it would seem that the English Anglican Church may concievably spawn a new denomination in the near future (so make that 35,001). a new bishop has been revealed as homosexual; and, based upon the preponderance of the facts that are available, it seems that he has practiced his vice in the past, and indeed may have lied to his public about this. he has a "lover" but their current relationship is vague though they co-own a house. the "lover" is also an Anglican curate. the curate's paris is vicar-less and the parochial house is let out to the Young Gay and Lesbian Christian Movement.

so, why good news?? -- God willing, more traditional Anglicans may start to see the truth. more converts to the Catholic faith, as when they began ordaining women. a hope rather than a certainty -- we can but pray. but there are 70 million of these lost brothers world-wide.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 22, 2003

Answers

up

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 22, 2003.

Ian: Unfortunately many of our priests and bishops haven't been much better, and that's an understatement. Maybe they are less open about their vices, but that only adds hypocrisy to their sins. I doubt that too many Anglicans will consider converting because of this particular issue.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 22, 2003.

Stephen,
Why do you presume:

''--many of our priests and bishops haven't been much better, and that's an understatement. Maybe they are less open about their vices, but that only adds hypocrisy to their sins.'' --Understatement? Not much better? Have you concluded this on proof, or conjecture?

Our holy priesthood numbers in tens of thousands. In the past century it may have been a hundred or more priests, who have been judged and found guilty . Possibly 30 bishops, who were unworthy of Our Lord, and of their calling. That's the real understatement. For every evil priest, the Church has ordained a thousand holy priests. Is my conjecture less plausible than yours?

The Catholic Church gives the world saints. You have no right to declare ''many'' of our priests unworthy, nor call them hypocrites. How dare you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Greetings: do not fear man but God as man who promotes himself to be a servant of God to rebuke angrily your statemeny is unwise. For the Lord himself is judgeing and exposing the works of darkness. There is much more that shall be revealed and the hypocrisy there of. Hosea 9:9 They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah: therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins. The problem is the covering of the evil, rather then repenting and laying it down they hide it and seek to accuse the wounded.

-- Jesusistheway (truthisfreedom316@yahoo.com), June 23, 2003.

Eugene:

Okay, let's say possibly 30, and certainly many good priests and bishops. I did not issue a blanket condemnation. But the fact remains that an Anglican who is unhappy with the scandal Ian mentioned is unlikely to run to the Catholic Church. We have our own scandals of a similar nature as I'm sure you are aware, and they are at least as bad. I will avoid the distasteful task of mentioning names and dates. But I can point to stuff on the activist site http://www.rcf.org (Roman Catholic Faithful).

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 23, 2003.

Get a grip on reality Eugene. There is nothing to celebrate nor gloat over here and I hope the moderator deletes this disgraceful thread. Stephen is right it will not result in any conversions.

Just to summarize Eugene doent think Catholic priests raping little boys is a big deal, to him its as normal as coffee and beans on toast for breakfast. "Nothing to see here folks, move on etc".... "were all meant to suffer etc"... nuff said.

I could always drag up the actual quotes theyre considerable less compasionate, they would be comical if he wasnt deadly serious.

-- Kiwi (csiherwood@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

Thanks, Kiwi. I should point out that although I mentioned their website, I don't exactly share all RCF's views. They seem to be traditionalists.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 23, 2003.

Some apt words from St. Peter Damien: Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice [sodomy] flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another's soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God's judgment?

For God's sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition?

This site has more.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 23, 2003.

I'm marvelling, Kiwi-- at your gross dishonesty.

Get a grip on reality Did I mention something UNREAL??? Eugene. There is nothing to celebrate nor gloat-- (WHO is celebrating, Sir? What am I GLOATING over???) over here and I hope the moderator deletes this disgraceful thread. Stephen is right it will not result in any conversions. (STEPHEN IS WRONG!) Just to summarize Eugene doesnt think Catholic priests raping little boys is a big deal, (Now I think YOU'RE DRUNK again!) ----------to him-- TO ME? --its as normal as coffee and beans on toast for breakfast. "Nothing to see here folks, move on etc".... I can't believe you'd say that. May God have mercy on you, Kiwi!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Dear Stephen: Here I quote: ''Okay, let's say possibly 30, and certainly many good priests and bishops. I did not issue a blanket condemnation.'' --Yes, the condemnation is wholesale and unwarranted. ''Certainly many''--? So, you have the dirt all lined up in the dossier, I expect?

You didn't even see what I posted, in your haste to denounce bishops and priests. It went over your head.

My words are easy to understand. For every evil man ordained the Catholic Church ordains a THOUSAND holy and trustworthy priests. Maybe more.

Yes, every one is a confessed sinner. Just as I am. But your blanket inclusion of MANY -- with regard to sexual failings and pedophilia --Is totally out of your imagination.

Further on you say: '' I will avoid the distasteful task of mentioning names and dates. But I can point to stuff on an activist site,'' You avoid distasteful tasks like sending us to ''activist'' sites where the church is bashed? You are so kind!

Names and dates? In the dossier??? Are you sure every name is the convicted, and not just accused offender? --Or do purported Catholics now call the whole lot guilty once an accusation is levelled aginst them? Would Father Damien conclude every other priest was a sodomite? As the joke tells it??? ''All of them are queer, Steve. -- Except me & you. And sometimes I wonder about you.'' You have suggested just that, Stephen. All I said was, measure yourself before you vilify another man. Take it easy! And, above all; don't do what the Kiwi does.

Don't accuse another Catholic of covering up for evil priests. That's a pure lie. Evildoers must be unfrocked and thrown in prison. Bishops who have enabled them are damned for it. But if they're faithful they can repent and sin no more. (I hope you don't object.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

i think eugene is the only one to get the point here.

it's not that the man is a sinner -- ie he preaches Scripture but has engaged in, and may well continue to engage in sodomy -- BUT it is moreover the fact the the Anglican Church appears to be moving toward a "new enlightened" position to accomodate him/ the many other homosexuals in that church.

bear in mind that the Anglicans base their teaching upon Scripture alone: Article VI of the 39 Articles of the Churc of England:- "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

and so they are now de facto "updating" their private interpretation of the unequivocal messages found in, e.g., Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24- 27; Cor 6:10; or 1 Tim 1:10. the Anglican leader (Archbishop of England, a known liberal) has tried to tell the Anglicans that this is not a revision of doctrine by stealth -- but a large section of his community think otherwise and they anticipate a time when the Anglican Synod rules that these Scriptures are outdated and no longer applicable. IMHO, they are right on the money.

so Stephen, yes, the Catholic Church may have had some very limited number of bad priests on its books, but at no point so far as i am aware has it ever moved its teaching to keep them on board.

in terms of conversions, the evangelicals and the conservatives in the Anglican church are very disturbed by this move. they are threatening to stop supporting the Anglican church financially -- and it is estimated that they account for 40% of all its revenue. the leader of the Nigerian Anglicans (who number 17,000,000) has threatened to break with the general body of Anglicans - as he did when some Canadian Anglicans started same-sex marrriages or the like.

IOW, there is guaranteed to be conversions (it must be 100% certain that there will be at least 1), the doubt is as to how many. traditional Anglicans are expected, in some number, to respond just as they responded when the Anglicans allowed women priests. we know that female ordination is contrary to the will of Christ, as did many Anglicans at the time -- hence the migration of priests as well as laity to our Church. the main mitigant may be that female ordination has already accounted for the majority of Anglicans that would have the courage to move over.

all-in-all, i believe that this is a tragic event for the Anglicans, if in due course it leads to an erosion in their teaching on sexual ethics; but some good may come out of it if more Catholics result.

for the rash of fundies that are currently plastering this website with their man-made propaganda, it also serves as a contemporary yet consummate lesson in the dangers of sola scripture.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 23, 2003.

Ohahah. A tiny laugh, after all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

Eugene youre a top bloke but we disagree on a few matters, not many but this most certainly is one. Turn the hearing aid up Eugene and listen to what God is trying to tell you! Your defence at all costs of the Church is admirable in some ways but it is not what Christ would have wanted of you. Youre not doing the Church any favours here.

We are all aware that the vast majority of priests are not child rapists but there is no honour or dignity in denying the Church had a major problem. Its attitudes like yours and those of some of our Churchs heirachy that allowed this horrendous and shameful situation to occur and in the eyes of many the Catholic Church around the world (but especially in AMerica) to lose credibility and moral authority.

Consider your words very carefully:

Our holy priesthood numbers in tens of thousands. In the past century it may have been a hundred or more priests, who have been judged and found guilty

A better summation of the problem could never be written, thanks Eugene. Of the hundreds of thousands of priests(millions?) who have lived over the past century youre suggesting only around 100 were ever found guilty of sexual abuse. Thats the tragedy.

Lets consider your previous thoughts.

Heres Eugene on physical abuse from Nuns:(to poster who has lost hearing as a result of childhood beatings )

“You got your ears boxed? Now, that's a pity! Many of our modern world's nuns have suffered mutilation, torture and death in countries all around us. All for love of Jesus Christ. Not only in Africa; close by, in Mexico and South America. In Spain and Germany and Poland especially. Give me a break! You speak of 20% loss of your hearing; and maybe you have reason. But where is your cause to complain. You were on the path of righteousness. … Because the sisters instilled that faith in you; but you are throwing it away”

Heres Eugene on Cardinal Law

“The Cardinal is a sad man, and he feels very guilty about all that happened on his watch. That much is obvious. But I think he's also been a victim. --His trust was violated every bit as much as the boys' who were abused and the Church which has felt the shame. …The Cardinal may be naive; he may have seen reasons to trust in God's infinite mercy and love. Don't you and I? I feel so sorry for this good man. He is also a victim. He didn't deserve this.”

Compare his above compassion to this from Eugene:

“To hell with the laity!…We have no Church; the Church is Jesus Christ's! We haven't been betrayed by the pedophile priest; it was Jesus who was betrayed and ignored. All we hear is ''the children''-- and ''the children!!!'' Yes, the children are victims of men's inhumanity. But Christ is more important than all the children of this world. His holy altar is defiled, and we ask-- ''Are we getting the priests we deserve?'' What a crock! Stop the world! I want to get OFF!”

Eugene on the abuse scandal:

“There is nothing about the Church's ''state'' or the priesthood's to be ashamed of!”

Finally and most tellingly Eugene on sexual abuse:

“You have the knee-jerk response of three-fourths of all Americans, save the children!!! But if the children are threatened, we save them. If God is outraged, no one seems to notice. That's why I wrote what I did. I was abused as a four-year old boy. Not by a priest; but abused sexually. When you say: ''I still say the children will live with the scars forever,'' let me say to you-- No, they won't be scarred forever-- That is just the psycho-babble everybody wants to believe. I wasn't pulverized, I was used as a plaything. And I'm proof that scars heal. Many of the ''boys'' who come out as victims today weren't children; they were teens. They may be scarred, who can say? But save the maudlin over-reaction for those boys who get into crack addiction, crime and habitual sin. They're the ones we are rightly worried for, not the altar boy who was betrayed. He will survive. God will help him survive; just pray for him. “

May God Bless you Eugene

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

One at a time, Kiwi. ONE--''Eugene youre a top bloke but we disagree on a few matters, not many but this most certainly is one. Turn the hearing aid up Eugene and listen
to what God (I see. You are God. Listen, Gino. Hike up that hearing aid! *Yes, God!*) ''--is trying to tell you! HA HA! Your defence at all costs of the Church is admirable in some ways,'' (Thanks. All I needed to know. The rest is chin music; I'll turn off my hearing aid.)

TWO --''A better summation of the problem could never be written, Eugene. Of the hundreds of thousands of priests, *millions?* (I might have expected you to quibble), who have lived over the past century, you're suggesting only around 100 were ever found guilty of sexual abuse''. (???)

They lived; they sinned, but not many were GUILTY as you charge; of the crime you refer to. You can't produce a larger number of actual guilty priests, can you? If you could, I think you would. But you only suggest I'm wrong, because the Church isn't Holy? --That it? -- No; I'm right because she's Holy. Put that in your pipe. Smoke it.

THREE: --You dug up this sentence, out of context: There is nothing about the Church's ''state'' or the priesthood's to be ashamed of!

You have it just about right. If the Church is doomed to shame in this world for the crimes of what, ? a score, a hundred perverted priests;

Then, Judas should have made Christians ashamed of the Church when he sold the Son of God. He acted as a follower of Christ. He left our Saviour to die on the cross, for thirty pieces of silver. What kind of Church was that? Kiwi is shocked!

Then, we see how today, saints are spiritually active and holy in the Catholic Church. I'm not inventing it; we all see the boundless charity and love our faithful priests and religious give to the world. For sinners, for lepers, for the aged and poor. For orphans, for the hungry, for the afflicted.

You count them all as shameful. You count our holy and dedicated priests as evil, as bad as the unholy few.

WHY? OK, Kiwi, it isn't because you're informed, fella. You could be drunk. You could be cynical and out of sorts today. Or you could be what's more usual. Lost and without faith. My words in this forum do not require your grace. I say what I say, and if you can disprove them, go on. I can take it. You posted much more which I can easily overturn. I'm not inclined right now. Go back to your ''awesome'' post. Pick a subject I haven't overturned here. Come back later. I will stand it on your head.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

This vote makes it 3 to 1 on the side of El Chavez.

Kiwi, you wrote: "We are all aware that the vast majority of priests are not child rapists but there is no honour or dignity in denying the Church had a major problem."

You either don't keep yourself informed or you have a horrendous memory. MANY were the times that people showed very clearly -- in the media and at this forum -- that there was not a "major problem" in the area of "child rapists." Your words are a disgusting anti-sacerdotal exagerration for which you ought to apologize. You ought to know full well that there was very little true "pedophilia" [your "paedophilia"] -- and within that, true "rape." Nearly the whole scandal (limited in scope though it was) involved adult homosexuals taking advantage of [but not forcibly "raping"] attractive teenage boys. So much for your "major problem" of "child rapists." Bah! Cringe in shame for your defamation, sir!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

I have to keep this post short, but a couple quick points.

Eugene:

When I said, "Okay, let's say possibly 30, and certainly many good priests and bishops" I was simply granting the numbers you suggested in your earlier post. The "certainly many" refers to good (=non-homosexual) people. I could have phrased that better, sorry. My point was that even with your numbers, we are hardly better than the Anglicans in this respect.

Exactly why is RCF (website here) a "Church-bashing" site? They seem to be devout Catholics, and what they are condemning is specific behavior on the part of specific clerics.

Ian:

Your point is good. The Anglicans are not just allowing homosexuals in their clergy, they seem to be changing their doctrine to allow homosexuality. That isn't happening in the Catholic Church. But then what is a ship-jumping Anglican to make of something like Goodbye good men by Michael Rose?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 23, 2003.

Eugene again Im all out off hankies. Never has one generated so much heat and produced so little light than your post above. Youll huff and youll puff but you .... As for the quotes youre a big boy , you said the words, theyre public record they show a mindset of denial on this issue IMO. Was it uncharitable or lacking in grace of me, maybe hindsight is a valuable thing and I have a track record of writing without thinking. So what its not a big deal, youll get over it.

John luckily the truth has never been a public vote, anyway Im not THAT far away from either of you on this issue I feel. The devil is in the detail though.

Chow

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 23, 2003.

Dear Stephen: Have I misunderstood?
''My point was that even with your numbers, we are hardly better than the Anglicans in this respect.''

That's your opinion. Mine would be we are formidable and exemplary compared to the Anglican counterpart. You are the one in an ivory tower, Stephen. I was merely standing up for Christ's holy priesthood. Of whom NONE are ordained in the Church of England. They deserve loyalty from the faithful.

If you think this is just inordinate pride, you are mistaken. It's the facts.

''Exactly why is RCF (website here) a "Church-bashing" site? -- '' --Well, now you've got me. I didn't log on the site. My remark was based on what you said yourself, some ''activist'' group. Am I afraid to log on their site? Not at all. But my anti-clerical sites threshhold is high today. They may stow their opinions about my Church's clergy (and of the apostles') where the sun never shines. I won't miss a thing. --All this without ever respecting a sexual offender, in or out of the clergy. They're all one to me; evil.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

This is my sincere opinion, Kiwi: The Catholic Church is not shamed. She is humbled, but not to blame; and has nothing to be ashamed of. In the field of Jesus Christ He sowed good seed. An enemy sowed weeds during the night. Good men should have kept watch, but they failed (Matt 13:24-25). Even so; God is keeping the wheat cultivated. He allows the weeds to stand while the wheat is growing. I hope you do not object, Matie.

You get a rise out of saying: ''. . . you said the words, they're public record they show a mindset of denial on this issue IMO.''.

--Really? OK; so it's true. Kiwis print maps of the world with the South Pole up at the top, and North on the bottom. I see where you're coming from, Boyo! I look bad, when you change the order of things to suit your own mindset. Fair's fair, --Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.

I'd like to make a long detailed post, but have no time right now. A couple of quick quotes:

Because of the great harm done by some priests and religious, the Church herself is viewed with distrust, and many are offended at the way in which the Church's leaders are perceived to have acted in this matter. The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God. To the victims and their families, wherever they may be, I express my profound sense of solidarity and concern. Pope John Paul II

Don't deny a problem that the Pope himself has called a crisis.

One victim of a priest is one too many. One reassigned abuser is one too many. The number of abusing priests (1205) and victims (4268), is horrific. However, if the Ratzinger/NYT estimates are anything near the reality, 98% of American priests are not abusers .. (Fr.Greeley who incidentally strongly holds a position similar to Eugene et al's. But look at his numbers :( )

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

To be honest Gene I didnt get a rise out of it at all.I do in fact feel a little hollow and unhappy about attacking you. I have promised you in the past Id leave you alone and not be rude or disrespectful. I accept you have good intentions, Ill leave it at that. Ciao :-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Eugene, I'll second what Kiwi said about your good intentions. I agree too with your point that priests deserve the loyalty of the faithful. However, I hope you will agree that loyalty does not mean accepting actively homosexual behavior.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

Dear Stephen:
I love you, , brother; and I agree with this:

''Don't deny a problem that the Pope himself has called a crisis. --One victim of a priest is one too many. One reassigned abuser is one too many,''

And I wonder why you would presume to say I denied it. Or questioned it.

Kiwi posted a dated reply I was making to a soft-hearted Catholic, who had gone to lengths ''teaching'' this forum that every ''child'' (she was talkin toddlers!) who'd been molested (by priests, naturally) was ruined for life. Beyond love, beyond repair, without a chance in life. I never even suggested the molestation was acceptable to me. To anybody. Nor that we should stop deploring it. --I spoke out against psychobabble and mistaking of pederasty for pedophilia; and against condemning the holy priesthood at large!

You appear to believe the snide addendum to my feelings here by Kiwi. --''Just to summarize Eugene doesn't think Catholic priests raping little boys is a big deal. To him its as normal as coffee and beans on toast for breakfast. "Nothing to see here folks, move on etc".... "were all meant to suffer etc";

And you may go ahead. Believe him.

Because, unlike some here, I've hardly ever made myself the topic of discussion. I discuss the faith of Catholics. Good ones as well as bad ones. And despite being a sinner, I think I'm on the side of the good ones.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Karl once more contributes libel and paranoid hysteria.

The Catholic Church has no interest in promoting marital dissolution, nor active homosexuality. One of the Church's holiest activities is the absolution of our sin. Be it divorce and remarriage, (when annulment is possible) or any other sin. If Karl doesn't love the Church, she will still be his mother. She will always love Karl. We know this to be the absolute truth. Karl may refuse to see, but he's not truly to blame, as seems to me. He labors under great emotional confusion and his pain is very real to him. That's why he lashes out at our faith. I hope all of us will pray for Karl, that he may be given faith and lasting peace.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

The big difference between the Catholic Church and all others, like the Anglicans is that whereas we may be sinners and so hypocrites, at least our bad bishops and wayward priests don't succeed in changing doctrine and dogma to "adjust to the times" and make sin suddenly "OK".

Yes, there are alot of sinful Catholic clergy. There always has been. But (and this is the point) Catholics - for all our own problems - still see their sin as "sinful"! And the Church officially has NEVER excused sin of the flesh as "OK" or harmless or socially acceptible.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 24, 2003.

Stephen knew he'd have to post his statistical argument sooner or later. --

''The number of abusing priests (1205) and victims (4268), is horrific. However, if the Ratzinger/NYT estimates are anything near the reality, 98% of American priests are not abusers.''

It's important to realise if you can, Stephen, how these numbers are or aren't ''horrific''. I agree with you, even ONE is shocking and evil. Even one enabler in the prelature fouls the air of our Church.

But realistically, abusing priests (1205)--and victims (4268), can be skewed numbers. All those cases have not gone to trial. Countless of them settled out of court, the motives might be good or bad. Some were possibly innocent priests or foolish bishops.

Out of the 1205, my guess would be 30% are truly sustainable in court, as abuse. Shocking enough, and very shameful. Of the victims, my estimate would simply be: Many are lying or inventing the very worst. How many? God knows.

Many are truly victims. Not each one in the grossly indecent manner. But possibly 50%, even more. Can't ever be condoned, and I would not. Many were fondled in a dirty way. Many were seduced. Some want revenge and will give tainted testimony. From revulsion; much like the revulsion we see here today. Make the bast--d pay! And, if the lawyer sees a way, make the diocese pay.

My point is; numbers are deceiveing. 1205 true ''rapes''--? Not likely. Nor that many real victims. All feel victimized when the truth is on their side. Only, do they all tell the truth?

You'll ask: why quibble this way, Gene??? Why not just admit in disgust-- we have an evil element in the Church--?

BECAUSE, I want to have a suggestion at least, of what those ''numbers'' prove. To me, they show some of the truth. They distort the truth a lot. And, they're calculated to shock. Total up the number of crimes, only, not particularly to render just punishments. Just because disgrace is always so juicy, it's so good for selling papers. Feeding frenzies are just lovely to Satan and those who hate the Church.

AND; are any of those 1205 accused priests innocent? We'll find out that number on Christ's Judgment day. You could look forever and not find it in this world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Eugene- It is precisely because of my true Catholicism as opposed to Church Catholicism that I point out the glaring inequities in the Catholic Church. When you understand that you may perhaps see my comments in a different light.

Joe-

I disagree with you. Most Catholics do not see their behavior as sinful. Instead they see a misguided view, perpetrated by many, many clergy and laity, that God is all-forgiving and that he somehow overlooks the gravely sinful acts which are tolerated these days in the current incarnation of the Catholic Church. They accept a wrong concept of God wherein His mercy trumps His justice. This is a false God.

Catholics, especially on this forum give lip service only to their sinfulness. A sinner, who understands the separation from the almighty which serious sins brings will not be so quick, nor brutal on the attack toward those who have legitimate issues with the Catholic Church. Such a sinner will always be sensitive to whether or not the complaint is based upon fact. They will listen and seek the truth for they have seen the fruit of falsehood. Then when they see the truth, through honest searching and not through blind obedience to what the Church practices they will join in the cross that their brother or sister is bearing and instead of criticizing in chosen ignorance and denial of facts and truth, as more than a few do in this forum, they will join the call to holiness and justice which must be raised to the clerics and hierarchy which control the Catholic Church.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Dear Eugene:

You are obviously an excellent Catholic, and I am sure no one here doubts your intentions at all. I should say that I agree that the vast majority of priests and religious are true to their vocations, and deserve the support of the faithful.

I should also clarify that I certainly don't think that the invalid Anglican orders are better than Catholic ones. My point, to rephrase it less controversially, was just this: an Anglican who is fed up with clerical scandals in his church might not exactly consider the Catholic church a big improvement, given the recent media coverage we've been enjoying.

However, Ian's point about their changing their doctrines (ignoring the Bible ?!) is well taken.

We seem to be trying to solve our problem by changing things so that clerical bad behavior is less likely to happen. They seem to be trying to fix their problem by changing their doctrine so that clerical bad behavior becomes okay.

In the long run, our approach will make us stronger and better because we have not compromised with our doctrine or discipline. They, however, may face the consequences of building their house on the shifting sands of political correctness. But it may take a very perceptive Anglican to see the difference.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

St. Peter Damian's comment on the evil consequences of sodomy for the sinner (taken from the Randy Engel article I linked to earlier.) Here's the link again Good reading if we are tempted to dismiss it when it is consensual and between adults. The Saint doesn't mince his words. St. Peter Damian, pray for us.

--- quote begins here

According to Damian, the vice of sodomy “surpasses the enormity of all others,” because:

“Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ...

“This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God... She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence.

-- end quote

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

What has made you suspect this forum conforms to the world and political correctness? We all realise that abject behavior is sinful even in a loving & selfless union of homosexuals. Even a platonic relationship can plunge a couple into sin; because they bring temptation wilfully into each others' sphere. They lust in their hearts for one another.

So; let's agree. The Catholic faith is adamantly against all immorality. Thought, word and deed.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

Karl:
I'm afraid your grasp is longer than your reach. Your mean-spirited remark:

''Catholics, especially on this forum give lip service only to their sinfulness. A sinner, who understands the separation from the almighty which serious sins brings will not be so quick, nor brutal on the attack toward those who have legitimate issues with the Catholic Church.'' --Is self-serving.

By accusing everyone else of sin, you justify your own actions. Everything you say beginning to end, keeps returning to one theme. YOU are right; the Church is wrong. Now, we here are just bad people. FINE!!! Pick another forum, won't you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

"MY Catholicism as opposed to Church Catholicism". Now there's a revealing phrase! So YOUR truth outweighs that of the Biblical foundation of truth? Whatsoever YOU say outweighs that which is bound in heaven? YOUR personal ideas override the teaching of God's Magisterium. YOU are your own Pope. That would make YOU the head of YOUR own denomination. So why try to keep up the transparent front of being Catholic??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.

Stephen, I've known about RCF (Roman [sic] Catholic Faithful [sic]) for a few years. After I heard about them, it didn't take long before I realized that they are the kind of group that I cannot stomach -- folks with a perpetual case of heartburn, never enjoying anything good and happy and optimistic in life, but spending every waking moment as "muckrakers."

All (or nearly all) of what they publish [just like "The Wanderer" and other things of this ilk] is negative, accusatory, and judgmental. They do not in any way imitate Pope John Paul II, who demonstrates a healthy mix of vocally rejecting evil, praising good, and rejoicing optimistically in the grace of God.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

AMEN< JOHN!
Off topic;

A few nights ago I watched an edition of History Channel. Morbid stuff, but I'm glad I stuck in there. It was on the Ital--iun Ma /fia. Just ungodly. But--

Out they come with Il Papa; John Paul II. At around 75 or so of age, he was lambasting the Madfia in a classy voice, perfect Italian! I had to choke up at the greatness of this Pope! Just heroic!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.

John:

You seem to be right about RCF's filter thinking---they focus exclusively on the sins (real and perceived) of a few men, and ignore the many good things in todays Church. Tbere is a real danger that their activities can lead to good people's reputations being unfairly tarnished by innuendo.

They do seem to have achieved some good things however. For example they exposed and stopped the "St. Sebastian's Angels" group.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

St. Francis of Assisi on the respect due to priests: (Admonitions Chapter XXVI). I probably need to be mindful of this admonition.

--begin quote--

Chapter XXVI. That the servants of God should honor clerics

Blessed (is) the servant, who puts faith in the clerics who live rightly according to the manner of the Roman Church. · And woe to those who despise them; for though they may be sinners, no one however ought to judge them, since God Himself reserves to Himself alone their judgement. · For as much as their administration is greater, which they have because of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which they themselves receive and which they themselves alone minister to others, · so much greater a sin have they, who sin against them, than against all the other men of this world.

-- end quote --

Here's another relevant quote from Catholic Answers, by Fr. Roger Landry:

"The point is, sometimes God's chosen ones betray him. That is a fact that we have to confront. If the early Christians had focused only on the scandal caused by Judas, the Church would have been finished before it even started to grow. Instead they recognized that you don't judge a movement by those who don't live it but by those who do. Rather than focusing on the betrayer, they focused on the other eleven on account of whose work, preaching, miracles, and love for Christ we are here today."

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 24, 2003.

They replaced Judas did they not?

And the point ?

The role of an optimist is to ignore the bad and advertize the good at truth's expense.

The role of a pessimist is to ignore the good and advertize the bad at truth's expense.

The role of a realist is to endlessly expose the bad that is factually bad and to partake, enjoy and encourage the good, with both being lived for the sake of the truth.

The Catholic Church tends toward the optimist when it should be a realist and in doing so it onscures the fullness of truth it possess. But it does try to be what it should. It has the gift of the Holy Spirit but it also has the burden of the fruit of Original Sin which causes constant tension.

This Pope, the optimist, has frequently spoken truth but he has largely ignored the decay in his Church except to attempt to attack it at its roots, which is good but it is not a comprehensive attack and in doing so he has done real harm as well as good.

A long view of things is good but to deny justice to those wrongly treated by the Church is not an excusable error and to fail to publically punish those who are clerics who have violated their obligations in public is to encourage further ill-begotten behavior while ignoring the corrupt infrastructure which these recalcitrant clerics have built up within their diocese or wherever they have been ensconced.

You would find many less gloom-and-doom sayers if the Church approached its real problems comprehensively, openly and allowed those who continue to suffer injustices into the loop of decision making, punishment and accessibility to information regarding the nuts and bolts of their complaints in order to root out the hidden support of the injustice among those not in immediate scrutiny of normal investigations.

Right now the Church is a closed system and even if it make the right choices it is wrong because it cannot be trusted. Silence and secrecy are not golden when the cancers still remain.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Karl:

One type of optimism is a requirement of the Christian life. It's called faith. "On this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Why doubt that divine promise?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 25, 2003.

Blind Faith is ignorant unless you are mentally incapacitated and one would wonder if you could comprehend faith in the first place.

But because of the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it seems to deny that a "remnant" will persevere as I recall, based upon what I understand from your post.

The Church is made of fallible humans and has made terrible mistakes throughout history, unless the Pope is foolishly asking forgiveness and thereby showing false humility(pride). It is ALWAYS wise to doubt its leaders when what they are doing appears to vary from what the historical teachings are. That is what I mean. It really does not call into question the promise.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

Gee, Karl-- If I didn't know better, I would think that was white smoke rising out of your chimney. Are you looking to be Pope? Yes. Your inimitable wisdom and strength of character would suit the Church fine. Look at the vast difference between you and the Pope! He's not worthy of getting photographed in the same frame with Karl The Great.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

Sorry Eugene. I do not smoke and never have except when I type to fast for my thoughts and my rudimentary typing skills.

What I said, probably poorly, was that I do not think he did it out of false pride when the Pope apologized for past sins in the Catholic Church.

So, following from his apology it makes sense that being a human institution one could, I believe reasonably, expect that sins would continue, which I think would also dovetail well with Jesus assertion that these would always be sin(on earth).

Which then would not contradict the promise of the guidance for the Church till the end either. Eugene, I think often you do not listen to what I say because you have a predisposition. But perhaps I could be clearer as well.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 25, 2003.

The Pope had every good motive for apologising, Karl. To the ones who had been mistreated in past ages by erring Catholics. But you suppose too much if you think he apologised for the Catholic Church. The Church will be inerrant and blameless to the end of time. Men are sinners, not the Church. Is this too strange for you to understand? No Catholic doctrine ever set Christian against Jew. Nor Christian against his neighbor. When Catholics sinned they sinned because they forgot the Holy Gospel as taught them in Church. Even some priests have. The doctrine is faultless, the Church herself is blameless. The Holy Father asked pardon for the sins of her children. You have the usual mistaken slant we see so often. The unthinking figure, Oh-- Look the Pope admits the Catholic Church persecuted people. NOT so.

People persecuted people; and they acted against all the Church's teaching by their actions. The Pope knows you and I have never persecuted a Jew, for instance. We know this is a sin. But in past eras, many Catholics were guilty of those things. It's for THEM the Pope asked forgiveness. Because they forgot the commandments.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 25, 2003.

To me it seems not completely accurate to separate the actions of individuals and/or groups of Catholics from the Catholic Church when the actions taken are made in the name of the Church, are sanctioned by the Church and flow from the interpretation of canon law in particular.

If these actions were clearly and completely separate from the institutional Catholic Church I would agree with you.

Where it becomes more serious is when the Church does not act to correct those who identify themselves as Catholics and/or who may be clerics who act with the authority their position has and whose actions cause real harm. If the Church does not correct a cleric who has erred in their official position, the Church itself as an institution does incur guilt and error. Such injustice demands an official rectification and restitution that is just, and as public as the injustice done was public. Anything less is not a Catholic response. If the Church remains unanswering such a demand for justice the Church is wrong, corporately. It is semantics to excuse every act as an individual act and thusly claim this pristine Catholic Church, which does not exist!

Gods promise to the Church to keep its teachings faithful is not even a part of what we are discussing. Its practical application of those teachings are not free, in any way, from error through a divine promise. To defend such a belief is false from the git go, if that is what you are saying Eugene.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 27, 2003.

Karl,
I am not trying to exonerate the sinners. We have all sinned. Even a few Popes were unworthy of their calling. There are definitely some dangerous bishops, certainly a number of sacrilegious priests and even nuns!

You seem to think they are in the bosonm of the Church and accepted? Never reproached?

Of course they bring scandal. Christ prophesied it would come. But He is the Head of His Mystical Body, the Church. We are the members. Jesus told His followers, I am the Vine, you are the branches; and every branch that does not give good fruits shall be cut off; burned.'' The Vine remains Holy. The Church is holy, even if men within her, laity and clergy commit sins. They have a responsibility to repent and confess their sins. But the Church does not teach injustice. She always demands we obey God.

So, if the Pope said we were sorry, it was for men's unfaithfulness in the past. It was his way of stating emphatically: The Church does not tolerate injustice, it's a sin. Not even the injustice her members have done.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 27, 2003.

It is semantics to excuse every act as an individual act and thusly claim this pristine Catholic Church, which does not exist! [from an obsessively disgruntled, non-practicing Catholic]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [from God the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul]

Hmmmm ... I think I'll believe God the Holy Spirit.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

It would seem then that the Church only includes those who are perfect and have never sinned, which would be Mary and the Trinity and the rest of us should stop wasting our time even hoping for salvation, if the text is to be understood in a literal tone.

Or, perhaps it means that when all is said and done with this earthly free-will experiment those who have passed the muster will indeed comprise a Church, presented to Christ in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

If you chose the former I think you are clearly outside the teachings of the Church. But the latter claims no "perfection" throughout time. I think your interpretation of the scripture may not be correct, if I understand what you are saying.

It does not make common sense to belong to a body, while living as a sinner, while still maintaining an unblemished body. It doesn't wash, so to speak. But it does wash when all is said and done after all have been judged when I think, Satan's rule over this planet will finally be over, and the Body of Christ will be the only remainder from its sojourn throughout time.

I think it is an ideal, which will occur when it is time but it exists now, if you will, not in "our" time but in Christ's "now".

The only other concept I can, currently, imagine whereby perfection can exist with a constantly sinning constituency would be a dynamic equlibrium wherein humans pop in and out of this "perfect" Church depending on their state of sin or grace and the "Church" only encompases those who are perfect at any given moment in time. Perhaps since God is omnipotent that is what it is but it is not something I can really comprehend, moment to moment, kind of like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. For me, until I am convinced otherwise and not simply through obstinatcy, I remain believing in a perfect Church, ultimately, not currently, which is on a journey toward the perfection of Christ but which will be tested continuously and only a remnant will remain.

I will continue to live as best I can by her teachings(thank God that John is not Pope or my judge), while she unjustly administers(not the ceremony) the sacrament of marriage, divorce, remarriage and annulments, knowing(and hoping I live to see it) that she will one day discern the will of Christ in that regard and finally act in justice toward those she has encouraged in their adulterous ways and make amends to those and their families whom she has failed to protect, while admitting her errors.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

Jmj

I think it is an ideal, which will occur when it is time but it exists now, if you will, not in "our" time but in Christ's "now". [from the obsessively disgruntled, non-practicing Catholic (odn-pC)]

No, the Church as "holy and without blemish" exists now, "in 'our' time". That is why the Song of Songs portrays the Church as God's "bride." That is why Jesus calls himself the bridegroom. That is why St. Paul calls the Church the bride of Christ. And that is why one of the four "marks" of the Church is "holiness" [one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic].

[Speaking of the Catholic Church,] I will continue to live as best I can by her teachings ... while she unjustly administers [etc.] ... that she will one day discern the will of Christ ... while admitting her errors. [from the odn-pC]

This is falsehood and self-delusion on a great scale. He lies in saying that he "will continue to live as best [he] can by [the Church's] teachings," because he will not even attend Mass on Sunday. And he deludes himself by thinking that the spotless Bride of Christ has "errors" to "admit."

(Dear Lord, since this confused little boy of yours has inexplicably not yet been banned from the forum, please allow his computer to get a fatal virus, so that we need not have our site fouled by his verbal ordure. Gratias.)

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 28, 2003.

the latest news, if anyone is interested, is that the homosexual has declared that he will not accept the post of protestant bishop. but out of this has come the overwhelming impression that Christianity (inas much as it remains true to the word of God and condemns homosexuality) is a small-minded bigot. the gays have won this particular PR battle which, sadly, despite a batle "fought" by the protestants, has been lost by all Christians.

and, yes, now we see the use of aborted feoti by the Dutch and the Israelis to create new babies.

it seems, therefore, that we are a dwindling band. and we will dwindle and dwindle. but i just hope and pray that, when Our Lord returns, at least one of us will remember the difference betwen right and wrong.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 06, 2003.

dear Laurent LUG,

we hate the sin as opposed to the sinner; but homosexual acts are, prima facie, sinful -- because, whilst ingredients (ii) and (iii) of any Mortal Sin are not necessarily present, ingredient (i) (grave matter) is certainly inherent in any such act (and (ii) and (iii) are almost invariably there, also).

anyways, that's not the real point. the real point is one of the following: -- (1) hypocrisy, the homosexual priest preaching scripture whilst defying scripture; and/or (2)sola scriptura, which allows the protestant to progressively, and as a matter of course, amend the word of Our Lord according to their personal tastes.

doom and gloom. that's all i see. until the end.... protestantism may well prevail, because it mirrors the base nature of man. but, as it prevails, Our Lady weeps,.. and Her Beloved Son....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 06, 2003.

David-

It is one thing to call yourself a "Christian" and quite another to be a "Christian". I am puzzled by you. You could be a living example of a Christian, but I truly have to squint my eyes to see the living example in you. Tone it down! Lose that hatred that is deep inside of you. Stop attacking those things that you don't understand. When Jesus walked the earth, He did not come to destroy anything. He came to save us all. Try to live by his example. Work with these people and you may build bridges. You may not believe in all they have to day, but agree on those things which are common. Study what is different because this is what makes us stronger in our faith. You can't shoot me down on what I've said, right?

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.coms), July 06, 2003.

Ian-

I'm sorry you have seen Catholicism dwindling. I thought so, too, until I found where they were all hiding. Actually, there is a real core of solid Catholics, and it's growing.

You can find them in homeschooling groups, Catholic colleges (Ave Maria College; Franciscan U. of Steubenville; Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy [Canadian]), and in growing communities. Combermere, Ontario, Canada has a great Catholic community, closely tied to Madonna House. Head up there for a retreat sometime!

World Youth Day was also inspiring. Even though there was a fair share of half-hearted Catholics, the majority (I'm guessing here) were intense and faith-filled people.

We just have to head out and make disciples of all nations!

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 06, 2003.

I hope all of us will become supporters of Ian, and not critics. He has every right to protest and lament the many abuses in this world. Especially in so-called christian countries. He has to deplore what happened in the Anglican community over homosexuality issues they fail to resolve. I see nothing wrong in his deploring the evil in some countries; about to exploit even the dead embryos harvested from sin. It's gross! Ian's right, in a way. Our Lord stated well; when He comes back again, the charity of the world will have grown cold. Then we, the faithful, will only be a remnant. Christ prophesied it!

The only advice I would give Ian is, Go forward in faith, and not in pessimism. God can bring good out of evil, but we have to pray. He is giving the unfaithful of our societies a long rope. God is not mocked; He will see them hang, and his Justice will prevail. Let's be faithful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.

Sorry if I sounded critical, I agree with Ian wholeheartedly and I enjoy reading his posts.

I just wanted to point out that although the media often ignores the "good news" there's still a lot of it out there.

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 07, 2003.

What is wrong with gay people ?? I really don't see what they are doing wrong !!

Discrimination is a crime against humanity & the law !!

Greets from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), July 07, 2003.

Catherine Ann, your post was uplifting.

Eugene, thank you for the vote of confidence.

Laurent, nothing wrong with gays, everything wrong with homosexual practices. we are all sinners. and gays sin when they engage in homosexual acts. they just don't see it that way.

Laurent, my point is this == as time has gone on, we have seen the so-called "liberal" sections of society condone all sorts of things that are sinful. just look up "partial abortion" on the internet and tell me you don't feel sick when you have finished reading it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.cm), July 07, 2003.