Carlene

The 16th century was a loooooong time ago. I was speaking of more recent practices - like in my lifetime, for example. And there was that nasty business, the Spanish Inquisition, but we don't do that any more, either. Protestants do not believe that they are consuming the actual body and blood of Christ when they receive Communion. Not any I know, at least. They believe it is a symbolic act. But let's hear from some real, practicing Protestants....anyone up for this question? Catholics are prohibited from participating in the religious rituals of other denominations. We can attend weddings, funerals, etc but we aren't supposed to take Communion, "witness" or, God forbid, "get saved". There are probably some who do it, but we aren't supposed to. I taught CCD for about a hundred years and that question came up frequently. As for not taking Communion without Confession, boy, are you out of the loop! That went out with Vatican II. We are required to confess mortal sin once a year and venial sin not at all. While we are on the subject, let me mention that Catholics do not worship the Blessed Virgin (we venerate her, and there is a difference), nor do we worship statues. We do not believe that unbaptized babies go to hell, or that priests, by themselves, can forgive sins. You cannot confess on Saturday morning and start all over Saturday night with a clean slate. Yes, we think we are the original Christian church, but that's because we are. You can't argue with history. To anyone who thinks being a Catholic is easy, you are wrong. It's very, very hard to be a good Catholic. But I think it's hard to be a good Christian - period. It's true that I have had my share of bad stuff happen. I have buried both my parents, two husbands, and a grandchild. All that has strengthened my faith, without which I would never have survived, and taught me what is really important and what is just window dressing. And most of it is just window dressing, believe me.

My husbands had a total of 3 previous marriages between them, all of which had to be annulled by the Catholic Church in order for us to be married - many years apart and in two different dioceses. None of the 3 annulments cost us a single dime. Not one single dime. On the other hand, my DH and I have some now-married friends who were both previously married in the Church. It took 3 years for their annulments to be granted. He (the groom) would gladly have paid for the annulments, had they been "for sale". The truth is, they aren't. A church annulment requires extensive documentation and many, many hours of preparation. You must have an advocate (similar to an attorney in a civil divorce) and submit pleadings to a tribunal of clergymen (the "judges")who are very thoroughly schooled in Church law. And in the end, not all annulments are granted. Some parishes are quite poor and/or small and can't provide the personnel to facilitate an annulment for free. They will find a way to subsidize a parishioner who lacks the necessary funds, however. The most I have ever heard of anyone paying was $500.00. By the way, you wouldn't expect to receive a civil divorce for free, would you?

I think it's one of those huge balloons from the Thanksgiving parade.

The C word??? GASP...I'm so old fashioned, I can't even SAY that word. I would have to wash my mouth out....with holy Water. LOL...

BJ... I don't think your posts are boring. I think they are thoughtful and sincere. I understand your frustration with the Catholic Church. I don't think, however, that a lot of Catholics disregard the Church's "rules" and take Communion anyway - at least not "cradle Catholics". It has been so ingrained in us all our lives...you can't receive Communion unless you are in a state of grace. To do so anyway is a serious thing - almost blasphemy. Communion, to Catholics, is the whole enchilada. It is the reason we attend Mass. It is, to us, the body and blood of Christ. Not a symbol or something that represents the body, but the actual body and blood. That's why we do not permit non-Catholics to share Communion with us. Since they do not believe in the miracle of transubstantiation, they do not share our devotion and reverence for the consecrated host and wine. I am puzzled by one thing in your story. After you received a church annulment from your first marriage, why were you not permitted to take instructions in the Catholic faith and join the church? Also, I presume that you and your husband were remarried in the Church, correct? Otherwise, he would not have been permitted to receive Communion, since he would still be "living in sin" (ie, not married in the Church). My first husband and I were married in a civil ceremony. This was a long time ago, he was not Catholic, and interfaith marriages were still unusual and very much discouraged. I was furious at my church for this and didn't go to Mass at all for several years. After my first child was born, I decided that I owed him a religious foundation and even though I tried attending other churches, I knew in my heart that I was still a Catholic (albeit an angry one). So I drug my Protestant (Southern Baptist) husband to classes (private ones, with a Monsignor, no less). There was never any question about him converting (he wasn't), and no signing of papers that pledged our children to the Church, just a verbal understanding. We were quietly remarried in the chapel and everyone was happy. Chapter two...after husband number one died in a tragic accident (at age 28), I remarried. This time I married a divorced man who had never been baptized, in another civil ceremony. I went back to not taking Communion, but I continued to attend Mass because of my children. After about 5 years I guess he got tired of being left alone on Sunday morning. He asked me if he could go to church with us. Then he decided to convert. They have a whole program now called RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) and you don't have to be committed to conversion to take the classes. It took 9 months to complete the whole "course". He was scheduled to be received into the church at Easter. In March, we planned to be remarried in the Church. He had obtained a church annulment from his first marriage and we were all set, we thought. The Catholic Church is meticulous about documentation, but they dropped the ball on this one. Where was his baptism certificate? He didn't have one - never been baptized. The plan was to baptize him at Easter. But, we were informed, a baptized Catholic cannot be married to an unbaptized person, even if that person is "free to marry". What about our wedding - now a week away? We had guests coming...a cake ordered. Long story short (well, shortER)...we had to get a dispensation from the Archbishop. We were married as planned, he joined the Church the following month, and became very active. He was a member of the Fourth Degree (Knights of Columbus) and when he died, they were his pall bearers and honor guard. I buried him in his tuxedo and K of C regalia. Chapter three...after husband number 2 died (after 25 years of marriage), I remarried again. This time to a baptized Catholic. Who had been married TWICE before. Sounds like a huge problem - not one annulment would be required, but two. What are the chances? Well, if you are a Catholic who married outside the Church, it's easy. It's called "lack of form" and takes about 15 minutes to get the whole slate wiped clean. Amazing. Bob and I were married in the Church, and we had the neatest ceremony. We had about 80 guests. Our attendants were his son, my daughter, my youngest son, and 5 of our grandchildren. PS...Bob's second marriage failed quite suddenly after 20 years (she left him for another man, as did wife number one). He started seeing a therapist, who suggested that he join a singles group of some type. Although he had not been inside a church in YEARS, he heard about the 40 and over singles group at my church, and joined up. I joined several years later, a couple of years after my husband died, and that's how we met - courtesy of the Catholic Church. And yesterday was our 4th wedding anniversary. And you just thought your posts were long and boring!!!

If you don't tell, you can't play our game....LOL

To Tommy and TOM... Get a tissue, guys....you're drooling all over the keyboard.

If this will be an ongoing concern for you, I think you should rethink your options. Maybe the Lap Band is not the best choice for you. Have you looked into other weight loss surgeries? The LB is the safest and least intrusive, and the only one that is completely reversible, but I think it would be counterproductive if you had it done and were miserable from worry about what might happen. Also, most doctors require a pre-op psych evaluation and I'm not sure you would get a green light. To be a successful bandster, you have to make peace with your band. You really do. It will control what you eat, how much you eat, etc. Sometimes it will keep you from eating something that went down just fine yesterday. No one seems to know why. If you are easily frustrated, the band will make you crazy.

Ahhhh, yes...the Pentecostals. They are such a fun group. I knew they were head and shoulders above most Catholics when it came to protesting and demonstrating against abortion, but I was unaware that a birth control ban was part of their dogma. Many of their brethren must not be listening because my son-in-law's whole extended family is Pentecostal and the women discuss BC methods freely. Most had their tubes tied after two or three children. What sanctions does their church impose on them for those actions? In the Catholic Church, the sticky wicket is the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). A devout Catholic will not make a "bad" confession. So, if BC were a sin that had to be confessed, and you planned to keep using it, you couldn't make a good confession. A lot of Catholic women just stopped going to Confession, and eventually they stopped going to Mass (what's the point, if you can't receive Communion?). They stopped sending their children to CCD (religious education classes). The Catholic Church, as I mentioned before, as been around for 2,000 years. They aren't stupid. They noticed, and they did something about it - at least in the USA. Same thing with the issue of a celibate priesthood. Now married men can become priests, and remain married, if they are members of the Episcopal priesthood who convert to Catholicism. Men whose wives have died can become priests, too. Interesting second career, huh? But it does work for those who almost entered the seminary years ago, and never completely gave up their calling. The Catholic Church will almost certainly have to admit married men into the priesthood, sooner or later. The shortage of priests is just too great. And there will still be illicit sex among the clergy, but maybe it will at least be consensual, adult sex and not child molestation. Those guys need to have more than their Roman collars removed.

I had to wait 5 weeks after surgery before I got my first fill. It's hard to be patient, I know, but you have to think of this in the long-term. In my case, it has taken almost 2 years to lose 97 pounds. I am still about 10 pounds from goal, but I don't really work at losing any more, so it serves me right. I wear a size 2/4 and couldn't be happier - except for the vacant skin that is still (literally) hanging around. Depending on which band you have, it may take several fills to achieve good restriction. Don't expect to hit the "sweet spot" with your first one. One more thing....you will do 100 times better if you follow the bandster rules. Eat protein first, then veggies, then carbs. Stay away from liquid calories (ice cream, chocolate, etc) and exercise. GOOD LUCK!!!

Perfectly reasonable questions, so don't feel silly. After you reach goal you can have a little of your saline removed, if you like, but the band stays in place. Otherwise you would soon begin to eat like a lumber jack again. The band does not "cure" whatever defect it is that makes us want to overeat. It just keeps us from fulfilling that desire. The port is the mechanism for adding/removing saline. It is stitched to muscle just under the skin and feels a bit like a 9 volt battery, if you press on it. Sex is no more dangerous with the band than without. In fact, it's probably safer, once you lose some of those extra pounds. It's certainly more enjoyable. (I would know this because I have lost 97 pounds and my husband has lost 74.)

I am speaking of so-called "artificial" birth control, not the "rhythm" method. The notion that everything Catholics do has to be "cleared through Rome" is simply not true. Each Bishop is fairly autonomous - more so than the average person might think. In other parts of the world the Church has more clout, and no doubt enforces "the rules" much more diligently. There are 65 million US Catholics. Probably one-fourth of those are women of child-bearing age. That's 16 million women. Do you honestly think all those ladies have abdicated control of their bodies? Hardly. Instead, they have struck a bargain with the Church. Almost a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing. No one is privy to what goes on in the confessional (not even the Pope), so if your parish priest says you need not confess the use of artificial birth control, that's all anyone needs to know. I have no idea when it started, but I took birth control pills after my youngest was born in 1973. I had 4 children under the age of 6, and it was my priest who initiated the birth control discussion. I realize there are conservative Catholics, for lack of a better term, both laity and clerics, who deplore this course of action and speak/write against it, but that doesn't change anything. The Pope isn't likely to excommunicate us, and until he does, we are as Catholic as Mother Theresa. Let me give you an example of a Catholic zealot. In my own parish, I'm sorry to say, there is a woman who makes me (and everyone else) CRAZY. I'm sure she totally disagrees with the birth control thing, but I'm not about to ask her. Anyway, if she sees someone chewing gum during Mass, she will leave her seat to hand the gum-chewer a piece of paper, on which is printed something to the effect that gum-chewing breaks the required fast of one hour before receiving Communion and that person, therefore, should not receive the Sacrament. The really scary thing is that this woman comes to church armed with these little pieces of paper - just looking for people who aren't strict enough to suit her definition of "true" Catholicism. Yes, Virginia...there really is a nut in every tree.

My late brother-in-law was a full-blooded, raised-on-a-reservation Indian. He retired to East Texas after serving for 40+ years in the Merchant Marines. Strangers would frequently strike up a conversation with my BIL in Spanish, of which he did not understand a single word. When he tried to explain WHY he didn't speak Spanish, he would get the most indignant looks! People evidently were hoping to practice their Spanish on him, and he just wasn't very cooperative. Instead of asking him about his Indian heritage, they would just walk away.

I flew from DFW to Cleveland to get my granddaughter, who was 8. I got off my plane, picked her up on the non-secure side, and promptly went back thru security to get on another plane. We were selected for extra screening, even though I had no luggage - just a purse. Danielle, who must look like a pygmy terrorist - had a carry on bag. They literally took out every single item in the kid's suitcase.

Unbelievable! Was this the doctor's "rule", or the hospital's? Does she qualify for Medicaid? They will pay for BC, also for having her tubes tied. Would a doctor perform a vasectomy on your SIL? It's done in the office and the cost is less than female sterilization. I truly do not see what the age thing is all about. If you have 3 children and don't want 4, it should not matter.

Everything you said is true, but as the mother of a now-grown adopted child, I have to say that sometimes having a baby and giving it up for adoption can result in priceless, unbelievable joy and a lifetime of blessings. Had abortion been legal in 1967 I would not have my Tommy, and of course, if I had never had Tommy, I would not have Nicholas, my first grandchild, either. I am fairly confident about this because Tommy's birth mother was married, but not to his birth father. Her husband was in Vietnam, she was young...and lonely. It was a tragic story, all too indicative of the times. My son - the son she would have aborted - is a fine man and an outstanding husband and father. It was a privilege to raise him, and I will forever be in her debt.

My daughter had her tubes tied in 2000 (in Texas) and my DIL had hers tied in Ohio in 1995. They both said that their husbands did not have to give consent. Maybe the world is becoming a more female friendly place?????

Most anti-abortion groups do not take a stand on birth control or abstinence or sex ed. Most anti-abortion groups direct all their energy toward preventing abortions - period. If you had the Catholic Church in mind, as one of those "groups", you would be incorrect. The official Church position on birth control (at least in the USA) is that it is strictly between a woman and her parish priest. Therefore, there are millions of Catholic women in the US who use BC with the full knowledge and consent of the Church. As for non-Catholics, the Church has never held them to a no-birth-control standard, any more than we would expect a Baptist to pray the Rosary. Abstinence, as a religious teaching, is pretty universal. I don't know of any mainstream Christian religion which DOESN'T frown on sex outside of marriage, do you? The idea that if you abstain from sex, you won't need birth control is accurate, but absurd. Churches have to know this. They have been in business for 2,000 years. So they preach abstinence, but they aren't surprised when it doesn't work very well. The Mormons and the Amish have had better luck with it than anyone - probably because they have as little as possible to do with the rest of us. The really, really hardcore, ultra-conservative, no-sex advocates home school their kids, by the way. They are afraid that we will corrupt their children because we DO teach sex ed in public schools, and we DON'T teach abstinence. Finally, I want to say that I am not defined by the church I attend or the party I vote for, as most people are not. I am an individual. I think for myself and I take full responsibility for my actions. I am a strong advocate of birth control - just not after the fact birth control. I deplore abortion for the sake of convenience. That doesn't mean that I think you should be prohibited by law from having one. (My God! That would make me....GASP....a REPUBLICAN!) It just means that I find it personally repugnant. And I'm allowed to feel that way. And I'm allowed to say so. Because this is the United by God States of America. :usa2: LONG MAY SHE WAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is true. Or at least it was in Texas in 1974.

green... I'm so sorry you had to go thru this. Doctors, for some reason, are willing to perform vasectomies on young, single men virtually upon request, but treat women as if they don't have the good sense to know whether or not they want children. They think, since a woman "might" change her mind later, that they have a responsibility to protect her from herself. What arrogant macho BS!

That isn't exactly what happened. Her name was Brenda Scott. This is the newspaper report... <CENTER>Scott's family files $100 million suit Detroit councilwoman died after surgery to aid weight loss 8/27/04</CENTER> By David Shepardson / The Detroit News DETROIT — The family of former Detroit City Councilwoman Brenda Scott is suing two hospitals and four doctors in her death. The suit filed Thursday in Wayne Circuit Court seeks $100 million. Scott, 47, died Sept. 2, 2002, in Detroit Receiving Hospital, three days after undergoing gastric surgery at Port Huron Hospital to lose weight. Scott’s stomach apparently was perforated during the surgery, said Dr. I. Michael Litman, who filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of Scott’s family’s lawsuit. The suit claims Port Huron Hospital misdiagnosed her pain symptoms and didn’t detect the hole that was “allowing gastric fluids to flow into her abdominal cavity, slowing killing her.” In early 2002, Scott attended a seminar by Port Huron doctors promoting LAP-BAND surgery, which essentially puts a band at the top of the stomach to make patients feel full. On Aug. 30, Scott underwent the surgery and was released the next day. On Sept. 1, after the pain worsened, Scott went to the emergency room at Detroit Receiving Hospital. Early the next morning, an X-ray showed evidence of the perforation and significant Fluid levels with the abdominal cavity. Geoffrey Fieger, the family’s lawyer, said doctors should have performed emergency surgery: “Her death was 100 percent preventable,” he said. A spokeswoman for Detroit Receiving Hospital declined to comment. Dr. Daniel Angeli, vice president of medical affairs at Port Huron Hospital, confirmed there was a post-death peer review of Scott’s case, but he declined to disclose the results. Since March 2002, Port Huron Hospital has conducted about 800 of the surgeries, and those patients have lost more than 25,000 pounds. “That’s like (the weight of) five Explorers,” Angeli said. “It has an extremely low risk, but no procedure is 100 percent safe.” At the time of her death, Scott — who was 5-foot 6 — weighed 361 pounds, according to the medical examiner.

You are so right, Vines. And we need to teach them responsibility. Take responsibility for what you say, for what you do, for what comes out of your mouth, and for your own sexuality. Abstinence is such a lovely idea. Unfortunately, it's unrealistic. This is a link to a video of an actual abortion (you may have to copy/paste it into your browser). I warn you, it is VERY GRAPHIC. I had second thoughts about posting this link, so I deleted it. If you would like to view the video, PM me and I will send it to you. How much better it would have been for both the mother and the baby if there had been no pregnancy to begin with.

BJ, your point is well taken. I should have read your post more carefully and responded to the original "no sense of humor" post, which was Geezer's, not yours. I apologize for not picking up on that. Your post (below) was simply an I'm-in-agreement message. (And like GeezerSue said, (I'm paraphrasing) pro-lifers have no sense of humor and they think they know what's best for all of us.) Also, it was absolutely not you who was guilty of name-calling, and while I did not accuse you of it, I did mention name-calling in my response, and I should have made it abundantly clear that it had nothing to do with you. I apologize if you felt maligned by association. That was certainly not my intention. Finally, I did not set out to criticize anyone's point of view - only to disagree - and there is a huge difference. An eloquent argument is a beautiful thing, but a nasty squabble is just....well, a nasty squabble. We are all friends here and I hope we don't lose sight of that.

And your source for this statement would be???? I don't know how early those "early days" might have been, but I quote here from the Didache (the teaching of the twelve apostles), AD 70: "The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child".

Someone posted that Maese and Dobson would no longer accept patients without surgical records. I would call and check that out, then be sure you can get your records, if need be, from the surgeon.