrote: »

Ignorance, is bliss, right? Right? So, no need for confession, and everyone is welcome to receive Holy Communion, whether they be in mortal sin or not. What odds seems to be the order of the day.

Do you propose we return to the days when a priest would refuse people Holy Communion?

Dewdropdeb

Occasionally

Jester Minute wrote: »

Many people at Mass are co-habiting, addicted to porn, fornication etc.... and they are still trooping up to Holy Communion. Most married RCCs are contracepting and some are aborting. Some don't care and many haven't a clue and most of the priests are happy to leave them in their ignorance. Ignorance, is bliss, right? Right? So, no need for confession, and everyone is welcome to receive Holy Communion, whether they be in mortal sin or not. What odds seems to be the order of the day.

And how is this your business exactly? Isn't this between them, their confessor and God?

I agree that the priests need to be more exact and educate people, however I can't help but get this sense of superiority from all your posts. That unless someone fits into your exact view of what a good Catholic is - a view that seems to be somewhat based on snap judgments and assumptions - that you are somehow on a higher moral plain and have the right to judge them. Maybe I've got it all wrong, but that's the way it comes across. One of the biggest mistakes we can make as Christians is taking on roles meant for God alone - i.e. the judgement of our fellow man.

Jester Minute

Yeah, all the time

prinz wrote: »

You have a couple of options here, (a) the priest is speaking in general terms about people outside of the Church or (b) the priest is referring to particular people inside the Church. If it's a case of (a) I'd rather not hear it, the Church is in a bad way precisely because they spent too much time worrying about what everyone else was getting up to rather than minding their own house and if it's (b) again, I don't need to hear it day in/day out. Our Church shouldn't be about naming and shaming. Turning people away is not always the best option, wouldn't be better to try to bring people in and share a better way with them?

Do you propose we return to the days when a priest would refuse people Holy Communion?

The Vatican seems to think some people should be denied Holy Communion, such as pro-abort 'Catholic' politicians.

Remember also that it was laxity in Canon Law which aided the perverts... Ignoring Canon Laws costs souls, whether fallen priests, victims of abuse, or the people influenced by pro-abort politicians, as well as the subjects themselves.

Canon Law also proscribes the denial of Holy Communion to some persons. The person must be in public, manifest grave sin, and they must be warned in advance not to approach HC line until they are resolved, i.e. give up the oul sins and go to confession. Private sin is a different matter (see below).

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=1895&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=670436

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

If someone is in manifest, public, serious sin e.g. a pro-abort politician, a man committing adultery publicly etc... These persons should be denied HC because to give them HC causes grave scandal to the faithful. They look upon this and think, ''Well Joe is living with yer woman, and so it must be ok'' and so they are scandalised, and may be led to relax their own morals.

It is the teaching of the Church. I know it's not popular, but that's just the way it is.

It is different with private, grave sin. Say I am addicted to porn, well nobody knows that except me and my confessor. If I approach for HC the priest cannot deny me HC (even though it would be a sacrilegious Communion, because a. he can't break the seal of confessional, or b. he is not my confessor and doesn't know about my secret sin.

It becomes an issue when the sin is publicly manifested, such as pro-abort politicians or people openly living in sin, committing adultery or fornication (co-habitation).

The fact of the matter is this: many Catholics who are still going to Mass are co-habiting, contracepting, and fornicating, and they troop up to HC like nothing is the matter. Whether they know or not, it is the priest who is bound to instruct his people. Most priests are not doing this, preferring instead to keep quiet and let the people perish peacefully in their sins.

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

And how is this your business exactly? Isn't this between them, their confessor and God?

I agree that the priests need to be more exact and educate people, however I can't help but get this sense of superiority from all your posts. That unless someone fits into your exact view of what a good Catholic is - a view that seems to be somewhat based on snap judgments and assumptions - that you are somehow on a higher moral plain and have the right to judge them. Maybe I've got it all wrong, but that's the way it comes across. One of the biggest mistakes we can make as Christians is taking on roles meant for God alone - i.e. the judgement of our fellow man.

Like I aid, IT IS my business IF the sin is public. If a man is shacked up with a woman and he is trooping up for HC then it is my business because I am being scandalised. Everyone knows he is fornicating with yer woman, and yet it's ok with the priest that he troops up for HC. That's scandalous and it influences people. Not me, because I am formed in the faith, but those weak in faith and morals, who look on and think that mortal sin is not so bad after all because you can, after all, receive Holy Communion anyway so what's the problem? It shouldn't be happening. It's a different thing if it is a private sin, that is known only to myself and my confessor.

I base all I say on the teachings of the Church. If I'm mistaken somewhere, I'd welcome that being pointed out to me.

You fall down in your confusion about what is judgement. The modern world uses the refrain 'Don't be judgemental!'' to anyone who would dare to suggest that anything is immoral. The judgement that is reserved to God is on who will go to heaven or hell. We are, as Catholics, required to exercise the Spiritual Works of Mercy, which involve what the world calls 'being judgemental'. What are they?

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

If you are shacked up with a woman, then I ought to admonish you. I also am duty bound to instruct you. So say you think it is fine to shack up with a woman, then I ought to instruct you, according to your ability to understand, and admonish you. These are spiritual works of mercy, because by doing them, I can help prevent you going to hell. Remember, Christ has no arms or hands or tongue on earth now but ours. We are meant to continue His work on earth.

Dewdropdeb

Occasionally

Jester Minute wrote: »

Like I aid, IT IS my business IF the sin is public. If a man is shacked up with a woman and he is trooping up for HC then it is my business because I am being scandalised. Everyone knows he is fornicating with yer woman, and yet it's ok with the priest that he troops up for HC. That's scandalous and it influences people. Not me, because I am formed in the faith, but those weak in faith and morals, who look on and think that mortal sin is not so bad after all because you can, after all, receive Holy Communion anyway so what's the problem? It shouldn't be happening. It's a different thing if it is a private sin, that is known only to myself and my confessor.

I base all I say on the teachings of the Church. If I'm mistaken somewhere, I'd welcome that being pointed out to me.

You fall down in your confusion about what is judgement. The modern world uses the refrain 'Don't be judgemental!'' to anyone who would dare to suggest that anything is immoral. The judgement that is reserved to God is on who will go to heaven or hell. We are, as Catholics, required to exercise the Spiritual Works of Mercy, which involve what the world calls 'being judgemental'. What are they?



If you are shacked up with a woman, then I ought to admonish you. I also am duty bound to instruct you. So say you think it is fine to shack up with a woman, then I ought to instruct you, according to your ability to understand, and admonish you. These are spiritual works of mercy, because by doing them, I can help prevent you going to hell. Remember, Christ has no arms or hands or tongue on earth now but ours. We are meant to continue His work on earth.

First things first - you said in your initial post "The fact of the matter is this: many Catholics who are still going to Mass are co-habiting, contracepting, and fornicating, and they troop up to HC like nothing is the matter. Whether they know or not, it is the priest who is bound to instruct his people. Most priests are not doing this, preferring instead to keep quiet and let the people perish peacefully in their sins."

That is mostly conjecture. You don't know who's contracepting, fornicating and the like, you are making assumptions of your fellow parishioners who along side with you say their Confitor and commit to pray for you. If you're going to "admonish" one of them, you better be sure as hell you're right. You also do not know your priest(s) haven't spoken to them or said something to them or indeed are working with them. I think also the presumption that some priests would rather keep quiet is a bit of a stretch. You don't know whats going on in terms of that priests thoughts, diocesan politics and general parish background.

Second, I am well aware of my duty to admonish sinners. I have two children, I admonish on an hourly basis on a good day. However, this is something I've spoken at length to various priests and indeed a retired bishop who is a good family friend. I used to worry about this constantly as I felt that in order to be the humble servant Christ asks for, I shouldn't intrude on other people's business.

The resounding response I got from various clergy was that this duty is something that falls within your personal sphere. I.E. A parent to their children, a doctor to their patients, a teacher to their students etc etc etc. I was also told that admonishment is something that should be reserved for those receptive to it and that the benefits of admonishment should outweigh other methods of witnessing. I'm hardly going to start lecturing my atheist gay friends on the errs of their ways, it would do nothing but test friendships that give me an opportunity to be a silent witness to Christ. Wouldn't my effort and indeed any result be better utilised witnessing by example than by severing ties with dogmatic theories?

It's one of my big issues with the pro-life movement (with which I am heavily involved) at the moment too. Using religion to get the point across is never going to work, because the other side don't speak God. Their message can be made clear in secular and scientific language and I believe more people would realise the truth of this holocaust if they understood the language it was being spoken in.

It is our duty to use the talents we were given to be a witness to Christ's teaching, not drive people away from it. If someone will benefit more spiritually by me staying silent then that is the route I will take. I also look to the Holy Father on this one. He regularly admonishes sinners, but in a gentle and general manner. He doesn't make presumptions either. Look at what happened in England. He didn't preach fire and brimstone, yet people were drawn to him. His humility and silent presence won more souls than any dogmatic sermon could have.

In summary, I'll keep my admonishments to those in my own sphere of influence, to whom I actually know something about as opposed to making blanket assumptions about people based on things I hear or see. I'm pretty sure gossip is a bad thing too, so you might want to consider how you know yer wan is shacking up yer man and consider if you should even be listening to such sources.

I'll also not waste time or hurt people with words that would do no good if their hearts are not open to Christ. I will try to open their hearts with my silent example of living in accordance with His word.

Jester Minute

Yeah, all the time

First things first - you said in your initial post "The fact of the matter is this: many Catholics who are still going to Mass are co-habiting, contracepting, and fornicating, and they troop up to HC like nothing is the matter. Whether they know or not, it is the priest who is bound to instruct his people. Most priests are not doing this, preferring instead to keep quiet and let the people perish peacefully in their sins."

That is mostly conjecture. You don't know who's contracepting (I know personally people who contracept and receive HC and who hear not a word about why this might be wrong from their priest. Nor do these people go to confession and even if they did, it is not the priest's place to pry for sin that is not confessed, UNLESS the penitent requests the priest's assistance to make a good confession), fornicating and the like, you are making assumptions of your fellow parishioners who along side with you say their Confitor and commit to pray for you. If you're going to "admonish" one of them, you better be sure as hell you're right (again, you jump to your conclusions. I would say that a person must have a relationship with the person before they admonish. You don't just go up to the stranger on the street and admonish them). You also do not know your priest(s) haven't spoken to them or said something to them or indeed are working with them. I think also the presumption that some priests would rather keep quiet is a bit of a stretch (Is it? When was the last time you heard a sermon on Humanae vitae or anything at all about contraception?). You don't know whats going on in terms of that priests thoughts, diocesan politics and general parish background. (Yeah exactly: politics. Most priests and bishops have too much too lose if they were to preach the full truth. Licentious patrons are bums on seats and money in the collection plate. Preaching the truth would send them away in fury)

Second, I am well aware of my duty to admonish sinners. I have two children, I admonish on an hourly basis on a good day. However, this is something I've spoken at length to various priests and indeed a retired bishop who is a good family friend. I used to worry about this constantly as I felt that in order to be the humble servant Christ asks for, I shouldn't intrude on other people's business. (There is a difference between intruding, being a busy-body and doing the spiritual works of mercy. You need to discern the difference)

The resounding response I got from various clergy was that this duty is something that falls within your personal sphere (exactly what I said above). I.E. A parent to their children, a doctor to their patients, a teacher to their students etc etc etc. I was also told that admonishment is something that should be reserved for those receptive to it and that the benefits of admonishment (true) should outweigh other methods of witnessing. I'm hardly going to start lecturing my atheist gay friends on the errs of their ways (admonishing sinners and instructing the ignorant is not lecturing), it would do nothing but test friendships that give me an opportunity to be a silent witness to Christ. Wouldn't my effort and indeed any result be better utilised witnessing by example than by severing ties with dogmatic theories (the Dogmas of the faith are lights in our faith. If you are Catholic, the Doctrine of the Church is not a meaningless, abstract irrelevant 'theories' - it involves our living our faith and affecting our lives in a real, living way with concrete effects. Perhaps also you might consider if certain friendships are healthy for either party. Especially you, since you are likely to be infected with the beliefs and behaviours of your friends.)?

It's one of my big issues with the pro-life movement (with which I am heavily involved) (YD?)at the moment too. Using religion to get the point across is never going to work, because the other side don't speak God (If they don't care about God, what makes you think they care about babies?). Their message can be made clear in secular and scientific language and I believe more people would realise the truth of this holocaust if they understood the language it was being spoken in. (There are lots of approaches. Some work better than others. That's for another thread, perhaps 'Approaches to Pro-Life work'.)

It is our duty to use the talents we were given to be a witness to Christ's teaching, not drive people away from it. If someone will benefit more spiritually by me staying silent then that is the route I will take. I also look to the Holy Father on this one. He regularly admonishes sinners, but in a gentle and general manner (exactly). He doesn't make presumptions either. Look at what happened in England. He didn't preach fire and brimstone, yet people were drawn to him. His humility and silent presence won more souls than any dogmatic sermon could have. (Be careful in your quick jump to accuse me of being 'judgemental' you aren't committing the same 'sin' yourself. I've given no matter for you to base any of your spurious allegations and insinuations on, yet you go ahead anyway.)

In summary, I'll keep my admonishments to those in my own sphere of influence, to whom I actually know something about as opposed to making blanket assumptions about people based on things I hear or see. I'm pretty sure gossip is a bad thing too, so you might want to consider how you know yer wan is shacking up yer man and consider if you should even be listening to such sources. (public sin is public sin and that is the teaching of the Church. If you have issue with that, take it up with the Magisterium - did you even read my links above?)

I'll also not waste time or hurt people with words that would do no good if their hearts are not open to Christ (you need discernment). I will try to open their hearts with my silent example of living in accordance with His word.


I've replied to your points in red. Although it makes it harder to quote, it saves me the hassle of all that copying and pasting quote formatters!

BTW, conservative estimates show that at least 80% of Catholics disregard the Church teaching on artificial contraception. It is acknowledged that the ignoring of this teaching is one of the main factors in the collapse of the Sacrament of Confession. Despite most Catholics avoiding confession and engaging in contraception, most troop up to receive HC on a Sunday. If you can show any of these claims to be false, feel free.

Dewdropdeb

Occasionally

I'm not gonna bother replying to all that in purple or something. :rolleyes:

There is a difference between intruding, being a busy-body and doing the spiritual works of mercy. You need to discern the difference

I think you'll find my entire post circumvented around that difference. It seems perhaps I've misread you, although I think your wording leaves you open to that.

It seems we do agree on a good bit and I do apologise if I read into things that you didn't actually mean, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking your posts can come across as if you hold some superiority complex and the rest of us are but uneducated fools who need lecturing on things we are quite familiar with. The way your post came across was as a blanket statement on your fellow parishioners, I'm glad to hear you didn't mean it that way, but perhaps you'll think about phrasing next time. You say you've "given no matter for you to base any of your spurious allegations and insinuations on, yet you go ahead anyway." but if you look at your phrasing - many Catholics, most priests etc - I think you should be able to see how I came to the conclusion that you are making mass assumptions.

(admonishing sinners and instructing the ignorant is not lecturing)

No, but it can come across that way to people of weaker or no faith.

the Dogmas of the faith are lights in our faith. If you are Catholic, the Doctrine of the Church is not a meaningless, abstract irrelevant 'theories' - it involves our living our faith and affecting our lives in a real, living way with concrete effects. Perhaps also you might consider if certain friendships are healthy for either party. Especially you, since you are likely to be infected with the beliefs and behaviours of your friends.

Agreed - with the first part - however I wasn't referring to me, I was referring to people I might have the opportunity to witness to. People who would cut off any chance I have to do so, should I start evangelising and telling them why they are wrong. Wouldn't I be better off working as a silent example? As for me being "infected" by their behaviours or beliefs, don't be ridiculous. :rolleyes: That attitude is so preposterous. Cutting people off because of a difference in ideology or lifestyle is not living out our duty to call others to convert. Did Jesus cut off sinners lest his followers be "infected"? I think not. Having said that, I will agree that this can be a danger to less mature souls. It was certainly a problem I had when I started university at 17. Within weeks of arriving I'd stopped going to mass and bought into the secular community there. Unfortunately that lasted for about 12 years and that's something I'll mourn for the rest of my life.

If they don't care about God, what makes you think they care about babies?

Ummm.... they care about trees? And no, not YD, I don't like the way some of those kids behave especially in regard to our gay brothers and sisters but I'm the first to admit they do some good work and certainly are doing a good job using social media unlike some of the more mature organisations.

And no, I didn't read your links, because they were in response to the other poster in regard to the witholding of communion, something of which I have no problem with. I'm an avid reader/lurker on many of the sites you regularly link to tho.

Anyways... in summary, I apologise if I misread you and I think we agree on most things although I may have what you envision as a lighter touch whereas I am not partial to the more fundamental approach you take (in writ, not in principle). At the end of the day we're working towards the same goal and that's what really counts.

prinz

Jester Minute wrote: »

If someone is in manifest, public, serious sin e.g. a pro-abort politician, a man committing adultery publicly etc... These persons should be denied HC because to give them HC causes grave scandal to the faithful. They look upon this and think, ''Well Joe is living with yer woman, and so it must be ok'' and so they are scandalised, and may be led to relax their own morals..

Which would be to assume the faithful are dim-witted sheep. Your morals should not be constructed based on what other people are doing/getting away with.

Jester Minute wrote: »

It becomes an issue when the sin is publicly manifested, such as pro-abort politicians or people openly living in sin, committing adultery or fornication (co-habitation)...

The problem in the world today is that the congregation in a parish of any size is changing. If the priest doesn't recognise your face will he deny HC just in case? What if you are new to an area? Are the moral police going to come round to search your house for contraception or a marriage cert?

Jester Minute wrote: »

The fact of the matter is this: many Catholics who are still going to Mass are co-habiting, contracepting, and fornicating, and they troop up to HC like nothing is the matter. Whether they know or not, it is the priest who is bound to instruct his people. Most priests are not doing this, preferring instead to keep quiet and let the people perish peacefully in their sins.

I think these people already know what they are doing.

Jester Minute wrote: »

Like I aid, IT IS my business IF the sin is public. If a man is shacked up with a woman and he is trooping up for HC then it is my business because I am being scandalised..

How so? What comes after denying HC? - Should the priest shame people into non-attendance at mass? Perhaps he should instruct the faithful to shun these people, through business and personal relationships?

georgieporgy

Yeah, all the time

It isn't a question of the priest denying communion to someone. It's a matter of educating the people so that they realise they are in a state of sin and therefore should not present themselves for communion.

That's how I learnt it at age six. I understood it then and still understand it now.

Dewdropdeb

Occasionally

Just caught your edit, tsk tsk.

Jester Minute wrote: »

BTW, conservative estimates show that at least 80% of Catholics disregard the Church teaching on artificial contraception.

Pope Benedict says: " the results of surveys about what people do or how they live is not in and of itself the measure of what is true and right."

Jester Minute

Yeah, all the time

prinz wrote: »

Which would be to assume the faithful are dim-witted sheep. Your morals should not be constructed based on what other people are doing/getting away with.

How so? What comes after denying HC? - Should the priest shame people into non-attendance at mass? Perhaps he should instruct the faithful to shun these people, through business and personal relationships?

Hate to break it to you, but most people are dim-witted sheep. And they do follow the general trends of society and the example set.

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

Just caught your edit, tsk tsk.

Pope Benedict says: " the results of surveys about what people do or how they live is not in and of itself the measure of what is true and right."

Exactly. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. Just as truth is not determined by a majority vote!

prinz

Jester Minute wrote: »

Hate to break it to you, but most people are dim-witted sheep. And they do follow the general trends of society and the example set.

Yeah I don't think this argument applies to most people attending mass on a frequent basis tbh. I don't see most consistent church-goers turning around to get into adultery just because Joe Bloggs in the next aisle over is doing it and can still get HC.

Jester Minute

Yeah, all the time

prinz wrote: »

Yeah I don't think this argument applies to most people attending mass on a frequent basis tbh. I don't see most consistent church-goers turning around to get into adultery just because Joe Bloggs in the next aisle over is doing it and can still get HC.

Many people going to Mass are weak in the faith and their level of catechesis is poor. People are influenced by others around them. When immorality is tolerated and becomes normalised, people begin to soften on important moral issues. There is a general lowering of morals and an acceptance of what is immoral.

(If you doubt this, sit down with a group of Catholics in any parish, talk to them and see what kinds of views they espouse. You'll find all sorts of things contrary to Catholic faith and moral teaching.)