I have read as much as my human patience will allow regarding the improper activity of Catholic clergy.

If celibacy is the cause of pedophilia, then why, oh why, are there so many men who abuse young children, and are *NOT* priests?

If celibacy is the cause of pedophilia, then why do other clergymen abuse in the same horrid fashion? Believe it...it is *NOT* exclusive to the Catholic faith.

Pedophilia is not a result of a celibate priest's "loss of sexuality". Pedophilia is a disease that affects married men as well. How can I say this? Because two of my best friends were molested by their married fathers...who regularly received sexual relations from their wives.

Celibacy is not the cause of this scourge...illness is the cause. If celibacy was the issue, why do they not seek to seduce women? The accused seek children because they have an illness...and they would likely act on their illness regardless of their vocation.

I think that the main reason the Catholic Church is the target is because we are the only faith with an unmarried priesthood.

Regardless, I feel that any priest engaging in such activity should be removed from his practice. He has disregarded his vows. But, he sould not be re-assigned, but rehabilitated...and still not allowed to continue without proof of healing...which could take much time.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), April 01, 2002

Answers

Melissa,

I agree with you, celibacy is not the cause of pedophilia. Pedophiles are found everywhere, not only in the catholic church.I think that the reason there has been so much media attention with regard to the catholic clergy, is because there is growing dissent and dissatisfaction within the catholic church itself, with regard to some of the mandatory policies and disciplines. I am very opposed to mandatory celibacy,(I personally feel this is a human rights issue), and I am very optimistic with the current developments and dialogue that has brought awarness to this and many other relevant issues within the church. I feel that the victims of pedophilia are the true one's in need of sympathy and apology, and not the "picked on" perpretarators(and silent onlookers.I find find it infuriating that the victims are overlooked in this way, and both sides continue to push their own agenda.(Although I do have much more respect for the optional celibacy advocates, because at least they are paying attention and demanding accountability from the many blind and misguided church officials who will do anything, and pay any price, in order to save the "reputation" of the church)

-- Fred (fred@anywhere.com), April 01, 2002.

While making a response to this I accidently put it in the thread "Do you think Priests should marry?" Sorry if there is any confusion.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Pedephilia as I understand it is an " arresting " of emotional development. To have a youth put into a setting deviod from worldy contact and the release him after having been " formed " is the crime here.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 01, 2002.

All modern society lives in a state of ''arrested emotional development.'' This insistent drumming on sexual deviance, sexual matters, sexual importance-- is a symptom of the worldly importance paid to SEX.

It would seem SEX and RELIGION had been EQUAL in value; when, PAY ATTENTION: sex is really something which will disappear on the last day. Sex is the illusion that makes us procreate. It is NOT driving the human race at all!

To believe that sex makes us demons is just as false a belief as if you thought we were Gods on account of sex! We know there are sick people-- corrupted in a sexual way. But their sickness is no worse than any other sin. Stealing, lying, selfishness. All are as evil as a sexual deviance. All offend our Lord.

He saw very little difference in the sin of adultery and the sin of hypocrisy. He condemned hypocrisy in the Pharisees. He forgave,/u> the adulterous woman. All were as if lepers. He healed them without distinction. They were all sick.

We men distinguish all sorts of ways, between sins. We leave out our own personal faults; and point the finger at abortion-mongers and divorcees. Yet-- our own sins are exempt sometimes! --Somebody explain this to me?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 02, 2002.

Oh my oh my Eugene - no sex in the afterlife? Androgenous forever. I think not. BTW does any know why sex is so popular over the history of man. I think it is due to it being so centrally located.:)

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 02, 2002.

Dear Juan Bocado;
Jesus once said that in heaven would be no more marriage. All would be as the angels.

You may reject such an idea. Maybe in hell all will keep on fornicating. I don't wish to find out.

In our present life sex is a variety of good or bad things. I never condemned it in my previous post. I only said the truth,

sexual deviance, sexual matters, sexual importance-- is a symptom of the worldly importance paid to SEX.

Why? Just nature out of sync, I guess. The apostles tell us that in the final days, men will be lovers of pleasure. If you find all pleasure exhilarating, go for it. But always remember you were warned.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 02, 2002.

Jmj

A "depositor" stated:
"I am very opposed to mandatory celibacy, (I personally feel this is a human rights issue)"

Within the Catholic Church, there is no "mandatory celibacy." Such would be a heresy, something against the teachings of the New Testament. No Catholic man who is capable of taking on the duties of a husband is forbidden to follow the vocation to the married life, if such is the vocation God has given him.

No, we have no "mandatory celibacy" in Catholicism. Rather, what the Latin Church (often called Latin Rite) has is voluntary celibacy, chosen as a way of life by those who believe that God is calling them to the priesthood.
Men who enter a seminary have a VERY long time to discern their vocations. After years of preparation, they voluntarily choose (and promise) never to be married. There is no compulsion, no force used before, or on, their day of ordination. Then, once they have been ordained, though they should keep their promises -- serving God and us by remaining as active priests -- they are still not under "mandatory celibacy." Rather, they can receive the pope's approval to be "laicized," after which they can be married, remaining practicing Catholics.

It is normally only ignorant anti-Catholics who bash the Church for having what she does not have -- "mandatory celibacy." Let us Catholics not join in with them, please.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

You have it perfectly correct, John. I would keep my comments cheerful and don't wish to nit-pick at all. But: Even the lead title of this thread is a contradiction. There isn't a ''celibate nature of priests.'' We realise that nature can produce an impotent man. But that's a condition, not normal nature. Priests are not always impotent, of that we can rest assured. If they remain celibate, it's because they have free will; the will to choose celibacy, as Christ and many saints did.

Or to live in depravity, as some men do. Free will is what makes pedophiles and prostitutes. Not nature.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 05, 2002.

God created us with this capacity for "free will", we did not create ourselves or this "free will", hence these things must be God's will?

-- Anne Conway (ascbbb@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

Hi, Anne.
The answer to your question is "yes and no."
There are two aspects to God's will -- ordaining and permissive.
The evil things that his creatures do are against his ordaining will, but his permissive will allows some of them (and he fools the evil one by bringing some greater good out of them).
If God's permissive will did not allow sin, God would be taking away our free will, making us into machines who are incapable of freely giving him a loving obedience.
Yes, it is a paradox, a sort of mystery that we accept with faith.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

Animal Husbandry in Human Zoos I'm for discussion from divers viewpoints, for democratic action and for checks and balances. A case in point are Talibans. I have been sent an email chain letter which reports many instances of oppression against women by these religious extremists -- although unsourced, the stories were consistent with newspaper reports. I submit that Taliban behaviour is an example of "bad animal husbandry" which should worry those in Australia who have similar responsibilities to train young humans -- and who have to make value judgements to manage and control maturation processes for "higher" purposes. Maybe those tragic hard-core Taliban lads are the outcome of a repressive clerical-managed schooling. Moreover, many were displaced persons, including war orphans, raised in refugee camps in Pakistan. Are they co-educationally deprived? Do they hate women, or just fear them? One is reminded of that Aussie movie, The Devil's Playground and of some Christian Brothers back in the fifties. Hypothesis: Statistically, is there a "Haitch Factor"? In a Catholic Truth Society of Ireland pamphlet, the girls own: Questions young women ask, 1967, Thomas Finnegan, a priest and specialist in conducting retreats for teenagers, cites:-  Into Their Company "Dedicating oneself to God doesn't mean killing off the mother instinct and the home- making instinct and starving one's heart ... Your Maker is your husband."  Pope Pius XII "Every woman is made to be a mother; a mother in the physical sense, or in the more spiritual ... but not less real sense."  A photo of a smiling white nun clasping a black infant to her bosom illustrates the "vocation to be a nun".  Fr Finnegan explains "passionate kissing and embracing ... is a mortal sin for an unmarried girl", because it "stimulates the powers of generation". Was there an ancient tradition for pastoral patriarchs to exploit women and children like cattle, which is now dysfunctional in the post-industrial age? Is there a conflict between rural and city bourgeois aspiration? Is fundamentalism still in a struggle with modernism, while the world has gone "post-modern"? An archbishop of Brisbane, like a Taliban mullah, would see himself as having noble intentions. Crozier in hand, he could represent himself as a "good shepherd" serving "Higher Purposes" -- purposes, which might violate the rights of the "sheep". However, without wishing to throw out the clerics with the bath water, we must subject social or biological control practices to public, scientific and sceptical scrutiny. At least religious bullying should be kept on the bioethical agenda. Should the burqua, foot- binding or genital mutilation be excused to protect culture-specific family-values? Are use, abuse or exploitation, commonsense? Clergy, in prophetic mode, are a treasured reminder to civil society to wrestle with moral questions. Dangerously, dogmatic religion claims exclusive power to interpret scripture or the mind of God, then to pontificate. On the other hand, mainstream churches, these days, seem to speak more in terms of ethics and "socially responsible morality" than of "sin" and disobedience -- of justice rather than piety. A healthy community needs checks and balances -- responding to moderated scientific change and valid feedback. Engineering Celibate Vocation: A Cybernetics Approach Evolution has equipped the human animal with an integrated set of organs, response systems and behavior patterns, which determine what can be learned and at which stages of the life cycle. When shielded from appropriate input in "human zoos", is there a greater risk of biological disorientation, malimprinting, fetishism and displacement activity? Ironically, that would inadvertently thwart, distort or abort life processes. It would be scandalously tragic if a religious training turned the immature into so-designated "perverts", or unhappy victims of "saintly" obsessions, then punished them for it. What would Critical Path Analysis suggest, in respect of "windows of opportunity"? General Systems Theory might help an understanding of the problematic and aid any proposed Commission into Sexual Abuse, Use, Exploitation or Such. In 1974, I submitted this thought to the Royal Commission on Human Relationships. The Most Reverend Felix Arnot, Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, was the commissioner to whom I made a presentation. Archbishop Arnot was noted for inter-church dialog, so would have been politic to avoid threatening disclosure. With greater community education, openness and maturity, is the time now ripe to revisit? Is this a challenge to illiberal-wing Christians; or to Vatican teaching on "essentially disordered" acts, such as contraception, masturbation, homosexual or extramarital acts; or to the right-to-life, anti- abortion, camp? Is it "disordered" for missionaries to separate the young human animal from its kin and aboriginal culture (say), for its own good, and to gratify displaced maternal drives? Could they upgrade their paradigm to a more holistic meaning of "human life", and love? For those theologians who employ the "essentially disordered" formula to human behaviour, I submit that a cybernetics approach is similar but more scientific. Beyond our observation, Mother Nature may have purposes, processes and systems unappreciated by us. Perhaps time removes causes? Religious institutional "atmosphere" has changed; youth is more hardboiled; the violators are dying; the clerical crime wave is past, is currently a media artifact. And when will mainstream Aussie Muslim sub-communities feel secure enough to participate in creative give-and-take? All very paradoxical... One has to laugh, perhaps sardonically... The joke's on me... I once had occasion to form the opinion that there was natural aetology for randy religious vocation. That it can be artificially induced. "Oh, how could I ever marry, feeling about Him as I do!" Through the ages there have been different strategies for maintaining the gene-pool and rearing the next generation. Are males becoming redundant? Is civilization "artificial"? It may be utilitarian, yet, in my opinion, both celibate and queer love, when not destructive, can satisfy the needs of the individual and serve civilization -- and even help evolve and maintain the human gene-pool. Maybe the label "sexuality" could be deconstructed: Mother Nature evolves diverse functions for "it" other than for combining male and female gametes to the maximum quantity. My perspective is technological, humanist. Yet I submit that cybernetics can yield insight for other world views. Bill Helem billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au ph:9300_2552 A Definition of "Process" "a flow of interrelated events moving toward some goal, purpose, or end. A Definition of "System" "a particular linking of components which has a facilitating effect, or an intended facilitating effect, on the carrying out of a process" -- Wendell French, A Process-Systems Approach to Personnel Management (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1964) pp. 45-46.

Give and take The Pope showed moral courage to admit the church makes mistakes. It would be difficult to quantify - - in Purgatory Units, say - - the suffering caused by the church, or compute whether it has done more good than harm throughout history, or balance this against deeds of its rivals. Yet here we all are, and can say: thank you, for the good stuff the church has given the civilisation we share. As citizens, we can hope churches will co- operate to change the human condition for a better future. Organised religions, like other agents, do function for the public good, such as for welfare, health or education. In this era of outsourcing and public funding, does it matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice? It does require transparency, scrutiny, dialogue and the occasional "sorry". Neil Ormerod (Eureka Street, March 2000) discusses whether government funding for job-search programs will silence the church on government policy or compromise the church's mission. I hope not; I hope there will be creative synthesis. In an integrated multicultural society, sub- communities need space to flourish. However, Australians outside the Catholic community are reciprocally concerned for what goes on in the church. And funding isn't government money, or even tax-payers' money: it's voters' money. Church institutions are accountable to the public. So, welcome to the give-and-take of fallible civil society! Bill Helem, Eureka Street May 2000 p. 8 Larrikin Limericks

A confused old mullah of Blight, Whose regard for women was slight, Said, "Co-education Would ruin the nation." Said that Tabilan chap of Blight.

A celibate hierarchy of Cant, Whose experience with women was scant, Said, "Co-education Would ruin the nation." Said those closet homos of Cant. A growing young lad called Mike Was aroused by riding his bike. His confessor said: "Peddle faster. You'll be seized by your Master. And be loved by your Lord on your bike!" [ Acknowledgment to "Lord, you have seized me" by Michel Quoist - - "known for his work as chaplain to .. youth clubs .. around Le Havre".]

Malvern Star Struck -- Parody of Erotic Devotional Literature Oh Kylie! Yes! Yes! I was on my bike listening to a minidisk. Suddenly you seized me. Overcome with such sweetness, I had to dismount. Ravished. Why choose me? I'm not worthy. Big, bold, Kylie, Imprinted on you; bonded forever. Joy! Joy! Tears of joy! ["Lord Jesus" or "Madonna" can replace "Kylie" to suit your genetic predisposition or church-induced spiritual preference. ]

Pandas' Complaint -- Otava Rima A loving bond is formed for babe and dam, As they imprint through nursling and suckling; But sure, natural response systems jam, When maternal baloon adopts a duckling. Girl boy, bride mate, relate like ewe to ram By respectively mixling and phuckling; Meanwhile, the randy nuns in convent-zoo Obediently yearn for their "Love So True". [ Dedicated to a suppressed mystical text by Wendy Bacon. ]

"Haitch" Factor Free-range humans need not too harshly judge the obsessions of battery-reared Senators

Bill Helem 03/05/02 billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au Revisiting a little campaign I ran back in the 1960s "I told you so!!" "Pandas' Liberation" Randy Religious Fantasy Online: a Bio-Ethical Problem? Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies -- Now Public Domain I accessed the bulletin board Good News Australia. It was an online tract propagating a message "about God's plan for this earth". It rules who is, and who is not, "saved", and asks sixty-five thought-provoking questions, including: "Is the Bible total truth?"; "Do souls burn forever in Hell?"; "Is evolution fact and right?"; "Is the Catholic 'faith' and religion right?"; "Does Christ accept Lodges?"; "Is 'Allah' God?". The response permitted can only be a simple "Y" or "N". It also condemns homosecksuality. I don't agree with the dogma, but applaud this project and would defend system operator Ken Walker's right to free speech. Though wouldn't it be ironic if religious practice causes homosecksuality, then makes it sinful. I ask: Could a regulatory framework for online services ban fundamentalist opinions from public, because childish adults find them offensive? Could bigotry be driven into separatist ghettos by thought police? Or should government legislate to filter out the idea that the earth orbits the sun, or protect us from the theory of evolution. Burn the books! On the other hand, I speculate: Could religions with non- text-based artistic traditions exploit broadband multi- media for devotional purposes? Into the flight simulator cockpit! On with the virtual reality helmet! Be ravished by an errotik Lord Jesus experience! Perhaps churches might artificially orient adolescent secksuality for Higher Love. Old-fashioned, repressive, zoo-like church schools did this, yet sublimation enriched our civilisation, through missionaries, empire builders and celibates "called" by God. However, there may have been some unintended spin-off: displacement activity, fetishism or biological confusions, even leading to secksual abuses, or to beneficial magnificent obsessions of Germaine Greer's generation. Maybe the deontological Senator Harradines of our nation should investigate scientifically if church institutions and schools have resulted in fewer, or more, cases of "essentially disordered behavior", to use Vatican- speak. That tradition is a treasured part of our nation and civilization; it is appropriate in a civil democratic society that both achievements and mistakes of good-citizen, nongovernment, agencies be transparent to public scrutiny. Discuss on www. Forgive clergy after their public "sorries", then trust them with public money. When white missionaries take black babies from kin, is it charity or displaced animal behavior? The human animal is reared neither in a perfect Garden of Eden nor in the "natural" environment in which it evolved. We are civilized! So we must continue to experiment and evolve and adapt to new technology. Consider the human organism an integrated set of subsystems in on-going process! As a good shepherd, draw a flowchart to process young ladies into nuns. [7nuns:2priests:1brother] Developmental Disorder Speculations Will the Divine, somehow "in a wonderful way", intervene supernaturally on the Internet and thence in the human life cycle? Does the "conception" notion require a Special Act of Creation, and the "moment of death" an Act of God? As I see it, reproduction and the maintenance of society involve more than the fertilization of ova; Mother Nature has no fixed labels for aspects of the innate systems and behavior patterns our culture calls "secksual" or "maternal"; parts can be multi-functional. Natural? Supernatural? Artificial? Good or bad? Is the problematic one of systems-process theory (PERT), GST/cybernetics (feedback), biology (evolution), bio-ethics (social responsibility), theology (sin), ethology (mal-imprinting) or sociology (power)? Each approach has merits and limitations. Who gains from managed input of messages? Is the relationship "exploitation"? Or "win-win justice"? Is love relative to paradigm? Is dance disorderly movement behaviour? Deconstruct... These thoughts originated from pondering the phenomenon of artificially induced randy religious vocation. The camp against abortion and contraception has its own techniques of aborting, distorting or mutilating the life cycle. General Systems Theory (GST) and critical path analysis yield paradoxes. However, I don't seek absolute answers; the clownish laughter is sardonic. [ If Jesus seems a more satisfactory bridegroom, the joke's on me. "How could I ever marry, feeling about Him as I do?" ] Many well-meaning citizens feel "concerned" about change and the future. The Jews of Jerusalem were "concerned" about Hellenistic statues and the Olympics following Alexander's conquests. Roman masters were "concerned" when Christian slaves taught each other to read and write. Some iconoclast factions of Byzantium were "concerned" about religious paintings. Clerics were "concerned" about translating the bible into vulgar languages and later about literacy and printing. Yet glorious cathedrals manifest the multi-media technology of their age, although of "concern" to opponents of lurid graven images. Ban from electronic transmission secksually implicit nihil obstat devotional fantasy, such as Lord, you have seized me by Michel Quoist? Oh, no! So, why withhold from the laity the mystic text of Wendy Bacon? Bad taste? Or permit whatever turns you on -- spiritually? Is there a genetic predisposition, or sense organ, for supernatural joy? Is a holy spirit a factor for evolution? Information systems can be designed and managed to exclude and control the information poor. Will gatekeeper tools to censor "undesirable" material be used to enrich media barons, and transnational corporations, and help turn a creative country into a banana republic of rich and poor? Totalitarian or liberal IT? Ruling-class or democratic IT? I recall how they shut down the ABC community access radio station, 3ZZ, in fear of dissident opinions. Respectfully Submitted: Bill Helem, Box 556, Pascoe Vale 3044, Australia; billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au; ph:93002552 "Snide Secular Humanist Innuendo" Segregation I submit that the same traditional attitudes and practices of Catholic education which have tended to induce celibate "vocations", might have also led to other forms of confused sexuality and hang-ups which are now being inflicted on the whole community.

-- Bill Helem (billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au), May 02, 2002.

Bill,

Is this a desperate cry for attention?

Yawn...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 02, 2002.

John,

Amen, brutha! Preach on, testify!

Look people, I'm a seminarian, ok, and I know what I'm getting into; after all, I've been celibate for 20 years already, right?

The priesthood is celibate and I wouldn't have it any other way! God bless the chaste unmarried state. My peers feel the same. Stop trying to save us from ourselves! We're fine, really! Let us discern in peace.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 03, 2002.

Jeffrey

I offer you and your fellow seminarians peace and my heartfelt prayers. I am curious if you have ever recieved any donations to help in your studies from any K of C Councils. I belong to one in N.H. (Now in Illinois), who have made donations to seminarians all over the world from time to time. The donations may not be large but I understand that they do help a lot. Agian. To all of you men -- BLESSINGS.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 03, 2002.

John,

Regarding your response on free will: Can you provide explicit examples (not your personal interpretation) from the Gospels of Christ telling us aspects of His Father's will to be as you have described it? The Word of God spoken through his son Jesus Christ, is the only truth about God, His Love, His Will, etc that I believe in. I do not put any stock, whatsoever, in the pontificating of mere mortals who claim to have an inside track on what the aspects of God's will could possible be.

-- Anne (ascbbb@yahoo.com), May 16, 2002.

Respectfully Submitted: Bill Helem, Box 556, Pascoe Vale 3044, Australia; billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au; ph:93002552 "Snide Secular Humanist Innuendo" Segregation I submit that the same traditional attitudes and practices of Catholic education which have tended to induce celibate "vocations", might have also led to other forms of confused sexuality and hang-ups which are now being inflicted on the whole community.''

''How now, wool-sack. What mutter you?''
Will Shakespeare ~~~

Didn't copy all your case, Bill. Only the bottom of it. Please don't be put off; we like jokers in this forum from time to time. But this redundant and over-fussy concoction of yours is too rich a feast. Just a tidbit serves to satisfy me at least. Your busy argument is good ballast for the ship you came here on. Blocks of cement well chosen for the bigot's boat.

We have Peter's bark for ourselves. A good Catholic doctrine, built on Rock, but not for ballast. For great cathedrals, Old Boy. Have you been to Oxford or Cambridge laely, Bill? Lovely old dowagers, now fallen on hard times, like the Anglican communion and your own groves of Academe.

How is it you renege on your old ancestors, Bill? A Helem is surely up in your family tree who once kissed the Pope's toe??? Are you ashamed? Tell us about your personal history. Are you baptised? Do you write for money? (By the word, I would guess.)--They pay for verbosity down under? --Lucky for you!

The Internet is great, ain't it Mate? --Stay in touch with your Catholic cousins, Cobber. Bring less ballast next time. /
Love, Gene *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 16, 2002.

Tsk, tsk--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 16, 2002.

Hello, Anne.

You wrote, "Can you provide explicit examples (not your personal interpretation) from the Gospels of Christ telling us aspects of His Father's will to be as you have described it?"

If you were aware of the written works of early Christians, going right back to the first centuries A.D., you would know that Christians have never considered themselves limited in the way you are trying to limit me. In fact, I feel certain that you do not live by such limits yourself -- paying attention only to the gospels and not applying "personal interpretation" to biblical passages. You do interpret (i.e., analyze and figure out) the meaning of the texts. Otherwise you could make no sense of some of the passages that you read. (Many passages are not self-explanatory.) Then, besides reading and interpreting what is written, Christians (yourself included, I am sure) have developed an over-arching "theology." God never told us that Jesus's Church is prohibited from doing such interpreting, analysis, synthesis, and development of doctrines.

Anne, you also wrote, "The Word of God spoken through his son Jesus Christ, is the only truth about God, His Love, His Will, etc., that I believe in."

I can't tell if you are saying that you believe (1) only the quoted words of Jesus in the gospels or (2) only the full texts of the gospels or (3) only the books of the New Testament or (4) only the books of both testaments of the Bible.
This is a Catholic forum. Catholics believe in all parts of public, divine revelation -- i.e., all that God revealed before and after the birth of Jesus until the death of the last apostle. This includes all that was written down in the 73 books of the Bible and all that was passed down by the oral teaching of the apostles.

Anne, you concluded by writing, "I do not put any stock, whatsoever, in the pontificating of mere mortals who claim to have an inside track on what the aspects of God's will could possible be."

I left you a simple note (above) on "aspects of God's will." Are you trashing my small effort as "pontificating" and as "claim[ing] to have an inside track"? Regardless of whether your comment was directed to me personally or to the Catholic Church, your reaction is exaggerated and offensive. How do you hope to obtain answers and my respect by writing such an unpleasant thing? In a spirit of forgiveness, though, I will answer your question, which was: "Can you provide explicit examples (not your personal interpretation) from the Gospels of Christ telling us aspects of His Father's will to be as you have described it?"

(1) God did not intend for man to suffer illness and death. These are part of the inherited disorders arising from the original sin of Adam and Eve, cast out of the Garden where there was to have been no suffering. Lazarus, Jesus's friend, became ill and died. This was not a good thing, as it caused great sorrow and loss -- even causing Jesus to weep. Lazarus's death was not an example of God's ordaining will, but of his permitting will. But, as always, he was able to bring good effects from a bad thing. Not only was the faith of Mary, Martha, and the apostles strengthened when Jesus raised Lazarus, but we are told that "[m]any of the Jews ... who had ... seen what he did, believed in him."

(2) I hope that you will agree that the most evil things that have ever happened in human history were the betrayal by Judas and the killing of Jesus. Surely God the Father, being all-good, did not, by his ordaining will, cause his perfect and innocent Son be abused and killed. Such actions were evil, and the Father cannot desire evil. Instead, by his permitting will, he allowed evil to occur, knowing that the greatest good in human history -- our redemption -- would be done, again foiling satan.

(3) Another example involves the man born blind. Handicaps are human disorders caused by natural imbalances emerging after the fall of Adam and Eve. God does not wish (ordain) any person to be blind, but he does permit it to happen. Jesus, explaining why the man was allowed to be blind, said, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." His cure again foiled satan.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

Thanks Eugene and "mates" for saying it's OK for me to revisit you folk "down under" (presumably, US of A). As you see, I'm a bit of a joking relativist. Yet I wish well for the Catholic Church. It is a treasured part of our shared civilization. Doubtless, as you point out, I probably have "papists" up in my family tree. ( Who knows, maybe a few bastards "fathered" by "celibate" priests! I do know I have a proportion of French protestant refugee Huguenots. ) The piece you chipped off my over-large [sorry] block could never sink "Peter's bark"; maybe you can use it to help stop a leak. I submitted the same idea as Jean Bouchard (this discussion April 1). I am questioning the wisdom of some traditional methods by which some celibate vocations were procured and maintained - - NOT celibacy itself... as such. There can be advantages in following a celibate life, or for part of it. Maybe it would be wiser to recruit "celibate" priests from women and men who had completed their child-bearing-rearing period of life. However, John (April 05) explains the meaning of "celibacy" in the eyes of the Church. It is clear that celibacy is not essential for the priesthood. "Laicized" priests are permitted to marry, but are not permitted to exercise the supernatural(?) powers they retain(?). Priests of other rites, if in communion with Rome, do marry and occupy priestly office. Anglicans - - whom Eugene banters about - - have priests who marry... but are they real priests, do they have apostolic powers? I heard that the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope(of Rome, not the Coptic Pope) have de-excommunicated each other's communions. Does this mean mutual recognition of sacraments, and priests? Orthodox priests marry; but bishops remain celibate monks. I'm tempted to raise more questions... Peace, Laughter and Love, Bill *** *** *** *** www.mapdot.info/soapbox8.htm

-- Bill Helem (billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au), June 20, 2002.

Dear Melissa,

We all know that celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia. People keep harping on that because they have an agenda of their own.

Most priests I speak to are very happy with the celibate life, although have struggled with over the years. The priests I spoke to are emotionally healthy human beings.

You did say: "But, he sould not be re-assigned, but rehabilitated," Unfortunately, pedophiles cannot be reahabilitated. In a recent documentary on pedophilia, concentrating on pedophiles in prison, they all said the same thing - "If we get out tomorrow we will still prey on children."

Castration, they said is the only thing that would prevent them from abusing children. These men have been in rehabilitation for years. There is no cure for this disease. MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 20, 2002.

Bill Helem, you wrote: "Priests of other rites, if in communion with Rome, do marry and occupy priestly office. ... Orthodox priests marry ..."

You are mistaken. No ordained priests are permitted to marry (Catholic or Orthodox). Rather some already married men are permitted to study for the priesthood. Once an unmarried man becomes a seminarian, he is not permitted to marry.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 20, 2002.

John, thank you for correcting my mistake in suggesting that "Uniate" and "Orthodox" priests "are permitted" to become married AFTER they have been ordained. That sequence would not accord with practice. Nevertheless, this does not prove that the celibate state is essential to the "nature" of priesthood, under discussion. You point out that "some already married men" are permitted to study for the priesthood [THEN, presumably, be ordained priests and THEN, presumably, be appointed to a priestly job]. John, even if your casuistry applies to practice at institutions called seminaries, I ask, is it doctrinally essential, rather than a practical necessity that seminarians are not permitted to marry?

"Orthodox Priests Have the Option: Greek Church, Unlike Catholic, Allows Clergymen to Marry, but Celibacy Has Its Rewards" is the title of an article by Bill Broadway (22/4/02) at www.washingtonpost.com: "the drill. . . the choice of all Orthodox seminary graduates: Be ordained unmarried and promise to remain that way throughout your career, or get married and then be ordained". It seems that the sequence is: promise AFTER seminary. Anyway there is an expectation that practicing parish priests be, dare I say, practicing heterosexuals. ("About 91 percent (575 of 630) of active Greek Orthodox priests in the United States are married", says Broadway.)

There have been times in history when many priests, subject to Rome, were married and even unlettered. It it in the "nature of priests" that they must have been seminarians? The ministry functions for which they train are more than priestly/sacerdotal, yet a priest, as such, could in theory be illiterate, so long as he/she had been ordained by the apostolic laying on of hands... Also, I have heard it said, "Once a priest, always a priest."; in theory, could a "laicized" priest, or even an excommunicated priest, perform confession or last rites etc.?? Is it "Catholic Truth" that anyone can "do" a baptism -- a kind of "priesthood of all believers", married of not? Who is bluffing whom? Bill, www.mapdot.info/soapbox7.htm

-- Bill Helem (billhelem@telstra.easymail.com.au), July 08, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), July 08, 2002.

Bill writes:

"Nevertheless, this does not prove that the celibate state is essential to the "nature" of priesthood, under discussion."

I can't see where John suggested this. You might have a problem with the subject of the thread; but I don't think that Melissa intended to assert what you are arguing against.

Bill writes:

"You point out that "some already married men" are permitted to study for the priesthood [THEN, presumably, be ordained priests and THEN, presumably, be appointed to a priestly job]. John, even if your casuistry applies to practice at institutions called seminaries, I ask, is it doctrinally essential, rather than a practical necessity that seminarians are not permitted to marry?"

Who has referred to priestly celibacy as a doctrine? It is not. A man makes a solemn promise to remain celibate when he is ordained. Breaking that promise would be akin to breaking a marriage vow.

Bill writes:

"Orthodox Priests Have the Option: Greek Church, Unlike Catholic, Allows Clergymen to Marry, but Celibacy Has Its Rewards" is the title of an article by Bill Broadway (22/4/02) at www.washingtonpost.com: "the drill. . . the choice of all Orthodox seminary graduates: Be ordained unmarried and promise to remain that way throughout your career, or get married and then be ordained". It seems that the sequence is: promise AFTER seminary."

Are you surpised that a promise of celibacy should be related to the reception of the sacrament as opposed to being related to the entrance into seminary? Why is this surpising? Perpetual vows are intimately related to ordaination. If you are interested, priest and religious may make temporary vows during his or her novitiate.

Bill writes:

"Anyway there is an expectation that practicing parish priests be, dare I say, practicing heterosexuals. ("About 91 percent (575 of 630) of active Greek Orthodox priests in the United States are married", says Broadway.)"

It sounds like 91 percent of Greek Orthodox married before they were ordained...OK...

You could use the same logic to discredit Jesus' priesthood because He didn't live up to the "Greek Orthodox" norm. Why is this important?

Bill writes:

"There have been times in history when many priests, subject to Rome, were married and even unlettered. It it in the "nature of priests" that they must have been seminarians? The ministry functions for which they train are more than priestly/sacerdotal, yet a priest, as such, could in theory be illiterate, so long as he/she had been ordained by the apostolic laying on of hands..."

Are you arguing that we should have more illiterate priests? Are you being critical of the Catholic Church because its priests are too educated? I guess the Church is guilty as charged... :-)

Bill writes:

"Also, I have heard it said, "Once a priest, always a priest."; in theory, could a "laicized" priest, or even an excommunicated priest, perform confession or last rites etc.??"

As I understand, a laicized priest may use his priestly faculties in near-death situations. These priests are required by their bishop to cease acting as a priest when they are laicized.

Bill writes:

"Is it "Catholic Truth" that anyone can "do" a baptism -- a kind of "priesthood of all believers", married of not? Who is bluffing whom?"

It's clear that you are attempting to mock the idea of "Catholic Truth." If you'd like to learn about Baptism, read the Catechism. Anyone can baptize. Here's a snippit:

"WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation."

As a side note, when entering a sacramental marriage, the bride and groom act as ministers of the sacrament. Because of abuses and irregularities of marriage in centuries past, it became necessary for the Western Church to require marriages to be performed in the presence of a priest.

If you are truly interested in the role of priests in conferring sacramental grace, feel free to present any other questions. It would be nice if you would lose the "Who is bluffing whom" attitude, though.

Bill writes:

"Bill, www.mapdot.info/soapbox7.htm"

I read your soapbox article. You don't seem to be a big fan of the Church. No surpise.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 08, 2002.

Thank you, Mateo, for helping me greatly by answering Bill's questions to me.

I had previously read what you mentioned about the spouses being the "celebrants" of the Sacrament of Marriage -- who "marry" each other -- while the ordained man present is considered only a witness. But I believe that this is true only in the Western Tradition. Can you confirm my recollection that, in the Eastern Traditions, the Church's representative is considered the "celebrant," who "marries" the couple? Or is my memory mistaken about that?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 08, 2002.

You're correct. Though I don't know individual Eastern Church's practices, the Catechism says the following in paragraph 1623:

"In the Eastern liturgies the minister of this sacrament (which is called "Crowning") is the priest or bishop who, after receiving the mutual consent of the spouses, successively crowns the bridegroom and the bride as a sign of the marriage covenant."

The only time that I've seen a the "crowning," it was done by an Orthodox priest concelebrating with a Catholic priest in a Catholic Church. :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 08, 2002.

Mateo writes: "The only time that I've seen a 'crowning,' it was done by an Orthodox priest concelebrating with a Catholic priest in a Catholic Church."

:-) You may have seen an Eastern Rite Catholic priest concelebrating in a Roman Catholic church, but I guarantee you've never seen an Orthodox priest "concelebrate" in a Catholic church.

-- Tim Bullard (t.bullard@natlhardwood.org), March 26, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Tim.
If you were speaking about concelebration of the Divine Liturgy (Mass), then I think that you are correct.
However, maybe Mateo was referring to a concelebration of the sacrament of Marriage. I believe that this can be approved by the two priests' bishops (Catholic and Orthodox).
Any thoughts, Mateo?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 30, 2003.

I used the wrong word. The other priest was Orthodox. He was not concelebrating during the Mass (consecration, etc). He was present to bless the couple and did perform the "Crowning" in the church.

John, thanks for responding. I didn't see Tim's question until you posted.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.

PS--John, your description was correct--they concelebrated the sacrament of marriage.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2003.