Of COURSE the Church’s reaction was inexcusably negative. The only loving thing to do would be to ignore centuries of practice backed by sublime theology and let Fr. Cutié just get married post haste, with no interruption to his priestly ministry. Even though it would have meant his breaking of his own free, solemn promise of celibacy.  Even though the Church would have had to also break Christ’s own command and let him marry a divorced woman [assuming there was no annulment]. Why? Because that’s what he really, REALLY wanted.

Cruel, just cruel!

Now you’ll have to excuse me, because I’m going to go give my kids some ice cream for breakfast and let them play in traffic, because that’s what they really, REALLY want to do.

Thanks for all the comments, Jimmy.  It is important that people understand specifically what is/was/will be wrong with Fr. Cuties actions.  If his actions and rationalizations cause scandal an sow misunderstanding, you writing is to be considered anti-scandalous.

Good analysis of the press release.

I wouldn’t give him a dime by purchasing that book, even for analysis.  LOL - wait to get a used copy.

Doesn’t it just burn your applesauce when someone tries to justify their illicit actions by saying that God must have wanted them to sin because He out them in the situation?  Please! If he had ANY decency he would have left the priesthood, THEN he would have been free to do whatever he wanted.  Instead Fr. Cutie decided to drag his Holy Orders through the mud.  Sorry, Cutie.  YOU are to blame.  It’s called personal responsibility.

I’m a big fan of the life principle “Never let your libido choose your religion.” At this point in time, Fr. Cutie is embracing an opposing worldview.

His affair was exposed and his life reached a crossroads: the path of integrity (several options were open to him) or the path of the ego (stardom and the libido)...which one would he choose? To me, the greater fall was not his adultery, but his evidently easy embrace of so many principles so antithetic to the Catholicism he publicly represented.

So he made his choice and now he’s trying to justify it (while making a few bucks). Unfortunately Fr. Cutie has for the time being made eros his god, and the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is its rightful temple. When he finally decides to return to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, his true Mother, the Catholic Church, whom he at present attacks in the most self-justifying way, will be there to receive him with mercy.

I will say a prayer for him today that the kindness of God will lead him to repentance.

My humble feeling is that Cutie is a cheat thinking God is just like him. He has no shame or humaneness or maturity. If at all he wanted to leave the priesthood, he should have done it with grace. Impregnating a woman is no solution but a heap of sinful acts. Ignore such people. Let God deal with them

It is so sad to witness the lack of priestly formation when a Priest cannot respond properly to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Cutie acted with disobedience and reveled against the Magisterioum of the Catholic Church; his life is focused in being an idol and using the media to make a fortune, as shown by his TV shows and his sensationalist books.Now, he makes a scandal by having an ilegitimate relation and being proud of it. 

God has mercy on him for deceiving so many souls!

The press release for the sequel will undoubtedly contain the following excerpt:

My marriage to Buni Canellis was an impediment to marrying with the love of my life. To achieve fulfillment, my choice was either to leave my wife and children and shack up with the love of my life, or to embrace polygamy.

As for which of these he chooses, only time will tell.

Fr. Cutié stated, “There are so many homosexuals, both active and celibate, at all levels of clergy and Church hierarchy that the church would never be able to function if they were really to exclude all of them from ministry.”  I don’t know much about Fr. Cutie, but he’s right on the mark with the above statement.  I was a seminarian in a religious order during the 1990’s.  The way the homosexuals were allowed to “act out” was revolting.  There were a lot of them, and there was a lot of “acting out.”  After I completed my temporary religious vows, I also left to get married. A heterosexual man can be in for a rough time in the Catholic priesthood.  I couldn’t deal with it, too creepy!
If your a heterosexual considering priesthood, I suggest you carefully research what the living conditions within the Church are going to be like.

To Diane at Te Deum, you won’t have to wait long for a “used” copy.  Just go to your local public library.  The public libraries love to stock books that put the Catholic Church or priesthood in a negative light.  It will probably be out this week in the “new” books section…

I will be interested to see Fr. Cutie’s perspective as a 20th century priest dealing with the state of the priesthood.  I accept the Church’s teachings on celibacy, but am very interested from a former Catholic priest’s perspective on his struggle and whether or not the Church was helpful, whether or not he allowed himself to be assisted, or whether he rejected the notion that he could be helped to be faithful to his chosen vocation.

drwho

I was a diocesan seminarian in the mid 90s, and observed nothing of that sort. I also explored several religious orders and observed nothing of the sort. I don’t doubt your experience, given rumors I’ve heard, but I think it depends very much on the particular group.

After reading your response, drwho, something flashed through my mind.  Not pretending to be a psychologist of any kind, but do any of you suppose that it is possible that Fr. Cutie subconsciously chose an illicit affair to have a “reason” to leave the Catholic priesthood?  Could life as a Catholic priest in modern day America, with all of its proclivities towards homosexuality and “acting out” as drwho put it, have driven Cutie to find something to “rescue” him and make sure he would leave?  Maybe this was an unconscious attempt to rid himself of the appalling ‘lifestyles’ he witnessed going on around him.
I don’t know how many more signs the Church is going to need to do a massive overhaul of seminaries and the priesthood really.

Some of you have good points above, but you are passing judgement on Father Cutie just as he has judged the Church.  Let us abstain from summarizing what is happening.  Now, I say this, not from an anti-Catholic standpoint, but truly from a position of strong faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We do not need to react defensively to Cutie’s choices.  Recall the verses from RSV-Catholic Scripture, particularly verse 12:

1 Corinthians 10

1   I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2   and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3   and all ate the same supernatural food
4   and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
5   Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6   Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.
7   Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance.”
8   We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.
9   We must not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents;
10   nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.
11   Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come.
12   Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

My point is that we do not know Cutie’s mind, but we do know some of his weaknesses. We cannot ACCUSE him of weakness, we can only pity him, pray for him, and expect him to take responsibility for his actions.  Who among us, were we in his shoes, would not fall prey to the heavy pressure and manipulation by the secular and non-Catholic media to fuel controversy for the sake of ratings, profit and popularity?  Cutie is seeking refuge right now in the Episcopalian church and the media is exploiting him in his weakness and confusion. Cutie, if it were not for the media, would possibly have sought reconciliation with the Church and/or quietly left to pursue marriage. Had Cutie been arrogant, self-serving and obstinate about Church teaching to begin with, would he have made it into the priesthood?  I would hope not.  So truly, the devil got a foothold when he exposed Cutie’s weakness for the flesh.

Please, let us stop criticizing and reacting to this news. Sin is sin and who among us is without it?  The only difference for Cutie is that unfortunately, the media is sensationalizing and moralizing his, to Cutie’s detriment! As with drug addicts and alcoholics, we have to leave them be to hit bottom before they can see the effects of their choices. Criticizing and condemning them is not the path to repentance.

I saw last night the interview Albert Cutie did with Don Francisco, a spanish speaking “Dave L.”, and it was regretful, he tried to blame everybody but his own actions, he stated the over 100,000 priests have left the church for the same reasons as him, that if the 300,000 left, many of them struggle like him. What a shame!
At some point he attacked the Church on his tradition, stating that it is not biblical for a preist to be celibate, he forgets what Christ told his disciples, “for there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Mt 19:12)
As Jimmy says, we need to pray for him and those that he will erroneously guide away from the Bride of Christ!

Jimmy thank you for bringing this to everyone’s attention.  I believe that celibacy is the last defense of Western Civilization.  Because celibacy is the only answer to same-sex attraction.  The modern thought is that we must all be sexually active.  That we are slaves to our sexuality.  Catholics are the only ones that can say to homosexuals, you are called to celibacy, just as our priests, our monks, our nuns.  Protestants cannot ask homosexuals to do something that they are unwilling to do.  This is why the Episcopal Church in America MUST allow homosexual clergy/unions because otherwise it would be “unfair” to ask someone to do something that nobody in the clergy is willing to do.  That is why celibacy is under attack, and all the happy celibates are overlooked and celibacy is maligned as causing molesters or being impossible.

Fr Joshua, I believe the gift of celibacy enriches the Church immensely. But I must tell Juliet, that if you read the book, “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael Rose, you will see that many men were admitted to the priesthood that never should have been, and, many pious men were rejected.  He has written a book that will really open your eyes to the priestly delemma of the 20th century.
I do agree wih Fr Joshua, celibacy is a gift from God that among other things, shows the world that a) it is possible, and b) when offered to God can accomplish great spiritual things.  But today’s priests do not operate in a vacuum, nor for that matter, in a traditionally pious atmosphere.  If they are to remain strong in their priesthood they must adopt spiritual armor: daily Mass, daily Adoration, daily Rosary, faithful to the Liturgy of Hours.  As Mother Teresa once told a young priest, “Father, if you are too busy to pray—- you are too busy.”

A man on the beach with a woman’s legs wrapped around him and his hand down her pants does not sound like a man who is struggling.  A more apt description is a man who has already fallen.  Instead of asking forgiveness and repenting, leave the Church, blame the Church, and write a book about it.  It’s like St. Augustine’s Confessions in reverse.

It’s a shame to see not only “Cutie” turning his back on the Catholic church and walking away, but now he wants to make a victim of himself ( which scoundrels usually do) and make a buck off his sacrilege. I hope the book bombs! But I feel in this evermore leaning secular world, it will probably become a best sellar and then hollywood will pick it up and run with it.

Albert Cutie is making the media rounds to promote his book and appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today. Initially, I didn’t plan to watch his interview, but now I am glad that I did watch. A round of applause for Cutie’s interviewer, George Stephanopoulos. He pointed out that even in his faith community, the Greek Orthodox Church (like the Eastern Catholic rites), a married man may become a priest, but once ordained, a priest cannot become a married man.  Of course, Cutie side-stepped that, but I thought it was very good of George to bring it up.

As a Roman Catholic myself, Father Cuite has shown more compassion to those holier-than-thou detractors in the Catholic Church. “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Matthew 7:1-2

@Rafael, reread the article.  Father Cutie made his judgment to the world.  He’s innocent and the Church is guilty of not availing to his life’s preference.  The Church did not force celibacy, Father Cutie made a vow to be celibate, a commitment that is pre-requisite to the ordination of an unmarried candidate for the priesthood.  As Mr. Akin pointed out, the Church did not force Father Cutie out of the priesthood, Father Cutie simply left.  The Church did not throw out the fallen man, the fallen man threw out the Church and turned against her, I believe this is called apostasy.  If you accept Father Cutie’s compassion in this, imagine your wife suddenly being discovered by him as the love of his life during, say, a spiritual counseling session.  Now, you do not want to deny the compassionate man the love of his life, do you?

RAFAEL,

You wrote:

“Father Cuite has shown more compassion to those holier-than-thou detractors in the Catholic Church.”

Sorry - is this sentence supposed to mean something specific? I still cannot make it out…

@ Brenda -

You wrote:

“Not pretending to be a psychologist of any kind, but do any of you suppose that it is possible that Fr. Cutie subconsciously chose an illicit affair to have a “reason” to leave the Catholic priesthood?  Could life as a Catholic priest in modern day America, with all of its proclivities towards homosexuality and “acting out” as drwho put it, have driven Cutie to find something to “rescue” him and make sure he would leave?  Maybe this was an unconscious attempt to rid himself of the appalling ‘lifestyles’ he witnessed going on around him.”

An interesting theory EXCEPT that “escaping” to the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is unfortunately a bit like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Let us also remember that while functioning as an Episcopalian priest Mr. Cutie is still validly ordained and has the sacramental power to confect the Blessed Sacrament albeit sacrilegiously.

The title explains enough about myself to explain to readers that I am in no position to explain Catholic doctrine though that does not mean I am not aware of the teachings and situation [formerly]Father Cutie was in.

Continuing on, the situation that Father Cutie was in could have been avoided. The church holds its right to deny priests the right to marry for many reasons and one is so that they can devote ALL of their lives to the church and only the church. Tough and some might say cruel, right? Right. With that in mind also understand that taking the vow of priesthood is a choice, much like marriage is a choice, and as such one WILLINGLY gives up the human right to romantically love others and engage in physical relationships. The reason for this, is that priests are meant to take care of congregations, communities, hundreds of people. Fathers of nuclear families are supposed to take care of their wife, and any potential children, and one might agree in saying that it would be rather difficult to devote yourself to the care taking of an entire community as well as a family of your own. The point here is, if you do try, you’re going to do a half-ass job at both, potentially. That is not to say that there are people capable enough to do it, it just means the Catholic church understands that most people do not have that awesome ability and WILL fail at one or the other. I mean, lets face it,in sheer numbers alone there are a heck of a lot more broken families out there than there are broken priests [hopefully].

My point here is, Mr. Cutie had a choice, he knew the consequences, and he made the choice to become a priest, made his vows, later regretted it, and is now blaming the establishment of the church for his own misjudgment. I apologize for being so critical but I once thought about being a priest and decided that it is not for me. For many reasons, but one main one is, that I want to fall in love one day and enjoy the sacrament of marriage with another. I will not exalt myself into saying that the path I chose will absolutely be the right one, or that I will not falter in said sacrament or relationship once there, but I will say that if I do either, the choice will have been all on my own and the fault as well. Not the churches.

Having said all this, I feel Mr. Cutie is wrongly accusing the church for teachings that have been in place for over 2000 years and it is not fair for the media to bash on church teachings which have precedent and purposes. I admire Mr. Cutie’s courage though I also think he’s resentful of his mistakes and is taking them out on the church instead of owning up to them. Again, I am no one to accuse and apologize if I have offended anyone but as I see it, we all make mistakes, and we all need take accountability for them, not look for scapegoats.

Ny experience (nearly 30 years ordained and longer in Religious Life) is that there are a lot of chaste homosexuals and non-chaste homosexuals and heterosexuals in the Catholic Religious communities (and in the “secular”, diocesan priesthood, but that most of us are heterosexual and LIVING OUR VOWS faithfully). Stereotypes and rumors aside, the majority of us, regardless of sexual orientation, live our vows—LET ME REPEAT THAT, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, THE MAJORITY OF US LIVE OUR VOWS (or in the case of “secular” priests, live our promises.

I’ve dealt with this first hand after my community sent me back to school to earn a Master in Social Work (M.S.W.) specializing in adult psychotherapy and family systems theory.  I worked, over the years, with many men (both heterosexual and homosexual) struggling with these issues.

Father Cutie’s comments are nether “Cute” nor accurate.

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

In Christ,

Father Robert George

@Rafael, What a pile!

RAFAEL OCASIO - you make an excellent point.  Thank you for sharing it, I agree with you 100%.  You hit a nerve, for the others on this blog.

To everyone else that defends the PRACTICE of celibacy, please will you answer this question for me: “What SPECIFICALLY are the qualifications in the Bible for the ordained ministry?”

I don’t mean what are some verses that can be used to back it up.  I mean what does God SPECIFICALLY say about what qualifications someone is to have, in order to be ordained as a bishop, or a presbyter (filling the role that we know today as the Roman Catholic priesthood)?

Cradle,

You wrote:

“RAFAEL OCASIO - you make an excellent point.” Which is…what precisely? His post still makes no sense. Did you read it?

And let me say that I am no supporter of the celibacy mandate, but I do support the vocation to celibacy for those who have such a calling. It is a great gift to the Church.

I believe the verses that you are fishing for is found in 1 Timothy 3:1-13.

@cradle catholic, Would you consider Jesus God? If you do then look In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.

@Fr. Deacon Daniel, Ditto Daniel ! But I bet you they will never answer that one. Probably because they can’t…

Mark Pace- 1) Yes, Jesus is God.  His mission, from the beginning of time was to become Incarnate, in order to DIE for our sin.  His mission was not to become a man, to get a feel for what life is like, and to marry.

2) What are the SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS IN THE BIBLE, for those that are in the ordained Church ministry?—Father Deacon Daniel noted one of them.

3) I am familiar with the verse from Matthew, that is TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT and used to defend celibacy.  I’m glad you quoted the WHOLE verse.  Instead of the section about those that “renounce” marriage, I think the church would be safer to use this one, where men would be INCAPABLE of marriage -  “...some, because they were made so by others;”

That’s castration.  Castrate priests, upon ordination and that would be a REAL committment and it would ENSURE they’d not have sex with anyone.  No child, no woman and no other man.
*******************************************************

Fr. Deacon Daniel - it’s not only 1Timothy 3:1-13; Paul REPEATS it in Titus Chapter One.  Paul mentions the marital status of the apostles in First Corinthians Chapter 9, verse 5.

How come our Roman Catholic Church - and the eastern Orthodox churches in communion with Rome, IGNORE these verses?  It’s absurd.  It’s not like the verses are not CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Landy, you wrote:  ” . . . priests are meant to take care of congregations, communities, hundreds of people. Fathers of nuclear families are supposed to take care of their wife, and any potential children, and one might agree in saying that it would be rather difficult to devote yourself to the care taking of an entire community as well as a family of your own. The point here is, if you do try, you’re going to do a half-!@# job at both.”

Landy, there are a great many Protestant Pastors who perform both tasks of church and family equally well.  I am not necessarily advocating for married priests, however, when you look at the “structure” between the two church organizations, Protestant ministers have assigned roles (eg Preaching, or Administration, and/or Youth, Singles, etc.), whereby Catholic Pastors in parishes are forced to overview and perhaps carry the entire burden of most every church-based activity.  Local Protestant church congregations budget to fund the salaries of multiple pastors whereby Bishops actually “control” all diocesan funding and human resource oversight at local Catholic parishes.  Our priests would not be so over-burdened if they sought to incorporate at least some parts of the Protestant church organizational structure model.  Then again, wresting any nuance of control or authority away from the local Bishop is not likely to happen in our lifetime.

As far as Fr. Cutie goes, I would have had more respect for him had he simply resigned his Catholic priesthood and took a secular job.  There is no shame in admitting he was called to marry rather than to be a priest as other priests before him have done.  For him to have traded his church membership simply so he could marry only reflects his desire to have pleased himself first.  If the Episcopal church was where his heart had been, Fr. Cutie surely would have joined long before the realationship with this woman was exposed.

Cradle Catholic (if you really are, you should know) that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Christ, gave Peter and his successors the Authority to announciate Christian doctrine.  By the Christ giving the “keys of the kingdom” to Peter, he thereby, entrusts Peter and his successors to regard all that will be doctrine and discipline upon the faithful.  That is my own paraphrasing and I’m sure you won’t find that paragraph in any catechism.  But I hope I made it clear, that the Chair of Peter has the authority to decide what will be required of priests.

@ Cradle

1. Why do you reduce the mission of Jesus to His death? What do you make of the 33 years he spent on earth, 30 of which were essentially hidden? A more balanced - and quite frankly more Biblical view - is to see Jesus’ whole life: conception, birth, childhood, teaching and healing ministry, cross, tomb, resurrection, ascension as aspects of His redemptive mission which continues in and through the Church.

2. Early on the Church officially condemned a more literalistic interpretation of the verse on “eunuchs for the kingdom,” by forbidding such men to be ordained and by defrocking those who castrated themselves.

Look, if you want to make an argument for your position instead of dishing out a healthy portion of fanatical ramblings then focus on the fact that the call to be a “eunuch for the kingdom” is completely voluntary. It is for those who can accept it. He says nothing about it being a qualification for ordained ministry. No need to get nasty about it blasting the innocent priests along with the very small and dwindling number of guilty ones.

3. Neither the Latin Catholic Churches nor the Eastern Catholic Churches ignore these verses. And the Catholic Church as a whole has been ordaining married men to the priesthood for 2000 years. Speaking of ignoring verses, how about ?1 Cor. 7:32-33? There is no mandate to be married to serve in ministry.

Finally, if you are as you say a Cradle Catholic, perhaps it is time to return to Mother Church. Being your own teaching authority gets rather tiresome after a while and it is wholly unbiblical.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/sola.htm

@Cradle Catholic, I really don’t have the time to argue with you, so I’ll just end it by saying this… Maybe what you and RAFAEL OCASIO are looking for, is not found in Roman Catholic doctrine. We can sit and argue about it until hell freezes over, but the bottom line is this… “It is what it is”... But don’t worry; The Good Lord gives us all the free will to choose our own paths in life. You can always choose to follow “Cutie” into his new found faith. - God Bless

To Brenda: I am a Cradle Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education.  I never left the Church, but since I read the Bible, in full and in context, I question some of the teachings that come from Rome.

Some of my fellow Catholics that are not Bible-literate tell me, “You sound Protestant.”  - and yet, the only difference that separates me from them, is 1) I have read God’s sacred Word in context and 2) I believe it.
*************************************************************

Father Deacon Daniel - Jesus’ death and resurrection IS THE MOST important part of His life, promised by God from the Book of Genesis.
Fellow Catholics lose track of what is MOST important, and what is of ETERNAL VALUE.  Rafael took some flack for his post.  But what he wrote has eternal value.  Everyone should heed his simple comment.

That said, Father Deacon, you wrote: “No need to get nasty about it blasting the innocent priests along with the very small and dwindling number of guilty ones.”

First, it was not my intent to get “nasty”.  I am merely pointing out the SPECIFIC verses outlined in Scripture that are to serve as qualifications for those in ordained ministry, are completely disregarded.

Secondly, it is not a “very small” number of priests that are having sex.  It is a LOT of priests that are having sex.  5% are known to have molested under age people.  But statistics show upwards of 50% of clergy (priests AND bishops) are having sex, either with women (like Fr. Cutie was) or with other men, at any given time.  Cutie is not rare.  He was just outed.

2% of clergymen might never marry, even if given an opportunity.  Another 8% of clergymen force themselves not to be sexually active.  40% try to remain sexually inactive, and fail, during their life.  So a whopping 90% of clergymen being sexually active is NOT a success. It must be addressed.

Brenda - God did NOT hand over the keys to His Kingdom for the Pope of the Day to blow it.  How about the selling of indulgences?  Did God sit back and say, “I have given you this church, to be USED in whatever way you want?”  No.

I know Catholics do not believe in the Book of Revelation (unless it’s to talk about Mary being the “Woman”).  But in the Book of Revelation, JESUS has the KEYS.  This is Jesus’ Church, not the Pope of the Day.  It was and will always be, Jesus’ Church.

Last Sunday, a pastor said “many” non-Catholics he knows have asked him, “Are Catholics Christian?” - that was the point of his homily, and he went on to expound on the fact that OF COURSE, Catholics are Christian.
But when I got to thinking about it.  Most Catholics have a “religion”.  But they do not have a “relationship”.  Being Christian is about a relationship - it’s ALL ABOUT JESUS.  Not about the pope of the day.  Most Catholics can spout out rules, and opinions.  But they do NOT know the Bible.  Most Catholics are woefully ignorant of Scripture, and as such, they are easy to fool.  No wonder it’s asked, “Are Catholics Christian?”

Re: eunachs - of course, I was not serious in suggesting priests be castrated upon ordination.  That said, MANDATING celibacy ought not be taken seriously either, in light of the numerous passages in Scripture, specific to the ordained ministry, that call for married MALE priests. If only Catholics would 1) read the Bible and 2) believe it.

For SNAP’s challenge to Cutie, please go to

http://www.snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2011_statements/010411_clergy_sex_victims_challenge_fr_oprah_on_abuse.htm

David Clohessy, Director, SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, (7234 Arsenal Street, St. Louis MO 63143), 314 566 9790 cell (SNAPclohessy@aol.com)

Cradle Catholic, I am a Catholic re-vert.  I was born and raised Catholic, attended Catholic grade school and public high school.  I once seriously considered being a nun in the 1970s.  Was heavily involved in the Charismatic Renewel.  Eventually, joined the Air Force, had a baby out of wedlock and left the Church for almost 10 years.  In the meantime, followed the dictates of my own heart, eventually “fellowshipping” with non-denominational protestants.  But the Hound of Heaven pursued me and led me back to where my heart’s content lay: the Holy Eucharist.  While gone, I had much opportunity to read and “study” the Bible.  But it took my returning to my Catholic faith to realize that the Church had the correct interpretation of Scripture, and my loving protestant brothers and sisters were still grasping at straws for much at what was in the Bible.
I love my Faith and with God’s grace will never ever leave again.  I love our priests and religious and I want to see God bless their lives and bring them contentment through their service to Him.

Brenda, you wrote:  “... the Church had the correct interpretation of Scripture ... ”  I am interested since from your story (which I appreciate) you have been in the church,—away from the church—and now back in, what do you mean by the “correct” interpretation of Scripture?  I would appreciate your comments.  Thanks.

Brenda - thank you for sharing your faith journey with us.  I too, love the Mass, and Catholic worship, believing it is the most perfect prayer (I hope the new liturgy that sounds mechanical & formal won’t ruin it… but that’s another topic!!!)

That said, you wrote,“I love our priests and religious and I want to see God bless their lives and bring them contentment through their service to Him.” = we are on the same page, with that.  I completely agree with you.

And God will bless their lives, WHEN all of us go to bat for a church structure that honors God’s Word.  But so far it isn’t working.  The US Church is $2 billion in the hole already, from sexual abuse payouts.  That’s not counting Europe and other continents.  Further, there is no trust, a non-financial consequence. 

Please tell me, how does what you wrote, “But it took my returning to my Catholic faith to realize that the Church had the correct interpretation of Scripture”, square with Scripture, as it pertains to celibacy?

I am not trying to be difficult, or argumentative.  In fact, if anything I write here or in earlier posts sounds that way, please forgive me.  I am just trying to understand HOW the Vatican’s insistence on mandated clerical celibacy squares with ALL THOSE specific verses in the Bible pertaining to people in ordained church ministry.

The Bible is crystal clear.  Qualifications are right there and specific to ministry.  How is it that the Roman Catholic church refuses to just take the Bible at face value?  How can it be the “correct interpretation” of Scripture, when it’s 180 degrees from what’s right there?  It’s like day and night.  The Bible indicates to ordain married MEN with families.  The Vatican says: No.  Celibate men only.  How is that justified?

Do you really expect God to “bless” a practice that goes against His Word?
Is it not a “stiff-necked” people that say NO to God, believing “We have the keys now.  We can do Church the way WE think is best.”

Frankly, that’s why they call it a “practice”.  They haven’t the courage to make it a real dogma - like men.  Even the Vatican agrees celibacy is only a practice, that can change tomorrow, if Pope Benedict & the Cardinals want to change it.  And they should.  That would honor God - listen to His Word and OBEY it.

...excerpt from Pope Benedict’s letter of December 20, 2010…In the vision of Saint Hildegard, the face of the Church is stained with dust, and this is how we have seen it. Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood.

Cradle wrote:

“So a whopping 90% of clergymen being sexually active is NOT a success.”

Yes that is quite the whopper…

“Rafael took some flack for his post.  But what he wrote has eternal value.  Everyone should heed his simple comment.”

I would if I could understand it.

“I am a Cradle Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education.  I never left the Church, but since I read the Bible, in full and in context, I question some of the teachings that come from Rome.”

Again, reading the Bible “in context” means reading it with the mind of the Church and Holy Tradition. The fact that you find yourself at odds with Catholic teaching on certain points indicates that, whether you may be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church your whole life, you still function in a Protestant way if you base your views principally on private interpretation…functioning as your own magisterium.

A good way to read the Scriptures with the mind of the Church is to do so along with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or to purchase a good commentary like the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, which cites the CCC in many places.

Now, one can disagree with Church law (such as the celibacy mandate for priests in the Latin Church, or with fasting regulations, etc etc.) But in matters of faith, we need to be aligned with the mind of the Church as well as obedient to the laws of the Church (even the ones we do not agree with). Sometimes in matters of faith our only response is: “Lord I believe…help my unbelief!” But to sit in judgment upon the Church and her faith? Who are we to do such a thing…

It looks to me that Fr. Cutie is trying to: 1) further justify his actions by getting a lot more people to agree with what he did (after all, that’s what makes it right, isn’t it?), 2) in so doing, turning any blame directed at him around to frame himself as the victim of the Church and its draconian policies and, at the same time, 3) make a lot of…(wait for it…)...
$$$$$$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$$$$$

I guess we all know by now who will be eagerly waiting in line at “Cutie’s”  Book signing. Cradle, Brenda and RAFAEL. They all claim to be Catholic folks but I have my doubts… My old Pappy use to say watch out for people who say ” I’ve been Catholic all my life but”.... Now I think We blew Rafael out of this blog hours ago. And cradle well; I think I’m done with him.  As for Brenda the Catholic who has a problem with the Pope and the Holy Mother .... Maybe you should Read the book just one more time dear. They say third times a charm…Nighty night.

Father Deacon Daniel, you wrote:  “... one can disagree with Church law (such as the celibacy mandate for priests in the Latin Church, or with fasting regulations, etc etc.)...”  The MANDATED practice of celibacy is what I disagee with here, and it’s the subject of this forum.

So I’m glad you wrote it IS possible to disagree with Rome and still be “Catholic” because I am 100% Pro-Life (no abortion, no death penalty -instead, we need prison reform); I believe in NO same-sex marriage, and I even say NO to women priests, getting ALL those beliefs from reading Scripture.  It’s not that I just adapt my beliefs to the Pope of the Day’s opinion.

While I can’t speak for Rafael, the way I interpret his post is that by Fr. Cutie’s compassion, Rafael meant Fr. Cutie’s attitude is charitable, as he explains his experience with living a clerical life, & he attempts to dialog with the public, rather than attack when threatened, like a reflex, as do so many Catholics in blogs.

I can’t tell you how many times I hear, “YOU SOUND PROTESTANT!”, as if I am going to hell (not even to Purgatory!) for disagreeing with the Vatican on some points of the faith, and they aren’t even points of Eternal Value.  For instance, if I believe the “woman” in Revelation is Israel, and not the Blessed Mother, does that mean I am not ‘saved’?

That’s a rhetorical question, it needs no answer.  I’m just using it as an example.  By the way, I do fast every Sunday for one hour, before receiving Communion, out of respect for the Eucharist and to give reverence for the whole Mass, and to the Communion of Saints.

New Observer and Cradle Catholic, just before I left the Church I had a number of family problems and being in my early 20s, did not feel the Church was a place I could find comfort or answers.  Part of that feeling was just a misperception on my part, but it took years before I realized what my real issues were.  I loved the Eucharist and that kept me going to Mass on Sundays, but no matter how good the homily or the instuction, I found myself almost hyper-critical of everything the Church did or taught.  So when I left, it was time to leave, in my estimation.  But as you know, we may stray, but God does not leave us, he loves us and he pursues us.  I remember thinking how much I missed the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.  My soul was feeling parched like I had been wandering in the desert for many years.  When strangely (I thought at the time) the pastor priest of the parish I was living in (but not attending) made a home visit.  He knocked on the door and asked if I was (and he gave my full maiden name, I had not married in the Church).  I said yes, and invited in him.  To make a long story short, we talked, he heard my confession and I returned completely Church.  I began a journey of investigation the origins of Catholicism and that is when I realized that the Chair of Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom and I could have confidence in the teachings of the Church…  more later, I have to run.

Well, Brenda, I need to process your post, in my mind.  But off the top-your parish pastor made a home-visit, CARING about your spiritual walk?
If the man is still alive - he’s a winner.  What an amazing testimony.
Refreshing to know this, I’m so glad for you.  Thanks for sharing, and kudos to your pastor.

I know one priest with integrity too.  Unfortunately, he’s low man on the totem pole now, and most likely, that’s where he’ll stay.  Bishops are not appointed and get promotions, due to their having integrity.  But God is watching, and He will repay.  A crown, for pastors such as yours, Brenda, and wrath for the others.  It won’t be pretty.

Wow,Mr Akin you are expending *a lot* of time and energy on this.  Cutie left and his impact is negligible.

How much time and energy did the Register spend on excavating and excoriating the sins of Maciel whose impact was wide-ranging, perverse and systemic? 

Not nearly as much as is being spent on this one guy.

Fascinating.

It is not our place to judge.  It would be more productive to pray for the lost before the Blessed Sacrament.  Hateful Christains are scary!!! Yikes!!!

I see this situation as one of pride. For me there really are only two decisions that could have been made. Fr. Cutie breaks off his relationship with the woman or Fr. Cutie leaves the priesthood and follows the proper process for marrying the woman in the Catholic Church. Since “he” wanted to be married and serve God Fr. Cutie left the Catholic Church because of the regirement of celibacy.

This is not the first time I have heard of a situation like this. My question is, how could he or anyone leave the Catholic Church and give up the True Presence in the Eucharist? It cannot be found in the Episcopal church. How was Fr. Cutie able to reconcile this>

I go back to my initial comment - pride - and the notion of “having it all”.

“My question is, how could he or anyone leave the Catholic Church and give up the True Presence in the Eucharist? It cannot be found in the Episcopal church. How was Fr. Cutie able to reconcile this?” (Mary M).

Mary, Fr. Cutie has in fact brought the True Presence in the Eucharist to the Episcopal Church.  When he consecrates the bread and wine it still become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  The Catholic Church views this practice as illicit, but the Church also holds that the sacrament will always be valid.  A priest ordained in the Catholic Church retains his priestly powers for all eternity, and not even the pope can take those powers away from him.

The Church has a word describing sex with a divorced woman and that word is adultery! ” More souls go to hell because of sins of impurity than for any other reason.”
Pray that this man comes to understand the results of his actions and repent.

Laura wrote:

“It is not our place to judge.  It would be more productive to pray for the lost before the Blessed Sacrament.  Hateful Christains are scary!!! Yikes!!!”

Indeed!!! Have you seen or read anything specifically hateful in any of these posts?

Cradle Catholic,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you are overstating the point about Catholics having a “religion.”  There are many Catholics out there who loves God’s word and have a real relationship with Christ. I also know, from personal experience, that many protestants don’t know Scripture as well as they pretend.

However, you are right on about this celibacy business. The fact is that is has never worked well. One of the reasons for the reformation was so persuasive was that so many catholics were disgusted by the hypocrisy of so many priests who are openly not celibate—more so than today if you believe the testimononies.

I have no plans of going anywhere but I am pretty sick of the scandals.

Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Yes, Cradle Catholic, my parish priest made a home visit and ended up bringing back to the Church.  I believe home visits are key to the success of having fallen away Catholics return.  It was the first time I experienced one without calling and asking, it made all the difference in the world to me.  I’m sure some priests make these visits and do not get the welcome mat, but a slammed door.  I feel that God will indeed bless them for their efforts.  Visiting priests/pastors happens more than we’d think though.  Fast forward 15 years, my young teenage son did not have his own dad to watch out for him spiritually (divorced/annulled) and was just starting to hang out with the wrong crowd.  I had no idea Father had wind of it (although I had sent my kids to Catholic school) he stopped by exhausted on a very hot summer day.  The elderly priest said he had been looking for my son’s address and had been all the way on the other side of town (tracking the wrong street address).  He was invited in for ice water and visited with my son.  Later, got him golf clubs and a golf membership.  Father would visit about once a month ...and though my son (wounded) rejected his kindly talks on his well being, his mother never forgot that there ARE priests who indeed care about their flock. We mostly only hear about the bad ones though…

Cradle Catholic,
I have run into (small-c) cradle Catholics who say the same about me, that I sound like a protestant. In context, they are referring to my (IMO tiny) knowledge of scripture. But as a convert myself from a Baptist/“Bible fellowship” upbringing some of your language jumps out at me.

Saying that most Catholics have religion and implying that they don’t have a real relationship with the Lord is just about word for word what I was taught about Catholics growing up.

The funny thing about having religion and following rules: the sacred scriptures tell us in 1 John that “we know that we know Him, if we keep his commandments. He who says ‘I know Him’, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in him.”

The Lord, through the sacred scriptures, tells us to hold fast to the traditions of the Church, whether written or oral. Believing (correctly) that there can be and are sinners in God’s Church is different from believing that falsehoods can exist in the teachings of God’s Church. I wouldn’t be so quick to set the Holy Bible up against the teachings of the Church through the centuries.

Back to Fr. Cutie, I saw his segment on Good Morning America. I tried so hard to be patient and pray for him. I will continue to do so, but I am being tested in my patience and charity by the fact that he attacked the Church so harshly. My Lutheran friend is visiting; she at one time thought of converting. I try to plant seeds here and there. It’s so hard to keep on keeping on when 8 minutes of TV time can require hours of explanations.

I could not provide any such explanations after I heard Fr. Cutie applauding, indeed thanking God for, the fact that so many Catholics contracept, have sterilizations, and attempt remarriage after divorce AND receive Holy Communion anyway. And to say that the only thing the Catholic Church has over the Episcopal community is “numbers”. Wow. I guess he doesn’t necessarily miss the Real Presence if he can still illicitly confect it (if he believes in it… he gave no indication but in my understanding intent to confect the Eucharist must be present for it to be valid). I was blown away. Speechless. This is scandal IMO possibly beyond the pro-abortion politicians receiving Holy Communion - they aren’t directly encouraging people, verbally and willfully, to go out and do as they do!

Anyone who wishes to see it can check this link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/father-albert-cutie-catholic-priest-catholic-church/story?id=12536834

SteveE, Brenda, Carolyn and Daniel.  All excellent points you have made.  Here are a few of my own.  I have learned not to stereotype and think that all Protestants know Scripture and that Catholics by and large do not (even though priests warned us that if we read the Bible “we” might get the wrong interpretation).  Thus, it was best for Catholics to only let trained clergy do the interpretation.  This thinking is and was, nonsense—even though well intentioned.  My view is that this advocacy by the church prevented the spiritual growth of many Catholics of my generation. 

One of the common tactics used by non-believers and by Catholics and Protestants alike is the tag line:  “Judge not lest you may also be judged.”  Even those without faith seem to enjoy quoting this line of Scripture.  The fact is, it is God who judges.  It is His Word that convicts a man or woman regarding sin.  Whether Fr. Cutie has followed “church” rules and bylaws is inconsequential compared to God’s law concerning fornication, divorce and remarriage.  We do not sit in judgment of the PERSON for only God will do that.  We are, however, able to judge behavior and conduct based upon God’s Word.  At the same time, we know “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”  We do not judge the PERSON because we also are not without sin.  In the end, Fr. Cutie (as we too) will stand before God in the final judgment.  Neither the Pope, our Bishop or Pastor will be standing with us.  We stand alone before God.  Even for the most abhorent of sin, there is no pit so deep that God will not rescue a repentent sinner from.  It is Satan’s lie that tells us we done too much or that our past is such that God would never forgive the ugliness of our lives.

We see a lot disturbing things going on today by high profile Catholics as well as Protestants.  Man will forever have a fleshy, sinful nature devoted to “self” and will always be subjected to sin.  A heart that is bent on God, however, will be quick to confess and repent.  The thought of having committed sin and being out of fellowship with Christ is something the (honest) believer cannot live with.  Surely it will grind against him internally until he is back in right relationship with God.  Sometimes a man or woman will need to be brought to their deepest despair before they realize their sinful nature.  It is only then when God will rescue that man or that woman.  Thus, there is hope for all us —since we are all sinners.  Even if we have turned our backs on God.  Witness the prodigal son.  On the other hand, not every person will, in fact, surrender to Christ and thus will spend eternity in separation from God.  This is what Jesus spoke of concerning the denial of “self.”  It was never about following “church” rules and the law.  He always deplored the focus of legalism which the Pharisees believed was the correct path to righteousness.  They failed to understand legalism was a burden no man could carry.

SteveE, that is truly disappointing. I remember seeing the priest on an EWTN segment and thinking “What a champion for the Catholic faith.”

As someone on here earlier said, he has let his libido choose his religion, which is now the path of least resistance.

What a scandal and sad tale. Hope that he comes to his morals and his senses.

BUT, right now he smells MONEY with the book deal out, so he’s likely to say more traitorous things for a while. Sad.

To drwho - So I guess you think it’s o.k. for him to consecrate the bread and wine in an Episcopal Church since it makes it “valid but ilicit”.  Just a minor problem I guess in your estimation since you say he has brought the Eucharist to the Episcopal Church. Now isn’t that lovely.

Mary, Fr. Cutie has chosen this current path —for now.  Perhaps forever—or maybe this will change in the future?  How many times have you read or heard stories of people with journeys leading them back to Christ?  Why not allow both Fr. Cutie and Lord to deal with this?

To New Observer. - I don’t recall saying I was not allowing Fr. Cutie or the Lord deal with the issue.  I was responding to drwho who seems to think there is no problem with Fr. Cuties consecrating the bread and wine in the Episcopal Church. Yes, I do have a problem with that!

Mary, my point is this.  The Episcopal church will believe what they want concerning the consecration and Catholics will believe otherwise.  Since Fr. Cutie is no longer a member of the Catholic church nor is he a practicing Catholic priest—what difference does it make what he does?

To New Observer - My question to you is, are you Catholic - if you are then it should make a very big difference!

If Fr. Cutie is in fact consecrating the bread and wine (does anyone even know if he is?) then it makes a huge difference. It’s not just a matter of not being a member of the Catholic Church but it has everything to do with what it means to be Catholic and especially what it means to be ordained a Catholic priest. It was never intended that Fr. Cutie consecrate the bread and wine anywhere but the Catholic Church!

Mary, yes, I am Catholic.  At the same time, what are you planning to do about this?  It’s a free country.  He will do —whatever he wants.  Do you expect him to be arrested by the Florida police?

Mary M. states, “So I guess you think it’s o.k. for him to consecrate the bread and wine in an Episcopal Church since it makes it “valid but illicit”.”

It’s irrelevant what I think about him consecrating the bread and wine in an Episcopal Church. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrament would be valid. If Rev. Cutie INTENDS to consecrate the bread and wine, the members of Cutie’s Episcopal church will now have the True Presence, whether they believe it or not, and whether you like it or not.  Lets stick with the facts; he has the power to bring the True Presence into his Episcopal church. Lovely or not, it’s a reality.

SteveE:  You wrote, “The funny thing about having religion and following rules: the sacred scriptures tell us in 1 John that “we know that we know Him, if we keep his commandments.”

True.  But as with so many other Catholic teachings, it’s only partially correct.  Are you saying salvation is based by works alone?  Do you believe we can gain ‘indulgences’ for ourselves, taking time off our stay in Purgatory, and even gain indulgences to be applied towards someone else’s account?  That is what Catholics are taught.

I say we must take the Bible IN CONTEXT and in full.  That when we LOVE God (the relationship) we WANT to obey Him, so as to not grieve the Holy Spirit.  I do not believe in Purgatory + I don’t believe we can apply our own efforts (sincere as they may be) towards the soul of any other person.

A rules based RELIGION is NOT a relationship with Our Brother, the Lord Jesus who is our ONE ADVOCATE with the Father.  I got my beliefs from reading the Bible IN CONTEXT and in full.  I had 12 years of Catholic education.  I was NEVER taught any of this, until I read God’s Word.  Your thoughts?

@ Fr. Deacon Daniel: With all due sincere respect to you Deacon Daniel, I don’t pretend to be a theologian on such matters. If I have struck an unfavorable cord with some, that was not my intent and I do apologize. Nor was I pointing the finger at those who honestly feel that Father Cutie has broken his priestly vows. I have not heard Father Cutie speak disapprovingly of his critics in the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, he did break his vows to the Lord and His Church,that was most regrettable. But didn’t Peter deny Christ three times? Yet,the Lord forgave him. Father Cutie did not disavow the Church, simply his vows.

Catholicism is not a rules-based faith. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and we believe in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. The early Christians did not have a Bible; thus oral tradion.  Catholics also do not believe that works save us.

I have a personal relationship with God and I will defend the Catholic Church from people who scandalize it or misrepresent it in any way.  To New Observer and drwho- You just don’t get it and that’s too bad. If people who identify themselves as Catholics would live it this country would be very different because the Catholic vote would be a force to be reckoned with. Sadly, it’s not.

Mary, do not tell me I don’t “get it.”  Neither you nor I can control Fr. Cutie—or anyone else.  If Cutie chooses to practice his faith as an Episcopalian, Methodist or Evangelical—how can you prevent him?  We are all individually accountable to God.  And your comment about the Catholic vote “would be force to reckon with” —well, Catholics did vote and exit polls show 54% of Catholics voted for Obama —who along with Sen. Boxer are the two most pro-abortion politicians in Washington.  If you wish to be outraged, then be outraged that Catholics supported Obama in droves.  The life and times of Fr. Cutie are inconsequential to your own salvation.

New Observer - Your last post above is spot on target.  In fact, citizens of the US have the same Catholics to thank for ALSO supporting the likes of other mostly Democratic candidates that too, call themselves “Catholic” - like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Ted Kennedy and all those other younger Kennedy’s, John Kerry, et al…

And how about Gavin Newsom - mayor of San Francisco, that we have to thank for pushing same-sex marriage on us (“The door’s wide open now!  It’s gonna happen, whether YOU like it or not!” the graduate of Jesuit run, Santa Clara University in California).

I know several Catholics that wore buttons to support same sex marriage TO CHURCH, and nothing was said.  Not a peep from the pulpits - that’s the group Fr. Cutie mixed with, while he was in relationship with the woman that’s now his wife.

He will have to answer to God (and to his children) about how he handled leading a double life.  While there is always forgiveness with God (as long as we are ALIVE), he did not set a good example to anyone, most especially, his lifestyle would have been damaging to the people that followed his media programs. 

If for no other reason than that - we ALL must just follow Jesus.  Mere men (even JPII, Benedict, etc.) will let us down. No one can control another person, as New Observer points out.  But WE Pew People CAN control the way the church is structured, because WE control the dollars.
And until pew people get more educated and involved, these pampered (and non-Holy Spirit filled) clerical elitist clergymen will call the shots, to our peril.

Just look at Europe.  They ruined that first, by losing the Christian faith entirely, and now, the US is the next on the list.  Thanks to the “Catholic” politicians and their Catholic supporters, just look at us.  No wonder Fr. Cutie’s morals are not up to par.

End MANDATORY celibacy for the priesthood, and let’s do it God’s way for a refreshing change, according to the Bible. 1Timothy 3:1-5, Titus Chapter 1, 1Corinthians 9:5.  This practice could end tomorrow.

Cradle Catholic, you call yourself a Catholic, but you tell us you do not believe Catholic doctrine.  Guess what?  You’re not a Catholic.  It is necessary that you believe and follow Catholic doctrine in order to be a Catholic.

Brenda, will you please list exactly what a person must believe in order to be “Catholic”?

Also, in your own words, what does a person have to believe, in order to have eternal life with Christ in Heaven, after one’s earthly death?

Cradle Catholic (and to anyone else that cares)  - If you want to know what the Catholic Church believes and teaches you need only go to the Catechism of the Catholic. In fact, you can access it online.

New Observer - Regarding my comment about the Catholic vote - you left out that I said if Catholics WOULD LIVE IT - the United States would be different. My point is that most Catholics don’t live out their Catholic faith and that is reflected by who is in the White House at this very moment.

I totally agree that Fr. Cutie has the right to do as he wishes (free will)=;however, perhaps his discernment process or those that discerned his vocation did not do enough. I am judging his actions not his eternal soul. That is left entirely up to God.

My point from the very beginning (before responses to my comments went off in the direction of Canon Law) is that Fr. Cutie’s pride was a factor in his decision-making process. How can a Catholic priest even entertain the thought of joining the Episcopal Church? He may be able to confect the Eucharist but the Episcopal Church is not Eucharistic and it certainly has moved away from the teachings of Christianity regarding moral issues. Fr. Cutie wanted to be a “priest” and he wanted to be a married man so this is the route he chose freely but his decision making process is skewed. This erroneous decision-making process has brought scandal to the Church and scandal to himself.

Mary M - I had 12 years of Catholic education and I never left the church.  I am not a re-vert.  I just never left.  I have had plenty of catechism.  What I never had was plenty of Bible teaching.  Can’t you tell us in your own words?

Really - many of you seem to immediately know what we CAN’T believe, even if it is in the Bible.  But the same people are short on knowing what we ARE to believe.  I really want to know, in your own words.  What is important, for eternal life?  That’s the KEY.

Cradle catholic,

There are a lot of Catholics who are eager to tell people that they are not catholic. Your faith is in Christ. Don’t worry about it.

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite

To Cradle: You are to believe in Jesus as our Reedemer and you are to follow what he taught and what he commanded his apostles to teach. The fullness of what Christ taught is found in the Catholic Church through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.  That’s it! It is as simple and yet as profound as that.

Rafael,

Beautifully said! I understand now what you were trying to say.

I had thought that you were trying to accuse those who were critical with being “holier-than-thou.” If Fr. Cutie and his decision is beyond criticism, than very little else is able to be criticized! He was a pastor who preyed (yes, preyed) upon one of his flock. It would have been far more honest if he had simply resigned and pursued a path of laicization, rather than to maintain the affair for so long.

Fr. Cutie did in fact disavow the Church, and has certainly compromised particular matters of his faith, though he claims now only to have come to terms with doubts he had before.

Apologies for any harshness in my own critiques of your post. We have to be careful not to misuse our Lord’s words about “judge not,” as it does not mean “do not be critical” or “do not evaluate the morality of decisions made by others.” None of us know the final destination of Fr. Cutie, but we certainly entrust him to God’s mercy and recognize that all of us are equally capable of a fall.

Actually Carolyn and Cradle Catholic, the Catechism is very clear about who is and who isn’t “catholic”.  It’s not rocket science, CC, take a look at it, and then you will see where your theology left the tracks.

By the way, CC, the Bible is not different of contradictory to Church teaching.  Church teaching interprets and confirms all that is written in the Bible.  You really need to read the Bible and the CCC side by side, then pray as you do so.  The Holy Spirit will not let you down.

Actually, Brenda, Cradle Catholic has not said anything that makes her uncatholic. Noting that many Catholics don’t often read the Bible is something that is well-acknowledged even at the Vatican. And even if it was not true, that would not be enough to make her unCatholic.

There is this weird thing among American conservative Catholics that everytime you have a conversation about faith, they want to club you with not being Catholic. I grew up in Haiti and the faithful Catholics there don’t behave this way.

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite

Carolyn, there are specific facts that either make you Catholic or not.  It is not a matter of opinion or clubbing anyone.  Simply stated, if you do not abide by Catholic teachings, you have excommunicated yourself.  There is no need for a formal excommunication.  Catholicism has its dogma, if you do not abide by it, you simply are not Catholic.  If that feels like a club to you, I’m sorry, truth is what it is.

Correction to my above statement:  I meant to say, if you do not believe in Catholic doctrine then you are not a Catholic.  Any Catholic can have a lapse in behavior and commit sin, but if they acknowledge their sin and repent, of course they remain Catholic.  So not “abide” but “believe” is what I meant to say.

Brenda, it should come as no surprise to you that these many blogs and posts are often filled with these same discussions pro and con.  The reality is that we have significant members inside the church which do not adhere to (or agree with) everything that you say is “Catholic.”  The same can be said for Protestants.  There are no certification tests for receiving a Catholic ID Card.  Yes, there are core elements of belief which are specific to the Catholic faith, however, not every position issued by the church is a requirement for belief and membership in good standing.  Catholics are allowed to disagree without (as you say) excommunicating themselves.  People often define their faith at the very least by the Apostle’s Creed which is recited at each mass.

You state:  “Church teaching interprets and confirms all that is written in the Bible.”  In general, yes —but the church has not confirmed everything in the Bible.  In fact, the church has added extra-biblical teaching and confirms such teaching as “tradition.”

New Observer, that is a Protestant’s point of view.  For Catholics, the Catechism is very clear on doctrine.  Those doctrinal points MUST be observed, if not, one excommunicates oneself.  There are undeniable doctrines—by the way, celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.  However, right now it is the Church’s teaching that priests must be celibate, and priests who are not abiding by that teaching are in serious sin.

Here is what the Catechism says about Doctrine/Dogma: “The revealed teachings of Christ which are proclaimed by the fullest extent of the exercise of the authority of the Church’s Magisterium.  The faithful are obliged to believe the truths or dogmas contained in Divine Revelation and defined by the Magisterium (88).

Brenda, if you are a priest —you signed up for the job knowing in advance what the obligations and rules are.  That’s like buying a home near an airport and then complaining to the City Council there is too much noise over your house from airplanes.  Celibacy is a requirement for the priesthood.  If he wanted to be married, then he should have resigned, married and found a new line of work.  What he has done is self-serving by finding a church where he is able to have his cake and eat it too.  He is living in fantasyland thinking he is still Catholic.  What he is now is Episcopalian.  He joined their church and ministers there.

Brenda writes:  “The faithful are obliged to believe the truths or dogmas contained in Divine Revelation and defined by the Magisterium.”

Brenda, this statement above is far different from a Catholic who disagrees with whether or not you should fast 12 hours, then changed to 3 hours and now currently only one hour before receiving Communion.  What if you knew someone who did not fast?  This kind of disagreement does not excommunicate oneself making herself or himself Protestant.

@Cradle Catholic: Thank you for your generous observations about my posting concerning Father Alberto Cutie. Yes,I did take some unforseen flack for my defense of him. When all is said and done, I truly believe the Lord will not ask us what diciplines we kept or failed to follow. Simply, as in Matthew 22:36-40: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” I dare say some have not shown that love towards our neighbor Father Cutie.

Dear Brenda, Continually posting on this thread here may be emotionally straining on an individual.  Do yourself a favor: go take a nice coffee break during which you don’t post or think about posting.  I am of the opinion that Vienna Fingers go very well with coffee.

@Fr. Deacon Daniel: Thank you for your comments.  I respect you and those who don’t see things as I do. I am sure the 12 Apostles 3,000 years ago also had differences of opinion. And in the end all were one in following The One.

New Observer, I don’t know why you explained to me about becoming a priest and then complaining about celibacy, I’ve already said that priests are expected to be celibate… so what your point is, I don’t know.

Then you bring up fasting.  Again, fasting is a discipline, not a doctrine.  The differences between doctrines and disciplines seem to confuse a lot of protestants.  We MUST follow doctrine and we MUST keep all of the disciplines imposed on the faithful by the Church.  However, the Church can CHANGE discipline, but not doctrine.

Rafael - Your posts are among the most charitable and sobering in this blog.  Thank you for being a voice of reason.  As a fellow Christian (that is Roman Catholic), I understood your intent, immediately, and felt the need to edify your position.  Speak the truth, in love.

And it is LOVE to speak the Truth, not my ‘truth’ or your ‘truth’, but God’s Truth.  And we know His Truth, by reading the Bible.  His living Word is the great unifier, and the Holy Spirit is consistent in illuminating the meaning of His Truth for everyone.

The Word and its meaning does not change.  Thus, there is little need for the “fullness” of the Faith.  Billy Graham is saved.  Billy Graham is not Roman Catholic.  The fullness of the faith is belief in Jesus and a surrender of our lives to Him.  Not a surrender of our lives (or our brains) to men at the Vatican, no matter how high their church position.

KNOW the Truth (a Person) and the Truth will set us free.  Jesus is the ONLY one with the power to do that.  Praise the Lord!

Cradle Catholic, what if you and I are reading the Bible and we disagree about what it means.  I have the Holy Spirit and you have the Holy Spirit, but we both disagree about any one particular passage.  Who is right?

Brenda:  you wrote —“...I’ve already said that priests are expected to be celibate… so what your point is, I don’t know.

If Cutie wants to **play act** Catholic in an Episopalian church, he can do as he wishes.  He is no longer a Catholic priest according to Catholicism.  He is now an Episcopalian Priest.  Let it go.

Actually, New Observer, he is play acting an Episcopalian priest also.  By just departing from the Catholic priesthood without going through the proper channels as Catholic “discipline” requires, he has put himself in a greviously sinful state.  None of us here who care about him and others who may think what he did was “nothing really” ... would every want to just “let it go.”

Brenda wrote on Thursday, Jan 6, 2011 4:21 PM : To Cradle Catholic, “What if you and I are reading the Bible and we disagree about what it means.  I have the Holy Spirit and you have the Holy Spirit, but we both disagree about any one particular passage.  Who is right?”

Cradle Catholic’s response:
It depends.  It’s possible for two Holy Spirit-filled Christians to disagree on SOME minor points in the Bible, and even highly respected, educated theologians do disagree, like many of the “Church Fathers” disagreed. 

However, for an IMPORTANT topic such as “How does Jesus want His Church to be structured, and what qualifications must an ordained minister have, in order to lead Jesus’ flock, full-time?”  There ought not be ANY differences in it.

Brenda - my biggest concern is that Jesus’ instructions about the qualifications for CHURCH LEADERSHIP are being IGNORED.  They are not being “misinterpreted”.  They are being read, and they are being ignored.

There is a precedence in Scripture for disagreements between Holy Spirit filled people.  Read in Acts of the Apostles, where St. Peter was doing something that St. Paul found wrong.  Paul went to Peter, and they got ALL the apostles and disciples together in the Council of Jerusalem, and they settled it, with St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, being the spokesperson for what was decided.  It’s all so easy.  All that wisdom is being ignored today.

Brenda, and your solution to Cutie not going “proper” Catholic channels is what? —-have the diocese issue a warrant for his arrest?

Cradle Catholic, are you saying that the current Church is ignoring what the Fathers have already established as conventional wisdom?  If so, how is it ignoring what has already been “settled”?

New Observer, being arrested has nothing to do with Spiritual matters, being arrested is of the Flesh.  Since Father Cutie has wandered into grave error and serious sin, Catholics should pray for him, fast even.  If God in His Mercy sees fit, Father Cutie may yet see the error of his ways.  He probably never practice as a priest again, but possibly work as a deacon… I really don’t know what the possibilities are if he ever faces up to what he has done.

Cradle Catholic,

I think it is overstating it to say that the Church is ignoring the bible on Church leadership. They are well-aware that celibacy is not a requirement. But they there is also Paul’s statement that it is better not to to marry and that is the justification for celibacy.

I think it is a mistake to require celibacy. It is an unnecessary burden on the many who do not have the gift but have a calling to ministry. And we all know we would have more priests without this burden.

Brenda, there has to be room for discussion on some issues. Many people seem to think that the way to achieve unity is by having people with different opinion remain silent. This is a false unity, which will only breed resentment and attrition (and it already does). There is nothing unorthodox about point out the weaknesses of the current model.

Peace,
Carolyn Hyppolite

Carolyn, I am in complete agreement with your last post.  I see it as you do, celibacy is required, but it is okay to have varying opinions of ways to be better in the future. 

My stance is that I am prepared to be obedient to the Church’s teachings, doctrinally and her disciplines, but that does not stifle me when it comes to hoping things could be different in the future.  Probably many Catholics are in that mode.

Excellent points, Carolyn.  I agree.  We must be careful to not cast all clergy with the same stereotype even when our experience often colors our viewpoints.  There is little doubt many good candidates for the priesthood have not entered the seminary because of the celibacy obligation.  Because of this rule, the church has experienced such a shortage that virtually anyone with male anatomy was allowed to enter without proper screening.  It is a reality of the modern church.  Nothing should be viewed as unholy or unnatural if a priest desires marriage.  Men can serve both God and his wife and family with the same love, devotion, reverence and respect.  God is not taking a backseat position as some commentators seem to feel.  In fact, some married men are actually stronger in their faith and mininstry as a result of marriage.  We already have former Episcopalian priests in the Catholic church who are, in fact, married with children and those parishes (including one parish in a diocese near me) operate without any problem.  Having a dual system whereby Catholic priests see some of their fellow priests married helps create a sense of unfairness.  Actually, Jesus Himself called men to Apostleship.  Peter, in fact, was a married man.

Brenda, there must always be room for discussion as Carolyn says.  Because someone has a differing view or does not agree with church operational philosophy does not mean they are Protestant or guilty of Catholic bashing.  There are ways in which the church operates which are not doctrines of faith but only matters of structure.

The reason why some people think that it is a mistake to require celibacy is because they do not get to understand what the vocation and the ministry of the priesthood are all about. We are so immersed in a world of lust and uncontrollable passions all around us with the media constantly poisoning the minds of everyone, including those who feel called to the priesthood, that for some it is impossible to live without sex. I think the Church has tried both systems and has decided to keep the better model as Paul well suggested. A priest is a model of Christ, a person who has a vocation to undivided commitment, not an ecclesiastical official who has a family and, additionally, some church duties. It is not like other fields where you may be a married man and a politician, a firefighter or a policeman at the same time. The Church has the dual system in the churches of Eastern rite and knows firsthand why it is more convenient not to have that system in the West. Nobody can devote himself FULLY to the priesthood while raising a family because there is a double duty. Saying that what Saint Paul advises in 1 Co 7 is flawed can hardly be called “orthodox.” On the other hand, that it is possible and that there are priests who live their vocation wholeheartedly, no doubt about it. Examples abound since the time of the Desert Fathers and even before. Why do those who do not have the vocation to serve FULL time and without the distraction of wife and kids want to become priests when there are so many functions that can be performed within the Church as lay people? Christ is not portrayed in the gospels moving around with 24 disciples (12 apostles and their wives). If you believe that allowing married priests will let us have more priests, check the statistics of many Protestant denominations who allow them, many of which have fewer ministers per capita than the Catholic Church. Let us not believe the sophistry of the devil, for only him is most interested in bringing the Church down and a good way to give it a try is by hammering into our heads that requiring absolute chastity, devotion and consecration for the kingdom of heaven is impossible or nonsense. He who has ears, let him hear.

Lots of posts since I last wrote. I have been having a hectic week so I’m sorry if I couldn’t stay in the discussion.

Cradle Catholic,I don’t want to go too far down the rabbit trail of “do you believe in purgatory” except to say that if someone has difficulty with this doctrine, I highly recommend Jimmy Akin’s book The Salvation Controversy. It breaks down purgatory and indulgences in a crystal clear, biblical fashion. I believed purgatory was a reasonably belief before reading this book, but I understand it much more precisely now.

To bring the thread back to Fr. Cutie - my point with the selection from 1 John is not partially true. The scripture as quoted is completely true. Maybe it’s kind of another way of saying “by their fruits you shall know them”.  Those that know the Lord keep His commandments. The Lord desires us to be united. The Lord founded a Church to facilitate that unity and gave that Church authority (“he who hears you hears me”).

Here we see a priest sowing disunity by word (see my last post with the video clip) and by deed. It’s tragic. Maybe the discipline of celibate priests in the Latin Rite will change one day, or maybe not. Either way, it’s in play now and we need to support our priests in their vocations.

I know we have a set of core dogmas which are definitive, and then a hierarchy of truths around them. But in the Acts of the Apostles, was it a dogma that everyone had to sell their property and give everything for the Lord’s use? Don’t think it was a dogma, probably something like a discipline. And yet we know what happened when a certain couple was found to have lied to the Holy Spirit by lying to the authorities in the Church.

The Lord is merciful and might not strike people dead like that too often, but it’s clear that he is sovereign over our entire lives and we owe it to Him to honor His Church. That’s not to say we must obey a corrupt church official asking for an evil act, which would not be honoring His Church. Priestly celibacy is not evil in and of itself.

I don’t judge Fr. Cutie’s soul but he’s encouraging sacrilege by word (on tv), by action (fornication is a sacrilege against Holy Orders) and perhaps causing it in others if he is confecting a valid Eucharist to be shared with non-Catholics. We must prsy for him and for ourselves to live how God wishes us to live.

Responding to Carolyn Hyppolite who wrote on Thursday, Jan 6, 2011 6:00 PM to Cradle Catholic:

“I think it is overstating it to say that the Church is ignoring the bible on Church leadership. They are well-aware that celibacy is not a requirement. But they there is also Paul’s statement that it is better not to to marry and that is the justification for celibacy.”

Cradle Catholic’s response - Carolyn, it is crystal clear in Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy and Titus that MARRIED MEN WITH FAMILIES are to be in the ordained ministry.  In fact, ALL ordained ministers (deacons included) are IDEALLY married men.  And yet, over the years, our church has found it a nice thing to take boys ages 13, even younger in Europe, and form them into priests.

Further, the lack of female companionship has made MANY OF THEM selfish and ego-centric, denying them the sanctifying grace that comes with marriage.  Many priests are like the “Velveteen Rabbit”, not REAL, and able to deal with people that disagree with them.  Many Catholics walk on eggshells around the clergy, and “Father” has to have his way, right down to what size Christmas tree should be on the altar.  It’s not normal.  It is not what Paul wrote, in his letters to Timothy and Titus.  THE BIBLE IS BEING IGNORED.  IGNORED.  DISREGARDED.  NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Where in the Bible does it say to take 13 year old boys (and younger) and turn them into priests?  Where in the Bible does it say FOR THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD THAT THEY MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST BE SINGLE?  And yet, they CAN and DO adopt children, if they want, with a mere nod of agreement from their bishop.  A wife is too much trouble but a child is just dandy.  Show me where is that in the Bible, for the ordained ministry?

If you can show that to me, I will accept your position that the Bible wisdom is being carried out by the Vatican, and the men in leadership are not ignoring its wisdom.  WHO was Paul speaking to, when he said it was better ‘not to marry’?  CONTEXT is of utmost importance.

... I forgot to add, while I’m on a roll with children’s storybook themes, most pew people are like the citizens of the royal kingdom in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, with very few people willing to go out on a limb, speak up and say it like it is.

It’s a good example too, since we have “Princes of the Church” now.  Where in the Bible, is that concept?  Princes?

I disagree with New Observer that celibacy is the cause of the priest shortage.  It is not celibacy that is the cause, it is fidelity.  Just as we have adulterous people who cannot stay married, so we have professed celibates who are not faithful to their promises and vows.

I do believe that a celibate priesthood is a unique gift from God to the Church which can offer it many blessings in return, but I also personally believe that married priests would offer their own unique gifts that the Church would find a blessing.  Like I’ve said, I would advocate for a dual-path priesthood.

Cradle Catholic said, “Where in the Bible does it say FOR THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD THAT THEY MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST BE SINGLE?  And yet, they CAN and DO adopt children, if they want, with a mere nod of agreement from their bishop.  A wife is too much trouble but a child is just dandy…”

That’s an interesting point.  I’ve just heard of this recently myself.  I would find myself in agreement with Cradle Catholic’s ‘sentiment’ regarding the above statement.  I find it odd that the Church does seem to say it’s okay to adopt a child ... ‘but not a wife’.  Strange.

Cradle Catholic,

I can’t speak for anybody else, but I am not interested in exchanging magisterial fundamentalism for biblical fundamentalism. That the Bible does not specify these specific rules of ordination does not mean that human beings who have to make the daily decision on how to run orgganizations cannot use their judgement to make these arragements. I do believe that God has granted mankind a great deal of autonomy in terms of how to run things, including the Church.

Here’s what the bible says about celibacy:

For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 1 Cor 7:33

“It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman 1 Cor 7:1

So, clearly, from Scripture, we know that celibacy is a great good. Furthermore, the experiences of many happy celibate people testify that it is a gift from God. I know two wonderful consecrated virgins, who have happily given themselves who Christ. These women are not frustrated or lonely and they wanted nothing than to belong to Christ alone. So, whatever, changes we make, I would like to have some room for celibacy in the Church.

Now, I am kind of annoyed at being put in the position of defending priestly celibacy since I think requiring is a bad idea. But again, I am not interested in this biblical fundamentalism that says if it is not specified in the Bible, we can’t do it. That has not been Christian tradition, not from day 1. The Early Church did not even have a New Testament to work with in the first century.

Peace in Christ,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

The idea that a married man (or woman) cannot place Christ first and foremost in their life is nonsense.  A man or woman who honors their spouse and children also serves and honors the Lord.  Furthermore, How is a Catholic priest or an unmarried single person **(devoted to Christ)** of any less or more special in God’s eyes?  Each have their own role in life,—but no one is greater.  Simply because someone wears a collar does not mean their devotion is of elite status above anyone else.

New Observer,

I am just quoting Paul, but I do think the devotion of the consecrated virgins are not easily matched by married people. Of course, the world could not going on if we were all consecrated virgins but that doesn’t mean that we can’t acknowleding the goodness of celibacy while recognizing the flaws of the mandatory celibacy model.

The tragedy here is that there are so many holy and wonderful priests…but it is this kind of material that makes the news.  I think it was St. John Chrysostom who stated “The floor of hell is paved with the skull of priests”.  If Cutie had any regard or respect for the Catholic Church and Christ, he would have done the right thing by leaving the church first. Instead, he adds fuel to the fire.  To whom much is given, much is expected.  We now see the “fruits” of his work…  It’s not about celibacy as much as it is about integrity.  There is never a right way to do the wrong thing and he should have taken the proper steps to remove himself from the priesthood instead of blaming the church.

Wow. These comments….just wow.
First off, teaching authority belongs to the Magisterium. They are guided by the Holy Spirit in a much more profound way than any of us, even though we too can be so guided.  So, to those claiming that the discipline of priestly celibacy is against the teachings of Jesus, please point out exactly where in the Bible it says that the priesthood MUST include married men. Note, though, that I’m asking for a MUST, not a CAN. The Magisterium has acknowledged that they have the authority to change this discipline but choose not to at this time. It’s one thing to disagree with their decision (e.g., “I think they’re wrong to believe that ordaining married men as priest will cause confusion among the laity.”) but another thing entirely to claim that the discipline is wrong (e.g., “Requiring celibacy goes against the teachings of Jesus.”)
Second: “Where in the Bible does it say FOR THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD THAT THEY MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST BE SINGLE?”  Nowhere. That was easy. However, the current discipline in the Latin rite is that priests remain celibate. Whether or not that’s a good idea is not for us to decide and dictate, that authority belongs to the Church. We ARE free to have an opinion that differs from the official discipline. Now, where does it say that some priests MUST be married?
Third: It’s not our place to judge the teachings and disciplines of the Church, the Bride of Christ. I don’t mean disagree, I mean outright judge. Cradle Catholic said “my biggest concern is that Jesus’ instructions about the qualifications for CHURCH LEADERSHIP are being IGNORED.  They are not being “misinterpreted”.  They are being read, and they are being ignored.”  Judgement, along with mind reading.  Carolyn Hippolyte said “Now, I am kind of annoyed at being put in the position of defending priestly celibacy since I think requiring is a bad idea.” Disagreement. The former is an example of setting oneself up as an independent Magisterium in opposition to the official teaching of the Church, while the latter can be (and should be presumed to be) accepting the discipline as valid while disagreeing with its necessity and/or efficacy.
Fourth: I would again like to point out that the Church does not teach that married men cannot be priests. It merely says that it is better at this time that the discipline of not ordaining married men is maintained except for rare instances. We are not required to believe that married men cannot be priests (since that’s not Dogma), but we must at this time accept the discipline even if we disagree with it. Apostolic Succession places the authority and responsibility to make that determination on the Bishops, not us.
And finally, I will express my own opinion. I think that someday there will be a change in this discipline of the Church. I also accept what has been decided with maintaining the current discipline. Changing the discipline in order to increase vocations is the wrong reason (and unlikely to actually make much of an impact). Disciplines are imposed for a reason, and changing/removing the discipline is not done for a different reason but because the original reason is not longer in effect. Changing the discipline now would confuse a lot of people, especially since it would be misreported by the media and misunderstood by many as the Church changing doctrine (which it’s not). If the discipline were to be changed, it must be done at the right time and for the right reasons, and that determination is best made by the people God put in the position to make the decision.  Think of another discipline of the Church that WAS changed: reception of the Eucharist under only the species of the Body. The discipline was put in place for a reason, and was changed when deemed appropriate, because the heresy was fairly well eliminated.
I put my faith in God, and trust the teachings of the Church. Even now, I sometimes feel like I HAVE to receive both the Body and Blood or it’s a less complete reception of Jesus. At those times I have to remind myself that each species is fully Jesus’ Body and Blood. If I can be lured by that error today, centuries after the Utraquist controversy that resulted Trent’s affirmation of reception under one species, how much more confusion will removing the celibacy discipline now cause?
Oh, and here’s the history of priestly continence/celibacy:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html
When the Church decides that these numerous reasons are no longer in effect, and the change won’t be misunderstood, the discipline will probably be changed (I would imagine to something like what the Eastern Catholic Churches have).

@Cradle Catholic: Thank you kindly again. I don’t mean to quote Holy Scripture so much, I don’t want to give the impression that I am biblical scholar (I’m not). But my words are rightfully feeble in comparison to those spoken by The Lord Himself as told in the Gospels. Some priest will totter,fail or disappoint. But we must remember, they are imperfect persons. As I am every day, as we all are. It is at those moments in our lives that The Lord will be there not with dogmas, doctrines or disciplines, but with love, compassion and understanding. It’s a simple message in a not so simple world.

Thanks Matthew and Rafael for your reasoning and explanations.

Personal responsibility, faith, and obedience to one’s creed go a long way in today’s world.

Mathew, well thought comments.  I appreciate them.  There are two areas in which you should explain further.  You said:

“The Magisterium has acknowledged that [they] have the authority ...”  I am not referring to celibacy for priests,—but authority for everything?

What do they not have authority over?

You also state:

“It’s not our place to judge the teachings and disciplines of the Church, the Bride of Christ.”  Again, I am not referring to celibacy.  What if teachings or doctrine are extra-biblical and cannot be supported in Scripture?  Merely saying Church Tradition teaches “X” does not necessarily make the origin of a belief to be true.

Bottom line, I believe:

1) The Bible is the error-free, Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God.  I believe what Paul wrote in his Second Letter to Timothy:

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
2 Tim. 3:14-17

2) When Paul wrote his “Pastoral Letters” to Timothy and Titus, “pastoral” meant it related to shepherds: “pastors”, and to the duties of a pastor.  When Jesus appointed Peter to his special church position, he asked him, “Do you love me?” and then He said, “Feed my sheep” and “Care for my sheep.”

3) I believe the Vatican has ignored Bible wisdom and qualifications for those in ordained ministry.  As proof, I offer quotes pertaining specifically to those in ordained ministry:  1Tim. 3:1-5, Titus 1 & Paul’s right to marry 1Cor. 9:5.

1 Timothy
Chapter 3

1 This saying is trustworthy: 2 whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

Titus
Chapter 1

1 Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God’s chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth,
2
in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began,
3
who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior,
4
to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.
5
2 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
6
on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
7
For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain,
8
but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled,
9
holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

1 Corinthians
Chapter 9

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
2
Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3
My defense against those who would pass judgment on me 2 is this.
4
3 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Hello New Observer,

The way I understand the revelation of faith is that it is a three-legged stool. Magisterial teaching, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition are each co-equal and necessary for the existence of the other.

Pull one out, and the others fall as well.

It was through magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition that the canon of the New Testament was determined.

Fr. Corapi says that this three-way co-equality is similar to the Holy Trinity, as they are co-equal and each necesary.

I’m sure I’m not giving this information as well as he does; any obfuscation or errors are mine.

So why didn’t Jesus, Cradle?

He’s our high priest, and any priesthood that we derive originates in Him.

Be ye perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect (Leviticus 19:2).

The Catholic Church in the Latin rite imitates Jesus, the celibate high priest. Good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for our priesthood, not?

liseux, Jesus did not take a wife because He came to fulfill the Scripture outlined in Isaiah 61: 

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners.”
When Christ recited this passage from Isaiah in the local synagogue, He furthermore stated in Luke 4:21:  ““Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

liseux, it matters not to me whether priests marry or do not, but please do not base your belief that since Jesus did not marry—that THIS is the model carved in stone.  He called married men to follow Him (in the inner circle of the 12) and Peter was married as were others.

Liseux-

Why did Jesus come to earth?  From the beginning of time, in His wisdom, the Father was to offer His Son as the perfect Sacrifice for us= sinful mankind.  Jesus is God.  It would be His Will, and His Father’s Will for Him to be born (today, a Son is “born”, a Child is GIVEN)... and to die.

Jesus did not come to earth to have a human experience and to show us how to live.  While He taught us (in earlier days, God sent His prophets, and in the latter days, He sent His Son), that was NOT His mission.  His mission was to die.

When God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and they were on the mountaintop, and Isaac asked Abraham, “Father, where is the lamb?”  As Abraham was preparing the altar of sacrifice, he said, “God Himself will provide the lamb, my son.”

And God did - Abraham was given a ram to sacrifice instead of Isaac.  And God sent His Son = the Lamb.  This is why John the Baptist voiced that, “Behold, the Lamb of God”.

The Bible is very consistent.  All we have to do is to believe it.  Had Jesus married, and gone against His Father’s Will, it would have proven that He was NOT God.  Jesus could never have married.  Jesus was tempted in the desert, but even Satan used things, and His hunger to tempt Jesus with, not women.

I understand that Peter was married, and I also know that he left his wife behind. Not exactly a marriage for raising a family.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus says, “Some men are incapable of sexual activity from birth; some have been deliberately made so; and some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign.  Let him accept this who can.”

CC, if you can’t accept this, no worries. There are men who can and who are faithful to their vow of giving up sex, a family, and riches for God’s reign.

I am thankful to the Catholic Church, Latin rite, for modeling the priesthood after that of Jesus, the true High Priest.

And, I’d have to say, that you spent a lot of time trying to say we should try to be like Jesus. That’s a first for me with this topic.

We should try to be like our brother in holiness, and if that calls some to give up wife and family to give all for God’s kingdom, that is a gift from God.

That would be “spent a lot of time trying to say we should NOT be like Jesus.”

Liseux- The circumstances of Jesus’ Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection fulfilled several hundred prophecies in Old Testament Scriptures.  No one else’s life, before or after Jesus, had that kind of evidence for His being deity, and the Messiah that was promised to Israel.

Jesus is the CORNERSTONE for the universal “catholic” Church, not just a “High Priest” for us, as there was in Israel.  One cornerstone in a building project from those days measured 29 feet long, 13 feet wide by 12 feet tall.  It weighs over 900 tons.  That’s the approximate weight of two filled 747 airplanes.

That’s what Jesus is to the Church.  It is HE by which everyone else is measured.  We are called to be “sanctified” and “holy” as God is holy.  But that’s ALL OF US, not just priests.  We want to conform our lives and our behavior to Jesus’ life, in order to please Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  But we will NEVER be “LIKE JESUS” - until we are with Him in Heaven.

Frankly, sanctification comes through marriage.  God gives grace - the give and take of a familial relationship, with all its trials and tribulations (till death do we part - for better OR FOR WORSE…) is covenantal love.  Both wife and husband put God first, and as each get closer to God, they get closer to each other.

I have heard an expression that reminds me of what you wrote about being “like Jesus”.  - God made man in His image and likeness, and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor.  Jesus could NEVER have married.  He was born to die.

For the record, the apostles and disciples did not ABANDON their wives and families.  They went off on missionary journies and either took their families with them (as missionary families do today) or they left and returned, as our US soldiers have done, for years, even those that are “career military men”.  They leave, even for a couple of years, and then they return.

No need to preach to the choir about Jesus’ life, death, and resurection.

It is biblically clear that celibacy is the ideal for ministers of the Kingdom. If you choose not to follow that path, so be it.

Jesus praised celibacy for the Kingdom in Matthew 19:12.

Paul was celibate (1 Cor. 7:32-35) and in 1 Cor. 7:32-35 he recommends it for full time ministers, “as the married man is busy with this world’s demands and with pleasing his wife. This means he is divided.”

Jesus said that not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given.

If you truly believe that the bible is inerrant, than you would accept this teaching of Christ and his Church.

Liseaux and any other Choir Members - If you STILL do not understand that Matthew 19 and those verses from Corinthians were NOT written for full time ministers, then you are both tone deaf and blind too.  Time to please step down from the choir loft.

The Bible does NOT CONTRADICT itself.  Qualifications for ordained ministry are crystal clear, and it is not in the verses you quote.  You are not disputing me, you are disputing God’s Word, and verses I supplied to you, proving priests are ideally married men.

I agree that the Bible does not contradict itself.

Do you believe Paul when he says that a married man is busy with the world and pleasing his wife and is divided?

He is not speaking about those in ordained church ministry.  It’s dandy to be celibate.  But it ought NEVER be mandatory - for anyone.  Back tomorrow.

He’s speaking about the human state.

Do you think that a married layman or a married priest is not divided between the world, the wife, and God? 

Celibacy is not mandatory, CC. These men CHOOSE to be celibate. And as we have some married priests in the Latin rite, ie., those who come in from the Lutheran groups or the soon to be Anglican ordinariate, one cannot factually say that celibacy is mandated in the Catholic Church.

Please cite a Church document which call for an absolutely unmarried priesthood in the Latin rite with ipso facto no exclusions. Without that, you’ve got a dandy strawman you’re attacking, and not Catholicism.

While celibacy is not mandatory in the Catholic Church, it is mandatory for priests and since only priests can engage in the Church’s sacramental life it does pose challenges. Around the world evangelicals are sending married pastors to the Islamic world, and remote regions of latin America and Africa because we don’t have enough priests to do these things. They are converting Catholics who can only see a priest once a month if that.

I know a devout missionary consecrated virgin who has gone on mission work with an evangelical group because she wants to do missionary work and there is no Catholic missionary group in tha area. She has helped convert many Africans (mostly muslims) but they are going to protestant Churches because there are none around.

We know that we would have more priests if they could marry because marriage is the primary reason why men leave the seminary and the priesthood. and the orthodox Church reports that they don’t lose many priests, except for widowers who want to remarry. And protestant seminaries have plenty of students. In fact, they have more pastors than they need.

So, Catholics can boast about their precious tradition modeling Christs celibacy but we need to get real. It is a practical problem and needs a practical solution.

As for modeling Christ, all Christians are called to model Christ.

Peace,
Carolyn Hyppolite
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

liseux, you are way off base having us believe Peter (and others) abandoned their wives for good.  Their Sacrament of Hebrew Marriage was ordained as a Holy Covenant pledged before God and officiated and blessed by Jewish religious leaders in their local synagogue.

The Sacrament of Marriage is a Holy Covenant, liseux.  God’s nature is that He does not break covenant.  I am surprised you are comfortable with Peter (and others) breaking their word—a promise made before God.  The Lord does not call any man to act outside of—or to follow a path inconsistent with (His) Christ’s own nature.

Carolyn, do you think Jesus was boasting about celibacy in Matthew 19:12 when he said that some freely renounce sex for the kingdom? 

Are you aware that we have married deacons in the Latin-rite Church?

Celibacy is not mandatory, CH. The former Lutheran now Catholic priests’ wives prove that’s not accurate.

Celibacy is ideal, but not the absolute.

BTW, do you think women would make fine priests?

Hello NO,

Is there any record of Peter’s wife being in Rome at his crucifixion?

How many times does he mention her or his immediate family in his writings after Jesus healed his mother-in-law?  I don’t recall many happy reunions being mentioned.

You’re helping me to prove the point that an unmarried, celibate priest such as Jesus Christ can best devote himself to the Body of Christ, the Church, to which he is mystically wed.

I think the celibate, like the martyr, deserves his props so in a way, we can “boast” about it and say it is a great sacrifice to make. I think men who believe themselves called to celibacy should have the option to take such vows and become priests. I think there should be a place for celibacy. i think consecrated life should remain celibate.

Also, it shows lack of interest in having a serious conversation to talk about the VERY rare instances in which the Catholic Church allowed married priest as evidence that it is not mandatory. In fact, saying that what is clearly mandatory is not mandatory does not nothing to help us have a honest conversation. Can we at least again be real about what we already know?

As for the deaconate, the permanent deaconate was revived during the reforms of vatican II and I am grateful for that move. I think it would help us go a long way to addressing the ministerial shortage which we are facing, which might very well get worst as more priests die and retire. But since deacons cannot offer the mass, it is noy going to address the problems that I raised above. I live in a diocese where parishes were recently closed and combined by the bishop and most of the current priests are pretty gray. It is because I care about the health of the Catholic Church that I think we need to get real about the serious obstacles that celibacy poses.

In the Western world, we have gay priests, and in many other parts of the world, like my homeland Haiti, people frequently laugh at the hypocrisy of allegedly celibate priests who have women on the side. I have been hit on by a priest and a pursued by a seminarian for years. My mother had a similar experience. And many priests who are living out their chastity suffer from extreme loneliness. Is it not better to allow these other good men to have proper, licit channels to address the natural, sexual and emotional frustrations? Is it not better to marry than to burn?

On the question of women priest, I think there are good arguments on both sides and I have no horse in that race. As a former evangelical, I think much of our problems could be dealt with by making the priesthood more appealing to well-adjusted, interesting, heterosexual men. In fact, I have noticed that the deacons I have met are on average much more socially well-adjusted, and better preachers than the priests. Sure, I have met some great priests, but I can’t think of single deacon, I have met who is as socially inept, and a dull homilists as many of the priests, I have met. The protestant pastors I have met aren’t like that either. My theory is we are drawing from a weak pool. Again, I know lots of great priests so this description does fit everybody but it does fit too many.

Peace,
CKH

Brenda, God love you. Cradle Catholic - if you are unwilling to except Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture as equal in “weight” then you cannot possibly identify yourself as Catholic. It’s just that simple!

You asked me a while back what is needed for salvation to which I responded. All truth IS NOT found in the Bible and as it was pointed out, if “we” become individual interpreters of the Bible than who has the truth? This is quite evident since in the United States alone we have over 35,000 different denominations. So, who has the Truth? Do all 35,000 denominations have the truth? I think not.

By the way, how would anyone know that Billy Graham is saved? That is for God alone to know and not a human being. As for me, I work out my salvation through fear and trembling as St. Paul reminds us.

Carolyn, I think we should look at the priesthood by the very best examples of the office, not by the active homosexuals or the ones who have women on the side.

There will always be Judases in the ranks, along side the Peters, Jameses, and Johns.

Jesus says about giving up sex for the kingdom of God, “Let him accept this teaching who can.” Paul says, if one must marry to prevent sinning, do so.

When one makes a vow to the celibate priesthood or a vow to marriage, one takes a vow of fidelity.  As for the priest and seminarian who hit on you, I think they would have been doing that even if married. That’s my opinion, BUT…..

A man that can break a vow to Christ of celibacy will certainly be able to break a vow to a wife.

This is an issue of fidelity.

Peace to you, and have a blessed feast of the Baptism of Jesus.

P.S. do you think any man truly called by God to the priesthood is from a “weak pool”?  Don’t you have more faith in the grace of God than that? Didn’t St. Paul say that when we are weak is when we are strong?

The supernatural grace of God can do more for a human than any natural, physical attributes.

I look around and I see great men in the priesthood, along with a few not so great. Holy smokes, Carolyn, aren’t we all “weak” to some extent?

Any gift you have is from God. Me too.

Liseux,

If any other sector of life dealt with their problems by only looking at the good part and blaming detractors, they would never survive. Can you imagine if companies did this? Please, don’t look at all our cars that kill people, 90% don’t blow up! We would nevere accept this from any other group. But the Catholics accept that only 5% of priest molested, more than half are celibate, and the 1/3 of Catholics who have left are nothing but faithless heretics anbd anyone who voices a criticism is a heretic and we don’t have to listen to them .

Again, from my proestant experience when a Church was failing, the members got together and tried to figure out why and implemented reforms to change it. Those reforms may or may not work but at least there was an understanding that we had some responsibility to listen to those who were leaving and make changes that were not unbiblical. I see no such move in the Catholic Church. Countries like Brazil have from 100% catholic to 75%. My country hati from 100% Catholic to 80% and all I see is “Oh, those mean evangelicals. How dare they offer interesting sermons, lively music, and a genuine sense of community! Why should those Catholics in remote villages except to see a minisyter more than once a month. The nerve!”

As for priests from a weak pool, yes, we are all weak, but some us are social akward and lousy public speakers, which is not good for ministry. Many of those leaving the seminary are the ones least like that. I am pretty sure the guy who hit on me was called to the priesthood. He had a compelling calling story and tried real hard but in the long ruin, he wanted a wife.

Mary M.  you state: “As for me, I work out my salvation through fear and trembling as St. Paul reminds us.

Your works?  Jesus said “Your works are like filthy rags.”  I will spare you the graphic details of that definition.  Your salvation was already achieved by the work of Jesus on Calvary.

If you believe what you wrote, then please quantify how much “work” you need to do?

New Observer, Saint Paul was clear, you CAN lose your salvation.  “once saved, always saved” is a false doctrine.

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Priesthood/Priesthood_010.htm

Just came across a friend who is wants to be a deacon but is holding off until he gets married because you can’t get married after ordination. Does this make any sense? Especially in a time where we have a ministerial shortage?

CKH

Carolyn - I just got back and had a second to check this blog, so I’ll respond to other comments later.  But now, to address your last entry, about your friend that’s holding off being a deacon until he gets married-

I know a man who is a much loved Anglican pastor, who was raised Roman Catholic (even had Catholic schooling), he LOVES the Roman Catholic church - and his Anglican denomination is much like pre-Vatican II worship, right down to his bringing the Rosary to his parish, for prayer-time.

He WANTED desperately to be a Roman Catholic priest - 25 years ago.  BUT he felt called to be married.  So he got married,  he and his wife have a lovely family - and a small Anglican congregation.  In his heart: he’s Roman Catholic.  But an Anglican pastor.

Why should a Roman Catholic man that’s called to be in ordained ministry be FORCED to leave the Catholic chuch, or go to an Orthodox denomination, just to be married?  What else could this man have done?  He had a vocation to church ordained ministry.  No call to be celibate.

He is conservative and has even joined in with my own parish’s Pro-Life Walk that happens in January of every year.  He is an excellent pastor - and he meets ALL the qualifications that Scripture calls for, in an ordained man.

Cradle Catholic,

There are countless stories of this sort. Many Catholics act like they will be deprived if their priests are allowed to marry; Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually found that my protestant pastors were at least as available as my Catholic priests that I now have. That’s because even the relatively small congregation might have two pastors, and then a youth pastor. I doubt there were more than 300 families in the Protestant Church that I belonged in but we had at least that as well as several men and women who had done serious lay training who led Bible study. In fact, everyone was required to belong to a house group to be a member of the Church so many people got to meet once a week for a Bible study or something like that. And since members can actually vote on things, like how the Church’s money is spent, it was nice to be a member. All of this is off topic—-just one of the many reforms that I dream about.

Peace,
CKH

Carolyn, if you were dealing with the twelve apostles, I do believe you would be fixated on Judas, bring the “church” together, and try to reform the church by bringing the other eleven down to the lowest common Judas denominator.

All the factors for reform were in place way back in apostolic times. Repentance and obedience are a couple of objectives that wayward seminarians or priests could turn to instead of hitting on women.

As for Haiti which was 100% Catholic, what good are the statistics when people don’t live their faith? Surely, you’re not playing just a mere numbers game.  The pope has said that we might be a smaller church in the future, but a much more faithful church.

Matthew 19:12 says that some will give up sex for the kingdom of God, and that he can accept this teaching, let him. I imagine the flip side is that he who can’t- get married.

There is a spot for these men and women as well in the Church. Just because your deacon friend wanted to get married before he was ordainded doesn’t mean we have to change the rules to meet low standards.

The way I see it, you are trying to remake the priesthood in the mold of some of your evangelical, married pastors. Paul says they are divided. Jesus praises celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God.

I think they know more than bloggers who are not divinely inspired, me included.

Carolyn, did they vote on whether or not to have actively homosexual pastors or if abortion was morally acceptable?

Brenda, Paul also speaks of assurance and eternal security.  A man or woman “outside” of Christ has neither and thus is in a lost condition.

Mary M. writes to Cradle Catholic:  “Cradle Catholic - if you are unwilling to except Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture as equal in “weight” then you cannot possibly identify yourself as Catholic. It’s just that simple!

This is the usual rant by those thinking salvation comes from church membership.  Mary, it may come as a shock, however, eternity with Christ is not real estate reserved for—and the exclusive domain—of Catholics.  You have put your Catholicism AHEAD of your Christianity.  Protestants and many Catholics alike are tired of this myopia.

For you to tell Cradle Catholic he/she is not Catholic . . .—who are you? —the Catholic Police?

New Observer, and who are you…. the police of the Catholic Police?  lol

Mary might be looking at the “Catholicity” of Cradle, but I don’t believe she was referring to his salvation. God is the final judge for all of us.

As for assurance of salvation, Hebrews 6:4-6 describes the sharers in the Holy Spirit who have fallen away. By our own free will we can choose to love God or not. Our salvation is not locked in.

On Fri. Jan 7 about 9PM - there was a discussion between New Observer and Liseaux about St. Peter and if he abandoned his wife.  It has always been my understanding that while little is written in Paul’s letters about St. Peter’s travels and ministry, he did travel and, interestingly, he did so with his wife.

This caused some scholars to suggest Peter ministered as part of a husband and wife team and the role played by women in the Church has been deliberately diminished over history.  While details of Peter’s later life cannot be found in the Bible, scholars did look to other sources (like Catholics do not merely refer to the Bible for their Truth, but to OTHER sources - like “Tradition” and the “Magesterium”.)

So the word ‘apocryphal’ means ‘hidden away’ and it’s used to describe literature that contains similar material to the Bible but which was not included in the canon.

Most of these writings were condemned by the church as heretical and dangerous - and indeed, much of it could be.  But used correctly, they can give scholars a insight into the lives of our earliest church leaders, and shed light into their environment.

For instance, Justin Martyr’s writings about how early Christians celebrated the Lord’s Day, is precisely (and I mean precisely) how we celebrate the Catholic Mass today.  So while not ALL of it is in the Bible, it is valuable for filling in some blanks.

A different kind of example is using the Book of Maccabees for DOCTRINE, not just for filling in the blanks and seeing what life was like them.  It is from Maccabees that the Vatican gets its ideas about Purgatory, and why so many of the other Christian churches dispute that book.  It is a book of history - and from it, we get the Feast of Hannukkah.  But taking one teensy verse out of one historical Old Testament book, and using it for New Testament doctrine?  Not wise and not valid.  It flies, with the ignorant masses from the Middle Ages.  Like the Bereans, it ought to be questioned now, along with the Practice of Celibacy for the clergy.

With all that said, it’s not that important about how Peter’s wife supported his ministry.  The important point is that he WAS married, and Jesus KNEW he was married, and Jesus even visited Peter’s house, and cured Peter’s mother-in-law, and that IS in the Bible.

As for disciples/apostles being made to ABANDON their wives and families -
does everyone remember in the Bible when Jesus chose 70 men and sent them out in pairs to spread the Good News, to heal, cast out demons, and minister to people?  They came home.  He did not send them out, never to be seen again.

For the record, some sources say Peter’s wife was not only AT his crucifixion, some say she too, was a martyr, and for being a Christian. It’s all impossible to prove.  But as I mentioned, the important thing is that not only Peter, but the other apostles, except for John, were known to be married, and Paul wrote, “Do not Barnabas and I have a RIGHT to marry…” & to “take along a believing wife”...  1Corinthians 9:5

Lisieux,

I think there is something seriously wrong with comparing men who want to marry with Judas. Again, I think one of the reasons the Church faces these problems is that any criticism of behavior is deemed focusing on Judas. You cannot deal with thing like the sex abuse crisis by only paying attention to non-abusive priests. At some point, you have to face the actual problem. Yes, there are going to be a few Judas but right now, we have too many. It is literally bankrupting us.

I also think it is interesting that you think allowing the clergy to marrying is “lowering” our standards.

And my protestant Church did not take vote on matters of faith and morals, not even the most liberal protestant Churches do that at the parish level. I specifically said we voted on things like finances. One of the things I often encounter among Catholics are these unwarranted negative views about how protestants, especially, evangelicals run things. Obviously, since I am no longer an evangelical, I believe in the Catholoc faith, but there is no point in not giving credit where it is due and recognizing the many things that we can learn from other Christians.

As for you claim that numbers don’t matter, again, what other organization could operate with that mindset. Numbers are not everything, but if you lose 20% of your people in a little over a generation, you are failing in some serious way! 1 out of 10 America is an ex-Catholic. Does this number not matter? Should we not inquire into how we lost millions of people? There is this attitude by too many in our Church that you lose a sheep, you don’t go after it but instead you denounce it for never having been a faithful sheep anyway.

CKH

New Observer - Some posts back you identified yourself as a Catholic when I asked you if you were. Based on your response to my last post “This is the usual rant by those thinking salvation comes from church membership.  Mary, it may come as a shock, however, eternity with Christ is not real estate reserved for—and the exclusive domain—of Catholics.  You have put your Catholicism AHEAD of your Christianity.  Protestants and many Catholics alike are tired of this myopia Real estate has nothing to do with salvation.”

You sound very defensive for someone who professes to be Catholic. I never said eternity with Christ is reserved just for Catholics - you make that assumptiom which is totally erroneous. No Catholic who trully knew there faith would ever say what you did.

New Observer, I’m not the police but I am someone who knows her Catholic faith and believes that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is the Church who has the fullness of the truth. To be Catholic means to also profess what the Church believes. If you don’t believe that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition carry the same weight how can someone possibly idenfity themselves as Catholic?

In answer to your question - “Your works?  Jesus said “Your works are like filthy rags.”  I will spare you the graphic details of that definition.  Your salvation was already achieved by the work of Jesus on Calvary.
If you believe what you wrote, then please quantify how much “work” you need to do?”

My first thought to respond to you was “why don’t you ask St. Paul what he meant since he is the one that said it!”

The works Jesus was speaking about were works of the Mosaic law (the law of the Old Testament). Catholic belief does not include working ones way into heaven as you infer. Catholics believe that salvation is a free gift, there is nothing that we can do to earn it and it is unmerited.

Jesus is my redeemer. Jesus died for the sins of all of humanity but we can lose the gift of salvation if we don’t live moral lives in accord with the Commandemnts and doing the will of God - that’s what St. Paul meant.

Mary M:  You wrote, “..but we can lose the gift of salvation if we don’t live moral lives…”

So by that, I can picture God as an Indian giver?  He gives a gift, but takes it back based on OUR performance?  How does that jive with the description of God being “unconditional love”, agape love, that description of Him is all over the Bible?  Granted, it is for His Children - not for those that have not repented, and turned from their ways the first time (being born-again in the Spirit).
**************************************************

Carolyn Hippolyte - your last post is a gem.  It should be read in the Vatican, just like Our Constitution was just read in the Capital.  Every word you wrote in response to Lisieux was profoundly wise.  Thank you.

Carolyn, I am not comparing men who want to marry with Judas.

I am comparing the men who take vows of chastity and obedience and then break them to Judas. 

It is a betrayal of vows, a problem of fidelity.

Instead of better seminarian training, you want to change the rules altogether. Yes, this would be a lowering of standards. We are aiming for the ideal, as in the celibate high priesthood of Jesus Christ. Paul agrees and says that married men are divided between the world and pleasing their wives. His words, not mine.

You think having men marry will somehow bring oodles of men into the priesthood.  If that were the case, then the Lutherans and Methodists too would be booming with ministers.

They are not. In fact, mainline denomination churches are also experiencing a “vocations crisis.” 

Marrying will not “fix” a man who cannot be faithful to a vow.

Do you think married ministers don’t have chastity problems? Look around, CH. You will see an abundance of Protestant ministers who’ve been caught in adultery (not just with women either) and are divorcing. 

One of my college friends was a married Lutheran minister who was having an affair with a woman he met while “counseling” her about her problems.

Jesus praises celibacy; Paul focuses on the division of married men.

I’ll go with them and the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Catholic Church.

CH, as I’ve seen you post at these blog, I’ve noted that you have quite a few heterodox points of view. Nothing new in the history of the Church, but I do wish that you would continue to come into the fullness of the Truth. May God continue to operate in you.

You all have a great evening and a blessed Feast of the Baptism of Jesus tomorrow.

CC, why in the world are you quoting extra-biblical sources????

Protestants don’t use those- why, it’s unheard of! :-}

CC, Hebrews 6:4-6 specifically tells us, “For when men have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and become sharers in the Holy Spirit, when they have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to make them repent again, since they are crucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt.”

God is not an Indian-giver.

But we can reject God’s freely given gift.  And loose our salvation, as the above passage and others demonstrate.

Cradle - It’s not that God is an “Indian Giver” but more that we are ungrateful. God gave us free will. God requires a response from us to His gift of salvation. Salvation depends on our response to God - please see below.

By the way, we are “born again” in Baptism. Original sin is washed away and be become children of God and the Blessed Trinity dwells in our soul so long as do not sin mortally.

Remember the parable of the Goats and the Sheep?

The Judgment - Matthew 25
31"But when (A)the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then (B)He will sit on His glorious throne.

32"All the nations will be (C)gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, (D)as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;

33and He will put the sheep (E)on His right, and the goats (F)on the left.

34"Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, (G)inherit the kingdom prepared for you (H)from the foundation of the world.

35’For (I)I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; (J)I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

36(K)naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you (L)visited Me; (M)I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

37"Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?

38’And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

39’When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40”(N)The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, (O)to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41"Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘(P)Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the (Q)eternal fire which has been prepared for (R)the devil and his angels;

42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’

44"Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’

45"Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

46"These will go away into (S)eternal punishment, but the righteous into (T)eternal life.”

Liseux wrote regarding celibacy, “Paul agrees and says that married men are divided between the world and pleasing their wives. His words, not mine.”  You also wrote that Jesus praised celibacy - and wrote: “I’ll go with them and the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Catholic Church.”

Then Liseux, you would agree that the church position of ordained ministry is best filled by married men.

You cannot have it both ways - with claiming to agree with St. Paul, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (the author of the Bible) and then take all their words out of context, to fit what you want.  That is what you and the others claim non-Catholic (and Protestant) denominations do- and yet, it is those denominations that read the Bible and interpret it in context, and most importantly, they obey it.

To me, OBEYING the truths in the Bible IS the ‘fullness of the faith’.  That’s all that really matters, in the long run.  Obeying God is the only choice that has eternal value.  It makes us “His Children” adopted into His Family.  And adopted children, in the Jewish culture, had more “rights” than did even naturally born children. = Blessed Assurance of His everlasting Love.

I think the mainline crisis is overblown, mostly by Catholics. Just something used by Catholics to say, we are no worse than others as if that is what we should be striving for. Like, the we are no more likely to abuse than the average population argument. Talk about lower standards. There are fewer methodists period and therefore fewer methodist ministers. But in the mainline Churches I visited, the ratios were much better. Sometimes, you had a two pastors in a Church of about 100 gray adults. None of them were pastoring more than one Church. It is the ratio of ministers to parishoners that we should be looking at. Anyway, no reason to be comparing ourselves to the ailing mainline. It would be wiser to compare ourselves to robust groups, like evangelicals or my favorite Christian sect, the Amish :).

As for whether there would be more priests, Easter Catholic bishops at the last synod of Bishops once again asked the vatican to allow married priest in Eastern Catholic Churches in Western countries and some of them gently point that married priests in their nativeland are more stable and that the latin rite Churches could help themselves by having married priests.  I think the opinion of these eastern catholics who have centuries of recent experience with married should be taken seriously. What should also be taken seriously, is the fact that MARRIAGE is the primary reasons why men leave the seminary and the priesthood. It is logical to conclude that these men would not have left if they could have married.

As for this idea that better training would solve this problem. What training will deal with the natural inclination of men to have a female partner and a family?

I was on the fence about this until I took a Church history course, and I realized for how many centuries we have had problems because of this celibacy. For centuries, the Church has had to condemn open priestly concubinage. Around the Reformation, this was rampant; this was one of things that scandalized Martin Luther during his trip to Rome. Some cities had hundreds of illegitimate children fathered by priests. Far from reaping the alleged benefits of high standards, the result of this policy is widespread scandal, which is spiritual more damaging.

CKH

Mary M,  you wrote: “. . . the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and is the Church who has the fullness of the truth.”  Please explain your meaning of the fullness.  What truth is absent from our Protestant brothers and sisters who attend full Gospel, uncompromising Bible-believing churches?

New observer,

I will name two things: Protestant Churches do not accept John 6, which teaches that Christ is truly present during communion, that we must eat his body and his blood. Protestant Churches, even very conservatives, often loosely interpret Jesus’s words about marriage and allow divorced persons to remarry in nearly all circumstances.

Peace in Christ,
CKH

liseux questioned:  “New Observer, and who are you…. the police of the Catholic Police?  lol.”

liseux, Take that up with others since **I am not the one** questioning how “Catholic” Cradle Catholic is.  It is common for certain Catholics to become upset when a fellow Catholic has a different or opposing viewpoint.  They are accused of being—or sounding Protestant.  As for Cradle Catholic, how is it possible for someone to rate CC’s percentile of Catholicity?  50%, 90%—or if he/she is not 100% in lock step, is that person not Catholic?

Carolyn, you are partly correct when you say:  “Protestant Churches, even very conservatives, often loosely interpret Jesus’s words about marriage and allow divorced persons to remarry in nearly all circumstances.”  However, this is NOT true of every Protestant church as I’m sure you know.  I will not begin a new discussion, yet the Catholic church recently granted an annulment to one of the Kennedy boys after 15 years of marriage.  This means young Kennedy is free to marry—in the church—again.  Let’s see what Mary M responds to regarding her explanation of the “fullness of the truth.”

New observer,

This idea that everyone needs to be 100% lock step to be Catholic is seriously flawed. One should note that Connecticut Bishop Tobins has said he will not use the term former Catholics because you are Catholic forever; it is a fmaily identity. Being in sin or wrong does not make you not Catholic. There is this group of people who are eager to exclude others from using the word Catholic; it is not biblical and it is not even in the catechism.

All it is a lazy attempt to avoid real discussion. If some challenges you, you can just stick your fingers in your years and say, “you’re not catholic.”
CKH

Carolyn, your point is my point.  The easy out is when Catholics point their finger and say:  “You’re not Catholic.”

New Observer,

I am not aware of any protestant denomination that has a policy of not marrying divorced persons. I recognize that there are abuses of the annulment process in America, but there are also a lot of people engaging in what the Catholic Church does not consider a valid marriage hence the high rate of divorce. But the catholic Church’s position is one that strictly interprets Jesus’s words about marriage. I can’t think of any protest group that I can say that about.

CKH

Carolyn, the word “Protestant” is generic and includes not just denominational churches but those which are independent and unaffiliated.  I am familiar with two such churches locally whom do not allow re-marriage after divorce unless the death of the former spouse has occurred.

I am glad to hear that about this independent Church but it’s hard for us to keep track of what various things independent churches are doing, which could easily be changed by a change in pastoral leadership. At least, with denominations, we can talk about a large body of believers who are accountable to each other.

I have a pentocostal friend who will only go to her one 20 adult member church. If she’s on vacation, she does not attend Sunday worship. and her pastor requires excessive disciplines on these members. Thus, while I am aware of good independent protestant churches, I think overall, they are bad for Christian unity and orthodoxy.

Peace,
CKH

New Observer and others: Are you not aware that it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church that explains that Catholics can ex-communicate themselves by their behavior?  It is not a personal opinion, it is Church teaching.  All one need to is READ the CCC—- its all there in black and white.

Cradle - It’s not that God is an “Indian Giver” but more that we are ungrateful. God gave us free will. God requires a response from us to His gift of salvation. Salvation depends on our response to God - see below Gospel.

By the way, we are “born again” in Baptism. Original sin is washed away and be become children of God and the Blessed Trinity dwells in our soul so long as do not sin mortally.

Are you familiar with the parable of the Goats and the Sheep?

The Judgment - Matthew 25:31-46
“But when (A)the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then (B)He will sit on His glorious throne.
All the nations will be (C)gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, (D)as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;and He will put the sheep (E)on His right, and the goats (F)on the left.
Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, (G)inherit the kingdom prepared for you (H)from the foundation of the world.
‘For (I)I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; (J)I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
K)naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you (L)visited Me; (M)I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
N)The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, (O)to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘(P)Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the (Q)eternal fire which has been prepared for (R)the devil and his angels;
for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’
“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
“These will go away into (S)eternal punishment, but the righteous into (T)eternal life.”

Cradle - I am re-posting an earlier post that clearly demonstrates that Jesus requires a response from us.  No comment????

New Observer - “Let’s see what Mary has to say about the fullness of the truth”

The Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth becausde “we” have first of all the Four Marks of the Church - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The Church is one, the church is holy not because of its members but because the Church was founded by Christ and He is holy, the church is Catholic because she is universal and the Church is apostolic because it receies its succession directly from the apostles. I would like you to tell me what Protestant church is apostolic? - The answer is none.

In her fullness the Church has Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ. Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick and Penance.

Protestant churches are not apostolic and do not contain Seven Sacraments.
Is this sufficient for you New Observer or do you require further evidence?

I must admit that it is very difficult to communicate with people who have such a skewed and I might add prejudicial view of the Catholic Chuch. What’s especially troubling is someone who claims to be Catholic but says he/she knows better about the truth. This is your version of the truth and not Christ’s and not the Catholic Churches version of the truth. If you want to be an “independent Catholic” than that is your choice but don’t start telling me or anyone else what your version of the truth is in relation to the Church. You can continue your “defense” but it really doesn’t matter because the Truth remains where it is - The Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth whether you or anyone else agree with it. It is not a subject truth but an objective truth!

Brenda,

What behaviors have been displayed here that warrants excommunication?

Peace,
CKH

Speaking of excommunication. Many of us are deeply disturbed that the bishops who tolerated and protected pedophile priests have not incurred an excommunication. Some of them have incurred a promotion, but apparently, questioning the Church’s mandatory celibacy puts you one thin ice. Is it any wonder that the faith is being abandonned around the world? Last November, a German bishop reported that thousands left in his diocese alone.

And on the comment about apostolic succession, the orthodox Church have apostolic sucession, and one could argue that the anglican Church succeeded from validly ordained bishops and therefore have apostolic succession (Yes, I know the CC does not agree.)

CKH

Carolyn: No has done anything to be excommunicated but Catholicism is not “cafteria Catholicism”. We don’t pick and choose what we want to believe if we say that we are Catholic. Being an authenic Catholic calls for obedience to the teachings of the Church. It is absolutely absurd to say one is Catholic but adopts a “Bible alone” philosophy. That is vastly different than saying I’m not certain celibacy is the right thing. Celibacy is a discipline which can be changed but Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as equal cannot.

You are right that the Orthodox Church has a valid priesthood and sacraments but not the Anglican church or any other protestant denomination.

Where do you get your statistics that the Catholic faith is being abandoned around the world because your comment is erroneous.  The Catholic Church is growing in number especially in Africa.

Celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with what took place in the abuse of minors. What it does have to do with is first of all discrning who can be a priest and once ordination takes place being faithful to celibacy and living a chaste life.

And, on the subject of a married priesthood, statistics proved that the divorce rate is just as great as it is in the secular world. The demands of running a large parish are great. Most Catholic parishes are larger in comparison to Protestant churches. My parish has almost 3,000 registered families. Our Pastor is constantly busy. Yesterday he had a funeral mass, a wedding and appointments in the evening. How could a married priest ever have a family and be able to devout his attention to a family and to the church? Something has got to give.

New Observer, I agree with you in part about the non-necessity of worrying oneself if someone is Catholic or not. It obvious…... and God sorts out our dispositions in the end.

Anyway, the irony is that we’re all “policing” doctrine or teaching here in a way, including myself.

This is great to learn and explain, but I have a family to take care of, and can’t spend too much time here. (Pertinent to the discussion, as a married priest will be divided as well!)

May you all have a blessed Sunday.

There are really large protestant Churches and they have multiple pastors. If there were more priests, they could share the work load. This works well in every other denomination, including those that are relatively similar to us, like the Anglicans, the Orthodox, and even the Eastern Catholics. I see no reason why we are so different that our priests cannot be married. I attended an Eastern Catholic service a few weeks ago and the priests wife greeted us. She was a lovely woman and the service was beautiful. The sky did not fall.

As for whether celibacy has something to do with the sex abuse crisis, I know there is a lot of debate about that. But I think the argument that it indirectly does is a strong one in that celibacy is unattractive to normal, hetersexual men and many decide against the priesthood. I can think of four guys that I know—my father, the seminarian who used to hit on me, and a counselor that I knew from school, a Franciscan priest who fell in love the roomate of my best friend. These men might be priests today if they could marry. The counselor told me that he found the religious community he looked into to be dominated by homosexual men. Also, I have said this many times and and you have ignored it, celibacy is the primary reason given by men who leave the priesthood and it is the primary reason why men drop out of the seminary. About 20,000 priests have left in the past 30 years. That is 20,000 men already ordained. The majority of those cite a desire to marry as their primary motivation. With hetersexual men dropping out, the priesthood easily became a hide out for men with aberrant sexual urges. I can think of many priests that I have met in the past few years who are clearly gay. I hope that these men are celibate. However, too many in the priesthood have told us that the proportion of gay men in the Catholic priesthood is higher than in the average population. Now, with homosexuality becoming increasingly tolerated we might lose those vocations as well since those men don’t need to hide the way they did in the past.

As for the Catholic Church decline, I don’t have time to find a good source but you are free to look it up.

In Latin America, many are going to Evangelical Churches ( I already gave the example of haiti and Brazil, Mexico is in the same boat), in America the Church is only growing because of hispanic immigrants but some of these are also become evangelical as well, in Europe, Churches have practically become museums. Yes, the Church is growing in Africa but every Church is growing in Africa and pentecostalism is the fastest growing on that contient.

Even the bishops admit that many are leaving the Church in droves. If you don’t believe me you can look online for attrition in Germany as well as Ireland. In the United States, 1/3 of those born Catholic have officially left. This number does not include those who don’t go anymore but still consider themselves Catholic because it is their culture. Many diocese, like Atlanta have implimented Catholics come home programs because they recognize the seriousness of the problem. Bishop Timothy Dolan admitted this in a New York Times interview recently. Bishop Tobin wrote an open letter to “inactive” catholics inviting them back home. Francis Cardinal George has talked about the great need of evangelization to bring back Catholics. I have been to many evangelicals Church where they will boast that large chuncks of their members are former Catholics. A few weeks ago, a priest suggested that we do exit interviews as people are leaving to find out why. This was published in America magazine. Let us not bury our heads in the sand about this.

Carolyn, do you have a family?

How is it that you can spend so much time on here with such long posts?

Carolyn H, I never indicated that any behavior here on this board was cause for ex-communication.  I simply said the Catechism outlines what behavior will cause one to be ex-communicated.  Discussions do not warrant excommunication, obviously.

And no one is “on thin ice” discussing the rule of celibacy.  Why would they be, and why would anyone think that?  All I can say is that when I was part of the various protestant circles, many were hyper-critical of the Catholic Church and believed all kinds of unfounded tales about it.  This is why I recommend reading the Catechism for clarification on Catholic teaching.

“Jesus said to them in reply ’ . . . because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.’” (Matthew 24: 4,12-13)

“Jesus told his disciples this parable:
‘The Kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins
who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
The foolish ones, when taking their lamps,
brought no oil with them,
but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps.
Since the bridegroom was long delayed,
they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
At midnight, there was a cry,
“Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!”
Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps.
The foolish ones said to the wise,
“Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.”’
But the wise ones replied,
“No, for there may not be enough for us and you.
Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.”
While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came
and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him.
Then the door was locked.
Afterwards the other virgins came and said,
“Lord, Lord, open the door for us!”
But he said in reply,
“Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.”
Therefore, stay awake,
for you know neither the day nor the hour.”  (Matthew 25:1-13)

I believe the flame of the lamps that Our Lord speaks of here is the flame of faith and love - the faith and love within our own hearts. We keep these alight with the oil of devotion, prayer, the Sacraments, of looking to keep our own souls in their proper order - tranquil, trusting, focussed on Jesus. Is my flask full of the oil of devotion, of keeping my own soul in its right state? Or do I allow my flask to run empty as I dash hither and yon, inspecting, surveying, evaluating, processing matters that are global and national in scope . . . and beyond my reach to truly control.

In decrying the actions of evildoers, will I allow my flame to flicker out, my love to grow cold?

Merciful Lord, spare us!

To Carolyn Hyppolite - Your comments to this post have been extraordinary, and I thank you for bringing up so many points to consider, as celibacy is discussed, and I particularly appreciated being reminded of these points you mentioned:

Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Saturday, Jan 8, 2011 8:23 PM (EST): “I was on the fence about this until I took a Church history course, and I realized for how many centuries we have had problems because of this celibacy. For centuries, the Church has had to condemn open priestly concubinage. Around the Reformation, this was rampant; this was one of things that scandalized Martin Luther during his trip to Rome. Some cities had hundreds of illegitimate children fathered by priests.”

St. Peter Damian wrote in his Book of Gomorrah, that sexual abuse by priests in that day had to stop - the pope back then, ignored him.

To the issue of the demanding life of a parish priest, I enjoyed reading where you pointed out: “Posted by Carolyn Hyppolite on Sunday, Jan 9, 2011 3:48 PM (EST):There are really large protestant Churches and they have multiple pastors. If there were more priests, they could share the work load. This works well in every other denomination, including those that are relatively similar to us, like the Anglicans, the Orthodox, and even the Eastern Catholics. I see no reason why we are so different that our priests cannot be married. I attended an Eastern Catholic service a few weeks ago and the priests wife greeted us. She was a lovely woman and the service was beautiful. The sky did not fall.”

And lastly and importantly, you pointed out, “With hetersexual men dropping out, the priesthood easily became a hide out for men with aberrant sexual urges. I can think of many priests that I have met in the past few years who are clearly gay. I hope that these men are celibate. However, too many in the priesthood have told us that the proportion of gay men in the Catholic priesthood is higher than in the average population.”

The church’s own statistics show there are anywhere between 22%-45% (and as many as 50%) of the clergy - priests, bishops and those in higher positions - that identify themselves with a homosexual inclination.  This while the general population at any given time is less than 5%.

Houston (Rome): We have a problem.  While celibacy in and of itself is not the cause for pedophilia, and neither is homosexual orientation a cause for *pedophilia*, it most certainly IS a reason for priests having ‘lapses’ with other men or with women, or with teen age boys or teen age girls.

Carolyn - thank you for all the wisdom you bring to this post, and kudos to you, for sharing the information from your church history class, and for helping us to know and understand that there ARE problems, and there always have been problems, as a result of mandatory celibacy.  Recognizing it is a step towards being able to correct the problem.

Liseux,

I am single and childless. I am a graduate student and on break. I find these discussions help me think and it is a good way to practice writing about current events, which helps me with my blog.

Peace,
CKH

I personally know either the perpetrator or the victims of four perpetrators of sexual abuse of minor children, which did not include consensual statutory rape (he was nineteen, she was fourteen, and they were “in love.” Horrible. But I’m not including those.)

I’m talking about pansexual molesters. They’re not 100% “straight.” They’re not 100% “gay”. They would do it with a cigar store indian or with your dog, or with your pet rock, if the mood struck them. Pigs. Vulnerable children and very young adolescents are their especial targets. Their sexuality doesn’t matter; they’re sociopaths, who don’t give a d_mn whom they hurt or whom they destroy.

One of these was a Catholic priest who abused children sexually. He is behind bars, now, where he belongs.

The other three whom I either knew, or know their victims, were married men, with children of their own, who either abused their own children or abused nieces, or nieces AND nephews. In one case, all of the above.

The cops will tell you, that more often than not, the female partners wives or girlfriends, of these sick individuals know, or ought to know what is happening under their own roofs. But these women - often the children’s mothers - go into denial. They can’t cope. They can’t face the situation. They can’t face the shame. They can’t face the perpetrator’s rage. Sometimes he threatens the woman. And so they often don’t protect these children.

Some do. But often women don’t.

These pansexual creep-o sociopath monsters are Little League coaches, Boy Scout leaders, husbands, fathers, boyfriends, accountants, hairdressers, aerospace engineers, Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, New Age healers. Some are married; some are single. Some are divorced; some are living with someone.

Our Catholic bishops have at times responded to the situation no better than some frightened Moms do. It’s revolting; it’s disgusting. But there it is.

The Church has (1) powerful enemies and (2) deep pockets. Hence, we get all the media coverage. The public school teachers go to jail, but the school systems are immune from civil suits. Hence no $$$$$$$ for the lawyers. Case closed.

The problem is all over, and it’s widespread. And probably always has been.

That sweet little farm house out in the middle of nowhere, where you buy stop and buy pies. Who knows what horrors go on there in the middle of the night? Poor little children who live there have no SNAP, and no attorneys or news media watching out for them. God help them.

Statistically, your child is much more likely to be harmed in this way (God forbid!) by someone other than a member of the Catholic clergy.

But from reading the newspapers and watching the news on TV, etc., you’d think every 3rd Catholic priest was a predator.

It’s just not true, and never has been.

We do need to continue to demand that our bishops “man up” and do what’s right, when these monsters manage to infiltrate the ranks of our clergy. Bam! Out of the clergy for sure! and straight to prison, if possible.

Well, Carolyn:  My hat is off to you. KUDOS to you, for caring so much about our Christian faith.  There IS hope for the future!  Praise be to God, for you.  You made my day!!!!!

Cradle Catholic,

Thank you for your kind words and thank you for bring up St. Peter Damain.

Peace,
CKH

Marion- We can demand bishops “man up” until we are blue in the face.  We can’t get orange juice out of a tomato.  Most of these church leaders can’t “man up” because too many of them are emotionally immature, as are too many of the clergy in lower ranks.  They are “man-boys”.  Pampered and indulged man-boys.  Even if they are 80 years old.  Emotionally, many are 10 year olds. 

What needs to happen, in my opinion, is:
1- Civil laws in every state need to be changed to make it a CRIME for any clergyman to have sex with any lay person.  Not just Roman Catholic- but across the board, like with a psychologist that loses his/her license to practice, if they have sex with a client.  One strike, they’re out.  Have sex?  There is a BIG consequence for it.

No more looking the other way, and saying “Oh, we must forgive.  He’ll do better next time.”  Legislation is the ONLY way to see the changes happen.  They cannot self-correct.  They never have.  They never will.  St. Peter Damian wrote in his “Book of Gomorrah” what we are talking about today. The pope in his day, ignored him.

2- Pew people in the Roman Catholic church need to stop putting gas (money) into the gas tank of the Catholic church, and instead, put notes into the collection plates, sending the message that the jig is up for the man-boys in leadership, and it will no longer be tolerated that the only thing they can lead is the way to the buffet table.

We need Holy Spirit-filled MEN in Catholic leadership.  Men that know Scripture and that can teach it, and preach it, equipping us to be salt and light in the world.  This will only happen when pew people take our collective heads out of the sand.  When the clergy begin to set a better example and TEACH THE WORD, then our society will slowly begin to change for the better.  We will have better role models and more MEN we can trust.

Carolyn,

I don’t disagree with anything you have written in your 5:08 PM post.

I want to go on record, however, that celibacy is not something that pansexual predator pigs are particularly atttacted to. Opportunities to have unsupervised access to vulnerable minor children is what they are attracted to. The clergy in general offers this, as do being the live-in boyfriend or husband of the mother of (another man’s) young children, the professions of public school teacher, private independent school teacher, coach, child psychologist, and volunteer positions such as scout leader, “Big Brother” etc. It would appear that many of our Catholic bishops have been lamentably and misguidedly forebearing toward the malfeasance of these despicable individuals under their supervision, so much so, that possibly - God help us - that the Catholic Church developed a “rep” for being soft on these sorts of crimes, among the criminal underworld itself.

I agree that softness toward sociopaths in the clergy needs to go away, and always did need to go away.

I wouldn’t flinch at the idea of surgery, even. Let ‘em sing soprano, for all I care.

I do not agree that celibacy attracts or leads to this kind of sociopathy, or than it should be an issue in these matters, however.

P.S. I don’t agree that Catholics living in dioceses that have done a good job addressing the problem should withhold funds.

My diocese put safeguards in place back in the 1980s. Confirmed instances of malfeasance by these monsters date back to the late 70s, but not since. then.

I believe in punishing people who aren’t doing their jobs.

I don’t believe in punishing people who are doing their jobs. Our bishops and pastors, I believe, have done their jobs with regard to protecting innocent children. As long as they continue to do so, I will give generously.

I cannot say what I would do if I lived in a diocese that still “stinks”. That would be a case for careful prayer and discernment. I wouldn’t blame Catholics in such dioceses, however, for doing as you suggest. I would blame them, if they didn’t give enough to cover their share of the operating costs of just their own parish, at least (heat, light, water, insurance, new roof for the church building, rectory, and school), and if they didn’t give sacrificially to support other, independent, Catholic charities, such as Catholic Relief Services.

But that is between them and God.

Me, I do give.

Marion wrote:  “My diocese put safeguards in place back in the 1980s. Confirmed instances of malfeasance by these monsters date back to the late 70s, but not since then.”

Cradle Catholic’s reply:
Do you only have a problem with the “monsters” that molested children? Do you not have a problem with Catholic clergy experiencing a “lapse”? A lapse, by the way, could be a one-night stand, or it could be up to an 8 year relationship with a woman, that may result in the birth of a child or children, to which the priest is able to abandon his family, aided by his bishop.

Priests ARE having sex right now - leading two lives.  In fact, if Fr. Cutie was not outed with the photos on the beach, HE would be leading two lives.  Do you not have a problem with that?

I have a big problem with it.  Priests are not to have any sex at all, outside of marriage.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  No sex with anyone at all - not with another man or with a woman.  End mandatory celibacy and end the misguided belief among the man-boys in leadership that a “lapse” is okay, and only needs to be confessed to another priest (who himself has “lapses” and who is all too understanding of the demanding life - and who dismisses the lapse as “well - you’r only human, and God will understand.”)

For all you other married people out there reading this - if your spouse came home every 5 years and said, “Honey, I had another ‘lapse’ today, but that’s okay with you, isn’t it?”  - How would you feel?  How would you respond?

Withhold money - it’s not just the molestation of children.  It’s priests are not to have sex at all.  Let them marry.

I am not ready to withold money. I want the Church to run. In fact, I am concerned by how many Catholic organizations, like Catholic charities and the USCCB, depend greatly on govt, funding. I want to see that decrease in this so the laity will have to give more money. right now, lay giving is actually quite pathetic.

But I do fear that the leadership will not listen to us. They don’t listen to us about even the smallest thing. I remember reading a story a few years ago in which the parishoners had spent millions on a new building and then the bishops decided to close that parish a few years after the new building was built. Of course, there was nothing the laity can do and sadly, at least some of these parishoners went to other denominations where they have some say about how their money is spent.

So, I am not hopeful about them listening to us. But I do think that the Anglican ordinate will make married priests seem more normal to Catholics and that might increase the pressure by making the silliness of the satus quo even more obvious.

Peace,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Another commenter recounts: “Parishioners had spent millions on a new building and then the bishops decided to close that parish a few years after the new building was built. Of course, there was nothing the laity can do and sadly, at least some of these parishioners went to other denominations where they have some say about how their money is spent.”

A wealthy and successful man was the eldest of a large family of brothers and sisters. He arranged with some of his better-off brothers and sisters, who had received everything from their mother, to bestow a spacious and expensive house upon that lady. The house was located near the man’s own family residence as well as those of several of his siblings; their plan was for family gatherings to take place in the house, over which their mother, would of course, preside. Their mother was most appreciative, but as time went on, she learned that several of her more distant grandchildren through some of her younger, less successful offspring, were doing without, with no prospect of receiving access, for example, to computers or even to basic medical or dental care.

Do you know what this wicked and ungrateful woman did? She immediately *sold* that house which some of her children had given her, and used the proceeds to purchase top-of-the-line medical and dental insurance for these other grandchildren, paid up through age 23; she bought them all computers, and she established trust funds for their future education and medical expenses, with herself as trustee.

And all this, without so much as a by-your-leave to the older children who had purchased the house for her, and who were looking forward to visiting and gathering with her there, and to staying there themselves for holidays and birthdays and anniversaries.

Outrageous!

Most of the older children incandescent with fury when they learned of this. How dared she? Who did she think she was? So high-handedly, to up and just sell their gift to her, ruining all their plans, ruining all their dreams!

But the youngest brother among the donors said to them, “She’s a mother. She can’t stop being a mother. To her, everything she has, everything she is, belongs to her children - or grandchildren - in need. Instantly. Without question. 

They need something? She has it? It’s theirs.

Period.

THAT’S WHAT A MOTHER IS.

There’s no more point in asking our mother to stop being a mother than there is in asking the sun not to rise tomorrow.”

Our Church is not a garden club, a country club, or a neighborhood association. We didn’t come together to purchase a pool or a clubhouse.

Our Church is our mother. All we are; all we have, we have from Her. It was She who gathered us together, under the headship of Christ Jesus. Our Mother did that. It was she who brought forth in us life eternal in Jesus, through the holy Sacrament of Baptism. It was she who taught us the truths of our salvation, and to know, love, and serve the good God. It was she who united us to Jesus in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and she who reconciles us to him in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is through the Church - our Mother - that we have life in Christ.

This is not a country club. This is not a Moose Lodge.

For God’s sake!

P.S.

And how is that a Church can be a Mother?

A Church can be a Mother when her sons are willing give up everything - *everything* - a man most wants and desires and cherishes . . . in order to espouse her alone.

What does man most want and cherish? What is he willing to work for, to suffer for, to sacrifice for, to die for? His own wife and children of his own.

When men - ordinary, normal men - are able to set those ordinary, normal desires aside, and give their all to serve Christ’s bride alone . . . then you know you have something set apart. Something sacred. Something truly holy.

That’s The Church.

If one makes a gift to another person, that person has a right to dispense of it as she sees fir. However, when parishoners are asked to give money, they are not told they are giving a gift to the bishop to dispense with as he sees fit. Rather parishoners are told that this is investment in the needs of their parish communities. Whatever reasons the bishop had for closing that parish (I belive it was a priest shortage but it has been a few years and I don’t remember why exactly), justice requires that he at least consulted the people who spent millions to built it. The parish is not the personal property of the bishop.

We risk reducing the Church to the bishops. The Church is the people and dismissing the sensibilities of people who sacrifice dearly to build a parish is at least insensitive and frankly, shows a real lack of a sense of justice. It never occurred to me that anyone would seriously fail to empathize with these parishoners. There are lots of parish closings but this made national news because it was such an egregious case. Did the Lord not ask the apostles to not Lord it over us? Yet, many in the Church are giddy at it the bishops making the powers felt.

And the mother analogy is very limited in this respect since in real life mothers fund their child, but we in the Church, it is the laity who pay bills.

Peace,
CKH

Marion,

You making me question this whole mother analogy. The Church is run by men. Are these men are mothers or our fathers? If they are our fathers, how can we be simulatenously their spouse?

I prefer the biblical understanding in which the clerics are sheperds and servants. We are born in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is our mother.

CKH

As an “inactive priest” whose reasons for leaving had nothing to do with disagreeing with the Church about anything, nor with anything having to do with gonad-driven “feelings,” I must say I am disappointed with Fr. Cutie. This is not a life to flaunt. Though inactive for many years, and since laicized, married with the Church’s blessing, and a father, my constant prayer is for forgiveness, enlightenment, and salvation. As time goes on, I am ever more aware that I remain “a priest forever,” though I am a stupid and weak man, that the Church is my Mother and Home wherein dwells the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord is Kindness and Mercy.

It’s getting late for me . . . I’m an up at 5:30 AM EST -er. 

Computer . . . getting blurry . . . can’t see . . . where is my pillow?

One last word or two . . .

CKH wrote: “The Church is run by men.”

If you’re a clericalist, the Church is “run by men.” If reality for you is all about who wields the political and legislative and financial power.

That’s not the reality for God.

And that’s not the reality for the Church of God.

If you’re a Catholic, the Church is run first by her Head, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, by the prayers and merits of the Communion of Saints, by the (all-male) hierarchy, by the religious, and by the laity. We all “run” the Church, each according to his or her gifts.

Catholics have always insisted that it is their *mothers* who raise the next generation of Catholics.

If that’s not *“running the Church”*, I don’t know what is!

Not a terribly good answer . . . sorry, too tired. Good night for now.

Michael wrote: “As time goes on, I am ever more aware that I remain ‘a priest forever,’ though I am a stupid and weak man, that the Church is my Mother and Home wherein dwells the Holy Spirit, and that the Lord is Kindness and Mercy.”

Michael! Your words took my breath away!

Beautiful. You get it. Thank you. 

Isn’t the good God sweet to have given us a dwelling place that is also a Mother of our very own? Who else could have thought of such a blessed thing?

God bless you, dear.

Interesting regarding the closing of parish churches and the $$$$ going to the diocese.  The family that donated the land and money to build our church —(they funded the entire project back in the 1930’s) inserted a little clause in the grant deed to wit:  If this church at any time is eventually closed or if the diocese attempts to sell it, the entire property will revert back to the ownership of the family heirs.”  Our current bishop is thus compelled to keep his hands off our parish church —although he can sell and close the school which is 2 miles away.

New Observer,

Thanks for shraring that story. I certainly will try to do what little I can do to seek for financial transparency and accountability from now on. In my years as a Catholic, I have never been asked to attend a budget meeting—-a stark difference from my protestant experience.

CKH

Ultimately, God is in control but who can deny the actions of men with political, legislative and financial power run the institution and at times, stand in the way of the work of God.

Was the actions of God who brought about the sex abusive crisis but the men who wield legislative and financial power? And the sex abuse crisis is not about a few abusive priests but the bishops who protected them and allowed it. I would add that it was perpetuated by a catholic culture where it is a sin against mother church to ask, “why is this priest being transfered?” Lucky for us that culture is fading fast.

CKH

“it was perpetuated by a catholic culture where it is a sin against mother church to ask, ‘why is this priest being transfered?’”

I never thought that it was a sin to ask that question.

I would have thought it was naive to ask that question, since they all seem to rotate every three to six years anyway. Priests at the parishes in our diocese rotate in and out all the time, even in the case of the most honorable and devoted priests. They all do.

Carolyn, you seem to be full of insinuations against the Catholic Church. Why don’t you lay your cards on the table for us to see? If you harbor resentment or bitterness toward the Church, why not just come out and say so?

It would be easier than reading all the snide little remarks that you manage to throw in here and there. And somewhat off-topic remarks, too.

Your not being included in the budget meetings had nothing to do with the original topic, Father Cutie’s abandonment of his vows, for example.

I mean, come on.

Carolyn, Cradle Catholic uses the term “pew people”—which seems to fit those who have no voice and no say.  I would not want to indict all parishes, but most do not invite pew people to attend budget and finance meetings or have a voice over major expenditures.  Such people in Finance Committees are hand picked by the Pastor without the transparency you are looking for.  These people are usually the parish elite and/or the movers & shakers who enjoy the “applause and adulation.”  Depending upon the nature of the Pastor, he can rid the parish of politics and eliminate the appearance of favoritism—or he can be the prime force behind it.  The Sacrament of Holy Orders does not mean these men are ordained with leadership and administrative skills.

Marion,

I don’t know what “insinuations” you are talking about. In response to Cradle Catholics comments about how the married priest, I responded in agreement. My seemingly non-related comments are related in my mind in that they all boil down to how the Church is run. Bitterness is way too strong a word. I have a problem with how the Church is run and I am frustrated in that the wall around the hierarchy makes it impossible for the laity to express these concerns. They are no mechanism, other than blogs, to seriously communicate these frustrations. In my experience, my feelings about Church governance are widely shared by many Catholics, even “orthodox” ones.

I think the fact that you see resentment in my comments is part of the problem that I see. I now live in Steubenville and go to Franciscan and I find that you can’t suggestion any small change without someone thinking you are an angry feminist (which I am not), a heretic, etc. If you say anything other than fulsome praise, you are viewed with suspicion. I find this frustration. More importantly, I find it foolish.

My cards are on the table. They have always been on the table. I have nothing to hide. I participate in these conversations to be heard, not to hide my true feelings.

Peace,
CKH

New Observer,

Pew people is right. I have been looking for a Catholic organization that can be a voice for the lay faithful. Many of those that already exist, I am not comfortable with, since they are normally in favor of things like gay marriage, contraception, etc, which I find problematic. I would like to be part of a group that wants to tackle the governance issues. If anyone out there knows of such an organization or wants to start one, I am gamed.

Peace,
CKH

Cradle Catholic, I find your term “pew people” to be very condescending and extremely un-Catholic.  Where did you come up with that phraseology and why?

I wonder how many Latin-rite women would be okay with an interview with the bishop of their seminarian-boyfriend if the discipline of celibacy was relaxed for secular priests-

What is required of a future priest’s wife in our eparchy (diocese)
- psychological exam
- must be a practicing Catholic
- must be a virgin

not so easy! :)

One benefit to a married priesthood for us Easterners- the monks are extra-special!

my blog- remnantofremnant.blogspot.com

It is clear to me that many of you just want to bury your head in the sand; even when presented with evidence that does not support your view of Christianity and in particular someone who claims to be Catholic but doesn’t support Sacred Tradition; you simply choose to ignore what you don’t want to deal with and go on an on with your biased views. Before you continue your assault on the Catholic Church, are you aware that the Protestant churches had an even slightly higer sexual abuse rate? This is supported by claims that were made to insurance companies. So, before you put on your “bash the Catholic Church hat” you need to recognize that abuse occurs everywhere and yes, even in the Protestant Churches.

“I am not referring to celibacy for priests,—but authority for everything?”
Of course not everything, but yes to everything related to the disciplines required of the faithful, which teachings are doctrines, etc. With the authority to make such decisions comes the very heavy responsibility of making sure they are correct.

“What do they not have authority over?”
God. The axial tilt of the earth. What I’ll eat for lunch today. Declaring doctrines to be untrue. Who one votes for (although their opinion about what policies one supports should be taken into account).  This is kind of an open-ended question. Basically, they have authority to decide what MUST be believed, authority to impose disciplines, and should be listened to in other matters where faith and morals come into play.  We must believe in the Immaculate Conception. Priests in the Latin rite are to obey the discipline of celibacy, all must follow the discipline of fasting for an hour before reception of the Eucharist (we can disagree about the necessity of the discipline, but must follow it while in effect). We should be concerned about the environment, as we are to be good stewards of what God gave us. (We can disagree with them about exactly HOW we are good stewards of the Earth, but their opinions should be given high weight.)

“What if teachings or doctrine are extra-biblical and cannot be supported in Scripture?  Merely saying Church Tradition teaches “X” does not necessarily make the origin of a belief to be true.”
It would depend on whether or not the teachings are truly extra-Biblical (as opposed to being Biblically-based but the basis is unknown to or unacknowledged by the observer), and if the teaching is intended to be held as absolute (immutable doctrine), transient (changeable disciplines), or guidance/suggestion. There are few doctrines that don’t have a basis in Scripture, and only some disciplines.
The composition of the Bible, which books are to be included in the Bible, is itself extra-Biblical (the table of content is not an inspired work, to my knowledge, although I suspect that the Holy Spirit had a hand in guiding the various Councils that discussed it). A doctrine does not have to be in the Bible for it to be true, nor does it’s exclusion from the Bible imply falsehood. In those cases where it’s unclear, one is best served by finding out the reasoning behind the Magisterial teaching. Frequently it includes interpretation and application of Scripture, even though the source isn’t apparent. I can’t think of instances where the reason solely comes down to “Tradition tells us…”.  Most often it’s a whole host of reasons that add up to a conclusion. The sacramental nature of Confirmation is not directly in the Bible, for example, but has its roots in the descent of the Holy Spirit. Are we to believe it to be a Sacrament?

What if teachings or doctrine are extra-biblical and cannot be supported in Scripture?

Like Sola Scriptura, for instance. Zing!

Mary writes:  “So, before you put on your “bash the Catholic Church hat” you need to recognize that abuse occurs everywhere and yes, even in the Protestant Churches.”

Yes, Mary, everyone fully agrees that sexual abuse occurs in Protestant churches, the Boy Scouts and the Little League as well.  However, to reduce your comments to “bashing the Catholic church” is a tired mantra.  Nevertheless, it remains understandable to at least some degree that the continuance of new revelations of abuse keep coming to light.  As you say, “burying” one’s head in the sand regardless of which organization is responsible is not productive.  And, IMO optional marriage for clergy is not necessarily the answer as much as retooling and improving the entire screening and selection of seminarian candidates.

“... and in particular someone who claims to be Catholic but doesn’t support Sacred Tradition; you simply choose to ignore what you don’t want to deal with and go on an on with your biased views. Before you continue your assault on the Catholic Church, ...”

Mary M, the tone of your remarks here (and in your prior posts) is that you are somehow offended personally by people not in full acceptance of everything “Catholic.”  Mary, on what topics, practices, traditions et al can Catholics disagree?  Recent studies already reflect the majority of American Catholic couples practice some form of non-approved birth control.  Are these couples then—no longer Catholic in your eyes?

New Observer, Catholics who know and understand Catholic doctrine AND choose to contracept are sinning.  They are going against Church teaching.  Chances are if they are knowingly going against that Church teaching, they are going against others.  Contraception can be an abortifacient.  If they choose abortion they have self-excommunicated, as the Catechism clearly states.

New Observer, I don’t know what christian tradition you were before you converted to Catholicism—but you should note, Catholics do not get to pick and choose their doctrines, nor should they feel at home about speaking against Catholic doctrine.  This is not necessarily so in protestant churches—in fact, “evaluating” the pastor’s stances on various Scriptures and doctrines is a common practice.

It does not translate in Catholicism.  We have a final arbitrator, the Magisterium.  If you are not in favor of what the Magisterium teaches, perhaps you have not allowed yourself full conversion.  Prayer is needed.

New Observer - I think Brenda said it very well.

Posted by Michael on Sunday, Jan 9, 2011 9:15 PM (EST):
“Though inactive for many years, and since laicized, married with the Church’s blessing, and a father, my constant prayer is for forgiveness, enlightenment, and salvation…” 

Michael - if you’re serious about constantly asking for salvation, I’m glad you are no longer preaching and teaching others.  Find a good Bible-believing parish (Catholic is fine - as long as they believe and preach the Bible) and you’ll have assurance.  Good for you and your wife, for going the proper route w/ laicization.

Marian was pleased by what you wrote.  But frankly, your thoughts scared me.  They are fine for a pew person, but for someone who was ordained?  How did your qualifications, when you were ordained, fit with the qualifications for men in ordained ministry, that Paul gave to Timothy and Titus?

Would you have even been a good elder, according to the Bible?
Uncertain of your salvation?  Did you really mean to write it like that, or were your thoughts not represented as well as you’d have liked?  Often words come out differently, in written versus the voiced form.

To All - What do they teach men in seminaries these days?  How does the Bible fit into the series of classes that have little or no ETERNAL VALUE?
If Michael is serious, how much knowledge are these priests having?  Looks like all too many should be joining us in the pews.

Carolyn wrote:  “I find that you can’t make suggestions any small change without someone thinking you are an angry feminist (which I am not), a heretic, etc. If you say anything other than fulsome praise, you are viewed with suspicion. I find this frustration. More importantly, I find it foolish.”

CC write:  I AGREE WITH YOU 100% Carolyn, your point is well stated, as are your other points on this blog.  I appreciate your views and each one has been completely appropriate.

I admit it, Catholics could be better at their knowledge of Scripture, for instance, I freqently remember an idiom or even a verse but seem to have trouble locating it in the Bible.  Maybe those of you who know so much more than the Magisterium when it comes to Scripture could help me find the location of this verse:

“Satan is the accuser of the brethren.”

Brenda, no need to become coy since the verse you quote is in Revelation 12.  Don’t try and deceive readers you were not already aware.  You simply have a problem with anyone —Catholic or non-Catholic questioning anything.  Faith in Christ is an absolute.  There is nothing unpious or disrespectul concerning someone questioning institutions led by human beings.

Brenda - It isn’t as important to know *where* a verse is in the Bible, as much as it is to know how the verse fits *in context*, & its meaning.

For instance, “Satan is the accuser of the brethern.”

Most important is to ask:
Who is it written TO and FOR WHOM is it written?  The answer, per this sentence is: The “Brethern”.

The brethern are born-again believers that left their former lives behind, being dead to self.  Unless one fits that description, this verse does not apply to them at all. 

We know from other passages of Scripture that Satan is an accuser - Satan is a created being, not the opposite of God, because God has no equal.  Satan, who can only be in one place at one time, has lots of helpers, fallen angels, roaming the earth, looking for whomever they can devour (or tempt, or accuse).

Just like Jesus was tempted in the desert, after His 40 day fast, Satan or his fallen angels can, and do, tempt believers, we the ‘brethern’.  The demonic tempts and accuses, but falsely of course, for a believer is already forgiven by God.  It is the demonic that tries to make us feel God won’t forgive us.  Satan can never possess the “brethern” as the Holy Spirit in us is stronger than Satan and his demonic helpers.

By the way, we can be forgiven, and still suffer an earthly consequence for our actions.  God’s forgiveness and an *earthly consequence* are two different things.   

Unlike Satan, the Holy Spirit will gently CONVICT us of our sin.  He does so by using other “brethern” but He does so primarity in His Word, by reading Scripture - like I once read Romans Chapter One to someone I later found out was lesbian.

As I read what God wrote about homosexual activity, it was as if she were blind and deaf, not wanting to HEAR what I was reading to her, but rather, she just stared at the page, looking at the Word, but not taking the wisdom from it into her heart.

It illustrated to me, “Those that have ears to hear, let them hear…”  but there was no conviction in her that anything she purported was wrong behavior.  I had no idea at the time that she was indeed, an active lesbian.  By the “fruit” of her life, she was not among the “brethern”.

Perhaps she will be one day.  My responsibility was fulfilled by mentioning this verse to her.  It’s not up to me to “judge” = pronounce judgement that is condemning.  Only God can read a heart.  But it was up to me to “discern” that at that time, what I shared with her from God’s Word had no impact that changed her behavior.

So Catholics would only need to know the verses, in context, and their meaning, in order to share the faith with others.  When you start to read the Bible more, it will all come together for you.  That’s how it happened with me.  I’m so happy you are willing to become more knowledgeable about Scripture.  Your last post was so encouraging!  Congratulations!  Have a blessed week!

@ New Observer:  “Mary, on what topics, practices, traditions et al can Catholics disagree?”

Unless and until the Magesterium makes a definitive statement, Catholics can legitimately debate the issue. 

For example, the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity cannot be debated.  Catholics must believe that Mary was a virgin before Christ’s conception, that she remained a virgin both during and after His birth, and for the rest of her life on earth.  That cannot be legitimately debated.

However, the Church has not ruled definitively on who those “brothers of the Lord” are.  The Church says only that they are NOT children of Mary. So, we can debate whether they were cousins, tribesmen, another relative, etc.  (I read an earlier post by someone who said the Church teaches that these “brothers” were “cousins” - in fact, She does NOT teach that definitively - which is why I chose this as an example of what Catholics are free to debate).

So, once “Peter speaks” the debate is over.  This is why debating “women priests” or “use of contraceptives” or “abortion to save the life of the mother” are not legitimate matters of discussion.  The Magesterium has ruled on them, and therefore, no debate anymore is legitimate. 

That’s hard for some to swollow, but that’s the way it is.

Cradle Catholic—

Actually, Cradle Catholic, your own post troubled me. Then, I realized that, in your suggestion that I “find a good Bible-believing parish (Catholic is fine - as long as they believe and preach the Bible),” that there may be non-Catholics on this thread, since a Catholic would never suggest to another faithful Catholic that they might consider leaving the Church.

The things you imply about priests (active or inactive) and their view of their own salvation, are curious. I would think that a priest who had absolutely no doubt about his salvation, 100% of the time, might be a priest to avoid as someone prone to spiritual arrogance. Catholics believe in both the certainty of salvation accomplished through the passion of Christ, as well as in the hope of salvation, with “certainty” and “hope” coexisting without contradiction.

While you place great import on the Bible, and for good reason, I have experienced such literal assumptions regarding salvation only from non-Catholics who have rejected the role of Tradition. Catholic teaching, as outlined in the Catechism, clarifies the Catholic attitude in terms of salvation. For example:

**1811 It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ’s gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow his calls to love what is good and shun evil.**

Note: The Church says “Everyone,” not “Everyone but priests who should not need it.”

**1949 Called to beatitude but wounded by sin, man stands in need of salvation from God. Divine help comes to him in Christ through the law that guides him and the grace that sustains him: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13)**

Why would anyone, especially a priest, not pray so that his hope of salvation is not lived in vain through moral weakness? This prayer is even applicable to all after earthly death:

**1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.**

The Catechism points out that the faithful must be vigilant against both the sin of despair, and its obverse—presumption:

**2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption: By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises - and to his mercy.**

And when one fails, there is the possibility of reconciliation:

**1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity “which covers a multitude of sins.”**

Besides which, the Church acknowledges that the priest need not be perfect, nor have perfect faith, in order to do the work of Christ, making it unnecessary to have to hope that he joins the other “less worthies” in the pews:

**1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting. St. Augustine states this forcefully: “As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ’s gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.”**

To sum up, praying for salvation is an expression of Christian hope:

**1820 Christian hope unfolds from the beginning of Jesus’ preaching in the proclamation of the beatitudes. The beatitudes raise our hope toward heaven as the new Promised Land; they trace the path that leads through the trials that await the disciples of Jesus. But through the merits of Jesus Christ and of his Passion, God keeps us in the “hope that does not disappoint.” Hope is the “sure and steadfast anchor of the soul . . . that enters . . . where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf.” Hope is also a weapon that protects us in the struggle of salvation: “Let us . . . put on the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.” It affords us joy even under trial: “Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation.” Hope is expressed and nourished in prayer, especially in the Our Father, the summary of everything that hope leads us to desire.**

In the end, Cradle Catholic, you must forgive me. Either I mistakenly assumed that your user name indicated that you are Catholic, though you are not, or I have misinterpreted your interpretation of my poor words. Your stress on scripture strikes me as a bit Protestant, but I am no doubt mistaken. In any case, 1) seminarians are taught exactly what the faithful need in most seminaries, 2) as only a man can be a priest so a priest can only be a man, and 3) I prefer to remain a faithful Roman Catholic despite your generous advice.

New Observer “Mary M, the tone of your remarks here (and in your prior posts) is that you are somehow offended personally by people not in full acceptance of everything “Catholic.”  What offends me New Observer is people who idenify themselves as Catholic but refuse to accept the tenets of the faith. Cafeteria Catholicsm is not acceptable. I am not personally offended but I am angry that the Church is held in such little regard by some professed Catholics that they feel they have a right to challenge the church’s beliefs. If you’re not Catholic and you want to believe something else then that is your right but if you are Catholic then be Catholic - not 60%; not 75% but 100% Catholic. 

My husband and I are coordinators of our parish RCIA program and before anyone is baptized or becomes Catholic from another Cjhristian tradition they must understand and accept what the Church teaches of they wouldn’t be able to continue to full communion in the Catholic Church. Frankly I don’t understand how you were able to reconcile becoming Catholic given your comments.

The Catholic Church is very diferent than the Protestant churches in many regards. Our environment and worship service is not at the discretion of the pastor. People come and church-hop within the Protestant faith more often because they just don’t like the pastor or what the pastor beieves.  Catholicsm is not like. Certainly a pastor’s persoality differs but if you attend Mass in New York or in Austrailia you are getting the same Mass. The Catholic Church is liturgical and no matter where you are in the world you hear the same readings (The Liturgy of the Word) and the readings run in three year cycles. We recite the same Creed which is the profession of our faith and we paritcipate in the LIturgy of the Eucharist. This is what makes Catholicsm different from the Protestant faith.

Carolyn - Lay people can sit on pastoral councils but they cannot govern. Canon Law - 375 ß1 By divine institution, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who is given to them. They are constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. The Pope is the successor of St. Peter and the Pope together with the Bishops is the governing body.

Cradle Catholic : If you were to attend mass daily you would be reading/hearing the majority of what is contained in Scripture at Mass.

To Carolyn - Earlier you’d mentioned having a couple of thoughts come up, due to dialog in this blog, and I think you’d mentioned you had a board somewhere, where you discuss church news.  I had a thought today that I’ll share with you, and other interested people.

Regarding celibacy, on another blog, when I wrote about 1Corinthians 9:5, when Paul wrote, “Do not Barnabas and I have the RIGHT to (marry or to take along) a Christian WIFE” - I was told Clement of Alexandria in the year 215AD wrote the word “wife” meant “sister woman”, and it was platonic in nature, with the woman being on hand to help out with chores, etc.

Further I was told in the Book of Tobit when people married in the early church, they often just prayed and fasted on their honeymoon, and did not consumate their marriages - ever.  Much like what the Magesterium says about Mary and Joseph, that both decided to remain celibate, even though they were espoused and later married.

Now please understand - I am 100% against same-sex marriage: Carolyn, I agree with you about being socially conservative.  But with that said, think about this (and the danger of the the apostles did not having “marriages” in the traditional sense - it could be used to make a case for same-sex marriage today!—I shudder to even think of it…The thought came to me today…

Please hear me out on this - and know that I worked long and hard to keep marriage between one man and one woman, even taking some classes in how to talk with others to preserve its sanctity.

But points my fellow conservatives always drill home about the importance of not redefining marriage are one man and one woman are - 1) open to children 2) the best environment for a child, and (a friend that’s an Anglican pastor) suggested 3) the idea of marriage is for TWO to become ONE, and male female compliment each other, in every way, meaning conjugal relations.

But if “marriage” was already redefined during the time of the aposltes, where sex was out of the equasion, and today, what same sex couples say they need most is the “rights” associated with marriage (and no one can monitor what happens in the bedroom, between consenting adults) then why not allow same-sex marriage for anyone over the age of 21: even polygamy?

If the apostles already “RE-DEFINED” marriage during their day, the modern day “Church” ought not have *any* say at all in trying to keep marriage between one man and one woman as we know it, because the 3 reasons I gave for doing so, would be rendered bogus, according to the way marriage was redefined after Christ, and BY the apostles. 

I just had this idea today - I’m NOT defending it.  Frankly, I find the idea disgusting because all of American society would change, and it is clearly against Romans Chapter One.  But think about it - please, your comments are appreciated.  Thank you.

It’s good to think, Carolyn- and again, I enjoy your comments.  There really are no conservative Voices for us Pew People.  I thought Voice of the Faithful would be good.  But I was wrong - they chummied up to Call to Action and Future Church = both very bad organizations.  The Vatican has it right in saying there is no valid basis for ordaining women priests.  Rather, the role for women is as priest’s wives.  I still maintain 1Corinthians 9:5 is about the wives of the apostles.

Michael, I very much appreciated your thoughts on the Catechism.  It is very refreshing to hear a spiritual lesson taught with such humility.  I guess many newer Catholics do not realize that we have very many knowledgeable and humble priests in the Church who go about their lives serving and sacrificing for their flocks on a daily basis.  Michael, I know you said you are not now actively a priest, nonetheless, it is evident that you have “eyes to see and ears to hear..”  God bless everyone, and yes I do apologize to New Observer about teasing regarding the verse on “Satan is the accuser of the brethern” (it was tongue in cheek—forgive me, please)  :)

Cradle Catholic,

Thank you for sharing those stories. It is amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid admitted that 3lders in the early Church had sex.

@ Cradle Catholic:  “Further I was told in the Book of Tobit when people married in the early church, they often just prayed and fasted on their honeymoon, and did not consumate their marriages - ever.”

This is a complete and total distortion of what was actually written, Cradel Catholic!!!!

  The Book of Tobit does not address the “early church”, and the purpose of the Book of Tobit being brought up was to add weight to the Church’s teaching that it is perfectly legitimate, as St. Paul clearly states in 1 Cor. 7:5, for married couples to abstain periodically.  In fact, this is the entire basis of the Church’s teachings regarding the legitimacy of Natural Family Planning.

“Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”  (I Cor. 7:5).

This is in NO WAY a “redefinition of marriage by the apostles” or by the Church.  Thus, again, your initial premise is seriously flawed, resulting in your seriously faulty “conclusion”.

Mary M wrote:  “My husband and I are coordinators of our parish RCIA program and before anyone is baptized or becomes Catholic from another Cjhristian tradition they must understand and accept what the Church teaches of they wouldn’t be able to continue to full communion in the Catholic Church. Frankly I don’t understand how you were able to reconcile becoming Catholic given your comments.”

Mary M.  The RCIA director of my parish is a 70 year old nun.  She announced to the RCIA candidates that we are not obliged to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis.  Since the Word of God I believe is totally inerrant,  I asked, “What else do we not have to believe?”  She had no answer.  I certainly hope you and your husband do not take the position as our nun who also is the Pastor Associate of the parish.  It seems the RCIA should be re-named the Rite of CATHOLIC Initiation of Adults.  Seems by definition, our Pastoral Associate is a cafeteria Catholic.

New Observer - I am truly, truly sorry that your catechesis seems to have been deficient. Anyone teaching RCIA should not be indentified as a “Cafeteria Catholic”. Anyone in RCIA is entitled to be taught the faith in truth! Sadly, your experience is not the only one.

I don’t understand your RCIA director’s comment that we are not to believe in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Could she have meant that we don’t take the creation story in its literal sense since the creation story in the Book of Genesis is not meant to be a historical book? In other words what we need to accept from Genesis is that God created the universe and that Adam and Eve are our first parents. We are free, however, to believe if we choose that the earth was created in seven days.

I would like to recommend to you first of all that you go to a wonderful web page.  www.http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online. This is Scott Hahn’s web page “Salvation History” You can sign up to study the Bible from Genesis to Jesus and it’s all free!

Secondly, I would recommend that you begin watching EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network). Please check your cable listings. Depending upon where you live they have programs running 24 hours a day. You will be able to learn what we believe as Catholics. EWTN also has a web page. www.ewtn.com.

Were you given a cathechism?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church is also a wonderful resource. You can also access it online.

Please also check out www.catholic.com (Catholic Answers web page)

For good orthodox reading material that you can purchase go to the web page for Ignatius Press at www.ignatius.com.

God bless!

Just a little note to all of those that think that the Church is somehow divorced from the use of the bible: If you go to Mass everyday for 3 years, you will have read the entire bible. Also, the Hail Mary, Canticle of Mary, Canticle of Simeon, and many other Catholic prayers are all biblically based. Furthermore, the Mass has so much scripture packed into it—I didn’t realise this until I started going to Mass more than 1x a week. Many saints have said that you cannot know Christ without knowing the bible (so true!). And—it was the Church who put together the bible in the first place.

Also, to all of you Catholics out there—after we are confirmed in the Church, we are called to continue our Catholic education. So if you claim to have 12 years of Catholic education, that’s great! Are you 12 years old? Probably not, so you should have 12+ years of Catholic education. A great way to do this is to become an RCIA sponsor—you get to help someone else on their Faith journey as well as get a weekly refresher on the Church’s teachings (and you are allowed to ask questions, too!). Another great way to further your education is to watch/read/listen to the EWTN broadcasts and publications—they are always teaching something and there is always something knew to learn. But remember, the information is only as good as its source, so when looking for a good Catholic book to read, keep an eye out for that Imprimatur! Also, look for a good spiritual director—most of the saints had spiritual directors and look where they turned out! I know that can be hard (I’m spoiled because my uni has a Catholic center that offers spiritual directors to students and permanent community), but there are tons of great directors out there if you can’t get the help of a priest or religious: the saints (some of my favorites: St. Jose Escriva, St. John of the Cross, St. John de Montefort, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Liseuex).

God bless you all!
In Christ, through Mary
e

Thank you, Mary M.  I am sure you and your husband are far more greater examples in the way RCIA and the Catholic faith should be presented.  In all these posts, (not just this Fr. Cutie blog) we can see where one’s perception and reality of Catholicism is heavily colored by our own experience in the local parish and with one or more clergy with whom we have encountered.  Not every priest or nun is capable—nor competent to teach the faith.  On the other hand, we in the pews too often are simply accepting of anything said simply because a Catholic title appears in front of their name.  In the case of this RCIA nun who is the Pastoral Associate, what she personally believes about Genesis is irrelevant to what she is obliged to teach.  I have wondered if the Pastor knows she is teaching falsely.  Worse yet, would be bother to even call her out on such teaching.

Hello New Observer - Before my husband and I begin teaching any RCIA class we make sure that those present understand that we are teaching what the Church teaches.

I would speak with the Pastor about what you experienced and if you don’t get a satisfactory response you do have the option and I do think the responsibility of contacting your Diocese and advising them what you experienced in RCIA. If she is teaching error then how many lives are being impacted by this?  Was there anything else that she said that you thought just didn’t sound right?

The sad reality is that it has been my experience that there are a good number of women religous who have adopted a radical feminist approach to teaching religion. My husband who is a convert had a similar situation when he came through RCIA ten years ago.

The pews are filled with people who don’t know what the church teaches. All Catholics are entitled to know the truth!

Thank you, Mary M.  I think you understand what is really going on in parishes that Bishops do not.  Yes, this nun is heavily feminist.  She announced to women catecheumens (who may have had problems in their own lives with their own father) that they might have a hard time accepting God as a male figure and thus—did not need to think of God in “Father” terms.  Excuse me?  Jesus ALWAYS referrred to “His” Father in Heaven or “Your” Father in Heaven.  The Father is also part of the Trinity.  She also said that Advent is really a season for women.  What ????????????  Good thing all the candidates had capable sponsors to refute all this opinionated theology.  I think our Bishops are clueless about some of these things going on in local parishes including the influence of eastern meditation practices.  A neighboring parish of mine also has a New Age nun running adult formation programs.

Hello New Observer - My husband was exposed to similar radical feminist catechesis. I would ask you to seriously consider contacting your pastor and Diocese (go to the Bishop directly if you have to) and make them aware of this situation. Thank God the sponsors were on the ball but what if they were not? I have seen sponsors who know quite a bit but many do not and easily fall into the trap of error. I, too, have been exposed to New Age practices by women religious. What you speak of is totally unacceptable.

I agree with Mary, it is imperative that you at least formally write the bishop a letter of complaint regarding the New Age nun and adult formation classes.  Then wait at least a couple of weeks for a written response.  If you don’t get one, try and make an appointment with him.  New Age is not Catholicism.  People who teach New Age under the auspices of Catholicism are interlopers—- I would write, New Observer.

The good news in all of this stuff about radical feminist religious is that the traditional orders (those that wear habits and are obedient to the Magisterium) are “bursting at the seams”.  The religious orders whose average age is 75 are not bearing any fruit; no vocations and they will most likely die out.

Additionally, the young men entering the priesthood now are solid, heterosexual men.

As Pope John Paul II said, we are in a “New Springtime”. There is much to be hopeful of but this doesn’t mean we sit back on our laurels and permit catechetical abuse to occur. We need to always speak up!

Mary M. and Brenda,  Thanks for the encouragement.  I am not afraid to request an appointment with the Bishop at the Chancery Office.  Clearly the parish Pastor is unmotivated to put the brakes on this nun so I may do as you say.  We even are subjected to a Buddhist “gong” during some of the Saturday 5pm Masses.  When you come to Mass, you think everything they do is OK and approved for Catholics.  You see, my problem is that the kids are impressionable and must think all these weirdo totally unChristian exercises are somehow OK—becasue Sister “x” leads the practice or inserts such activity for the lector or cantor to perform.  It’s hard to get other “Sunday only” Catholics concerned about such matters since they are rushing to leave church because they are going out to eat or need to get home for an ESPN game.  God knows what else is being taught in the parish grammar school!  If I had kids enrolled I would sure make sure I knew WHAT was going on there as well.

New Oberserver - There are no accidents - Perhaps the Holy Spirit allowed you to meet me and Brenda to give you the incentive to speak up. God bless you.

The same year Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” was released, the previous fall, I attended a one day retreat taught by a New Age-type nun, and the class was called “A Fresh NEW Look at the Beatitudes”.  60 women from two dioceses were there, one was a catechism teacher for 3rd grade.

I raised my hand, immediately noticing something was wrong, when the nun said, “Jesus spoke Aramaic.  So He didn’t really say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”  In His language, He really said this, “Happy and aligned are they that are one with the Queenship and the Kingship of the cosmos.” —I’ve paraphrased, and wrote that from memory, but you get the picture….

When I told the good nun that the MEANING was different, she quickly brushed off my concern, & went on to teach the class = 3 hours of drivel.

I kept the handout - the words, the concepts, everything was confusing and difficult.  It bothered me enough where I went to a local seminary library, and was able to find that the REAL Aramaic scholar was a Mr. George Lamsa, who in the 1930’s translated the Aramaic words into English.
Lamsa grew up in a place that spoke Aramaic, and was much like the way it was in the time of Jesus.

A quick Internet search led me to see that the good nun was teaching the work of a certain Neil Douglas Klotz, who is not even Chrisitan, let alone Catholic, if memory serves.

I first went to the PASTOR of the church, who gave me the brush-off, even though, by that time, I had proof the nun was teaching garbage.  He said repeatedly, as if I didn’t hear him the first time, “If you have a problem with sister, you must go to HER.”

I told him I had no problem with sister, but I had a BIG problem with what she was teaching, and it was under HIS purview to see that the information was no longer taught.  I got nowhere.

So next, I wrote to the DIOCESAN pastoral LAY BOARD, who did nothing but to suggest I write to the BISHOP.  I wrote a total of 3 letters to the bishop.  The first stated the problem.  He wrote back that the 60 ladies were “intelligent” and they would dismiss the bad information, as did I.

He didn’t care that the 3rd grade teacher said, “Oh, I’ll bring this to my class, so they’ll know what Jesus said.  But this is SO hard.”

My second letter to the bishop was a tad stronger - listing more reasons why the class needed to stop - he wrote back again, saying not to worry.
My third letter suggested I may be compelled to go to the secular press- of course, that got no where w/ him, and frankly, the press wouldn’t give a hoot if Catholics were taught bad information.

So I really gave up, at that point.  I got no where with anyone.  But on a lark, I mentioned this to one Jesuit I know, and it turns out that an email I sent to Mel Gibson’s Aramaic scholar was received by him, and I was able to fax the nuns handout to him.

He said that the handout language was “impossible to say in Aramaic” they “didn’t even have those concepts” and it “looked like a parody of the 1960’s Flower Children language.”

I was glad to have FINALLY been heard, but I had already given up being taken seriously at the diocese.  But funny thing is that about 2-3 weeks after hearing that I was correct, I got a letter from the bishop saying the nun would not be teaching that class anymore, although “she still thinks the information is valid.”

Bottom line - one must be persistent, when trying to bring Truth to a diocese that is NOT being led by the Holy Spirit.  Our Church needs more clergymen that stand for Truth, and that have courage and conviction.  I know ONE priest like that - one does not a healthy church make.

Cradle Catholic, it has been my experience that sometimes bishops DO act on information without giving you the assurance that they are looking into it.

Case in point:  A decade ago I was in a parish that received a new pastor.  I don’t usually get a strong indication internally about people, but one Sunday morning before Mass had begun, I felt as if the Holy Spirit said “turn around”.  I did so, and there stood a man whom I didn’t know and not dressed like a priest.  The Holy Spirit (I assume) said, “look at that man… beware of that man.”  And that was all.  No reason, no followup, no explanation.  Just “beware of that man.”  I remember thinking, “okay, Lord.”  And I went about my business (I was in the middle of a discussion with another parishioner).  Twenty minutes later, Mass started.  Guess who the new pastor was?  “That” man.

Brenda - MY bishop caters to a priest that has publicly called for same-sex marriage.  You read that correctly.  I wish it were different.

The past FEW bishops here have been hopeless, with the previous bishop selling off the parish where I was baptized to a swami.  A small Christian church wanted to buy the property, but they didn’t have the deep pockets that the swami did.

Now this area is flooded with magazines, showing a painting of Jesus, who is supposedly working for world peace, with their dead swami Bagi.

If OUR bishop is working - God help us.  I’d rather he just stay on vacation.  The more I see of bishops, the more I feel that the only thing they can lead is the way to a buffet table.

Did I mention that OUR bishop chose the Presidential election of 2008 to go on a sabbatecal, even though same-sex marriage was on the ballot?  In his absence, the Vicar for Clergy issued an “edict” that any parishioner caught handing out anything political on the Sunday before the election could be ARRESTED, with the pastor calling the police on them.

Your instincts and in=tuneness with the Holy Spirit sounds much better than most of the bishops I know.  There’s one good one, but he’s not around here.  That’s not to say he’s the only one - there are others.  But there seems to be more for whom their position is only a JOB and who are not caring for the flock, the faithful, as did Peter and the other aposltes.

Continuing from above…

To make a long story short, “that” man immediately set out to change everything about the parish including taking down the Divine Mercy picture that hung in the church near the altar.  Worse, he was extremely negative and bashed “regular” (traditional) Catholics with almost every statement in his homilies.

But the worst for me was when I one Sunday witnessed what our parish had become.  People would lollygag down the aisle on their way to Communion, high-fiving people, looking at friends and signaling to them way across the church, DURING holy communion.  On that same Sunday, after receiving Communion I kneeled down and my 9 year old son said, “mom, look at that.”
He was pointing to a broken host on the floor and people were walking right over the top of it.  As I looked, I cannot explain it, I “flew” out of my pew, over to the host, knelt down and asked the Lord, “Lord, what do I do with this host?”  He said, “Consume it!”  So I did.  I began to pick up pieces from the floor and put them in my mouth.  Then an amazing thing—my non-religious 9 yr old son, followed me and did the same!  People continued walking around us and no one stopped and got the priest to come over and bless the ground or anything… business as usual continued… I however was shaking when I got back to my seat.

The Lord in the coming days convicted me to bring it up to the new pastor.  So after about two weeks I finally got the courage to approach him.  I told him one day after Mass in the sanctuary when he was de-vesting what I had seen two Sundays before and that I felt God wanted to tell him something.  He wasn’t very receptive to my being there with what he considered “criticizing”.  I told him that God expects him as pastor to teach the parents of the parish to Respect and Reverence the Holy Eucharist so they will teach their children.  Well, he could not shew me out of there fast enough, all the while scolding me for being critical and judgmental of people (I guess for being upset they walked over the Our Lord’s Body..) 

Upset by his lack of response I emailed the bishop.  Never got a response.  But 6 weeks later, at the beginning of Mass, the priest announced to the congregation that the auxillary bishop was visiting our parish that day—- AND, he (the priest) “joked” that he thought someone had reported him and he was being “watched”.

Unfortunately, that parish was stuck with him for about three years, however myself and others moved away in the interim.

Indeed, he was being observed.  Makes me think it wasn’t his first time.

Brenda - Congratulations to you (and your son!!!!) for noticing the affront to our Lord, and for doing something about it.  How sad that people left, and how sad that others saw nothing wrong, and stayed.  It’s a lose/lose.

Pew people have to speak up.  I’ve found that there ARE more priests that think similarly - but they too, need to be encouraged and boosted. United we stand and divided - while the Church of God WILL prevail, it can be stifled, and even the “lampstand” removed.  Look at the 7 churches in Revelation.  Lampstands removed.  No one wants that.

Satan is a clever being, Cradle Catholic, he knows to strike the shepherds (priests) and those that teach children the faith (nuns).  His assaults upon the Church have been relentless and there is only a few things that can stop it: fasting, prayer, and learning the Faith.

Catholics cannot afford to be complacent and compliant (go along to get along).  They MUST take charge of the Faith and fend off the evil one and even the damage he has already done.

But that will be the remnant Church—not ALL of the churchgoing masses.

Brenda, your experience, Cradle’s and my own have taught me that we have too many priests who believe they have a “gig” for life —food, shelter and a monthly stipend + retirement and healthcare.  We have leaders “in church” but not necessarily “in Christ.”  What miserable parishes these must be and those Catholics with a passion for Christ are virtually driven to leave and find men of God in another parish becasue they can no longer stand such men.  As Cradle aptly put it, some of these bishops are only capable of leading others to the buffet table.

... actually, many leave for other denominations, not just other parishes.  About 12 years ago, I was preparing to be a “non-practicing” Catholic = like in much of Europe.  They call themselves “Catholic” but they stay home, forgoing Sunday worship.  Not going to any other denomination.

It was because 2 years prior, the parish I’d been attending was ripped in half by a pastor that destroyed everything that was precious to the congregation.  He even told a group of senior ladies, “DON’T YOU EVER SAY THE ROSARY OVER ME, IF I DIE WHEN I’M HERE.” - Now, have a heart.  These are elderly ladies that grew up on the rosary.

He was awful.  When he filled his 6 year term there, he was PROMOTED TO THE ARCHDIOCESE.  The guy wouldn’t know the Holy Spirit, if he tripped over Him.  That church has a much better pastor now, and the parish is what I’d describe as “healthy”. 

But BEFORE I found that parish (with the previous pastor, a nice man and his assistant pastor) I spent 3 solid months going to Catholic church after Catholic church, within a radius of 10 miles, trying to find a parish where I felt comfortable.  Then I was at this parish for one year, before the Great Divide. 

When the priest with the aversion to the rosary and the bad attitude took over, I’d had enough.  But on the day that WAS to have been my last Mass, 10 years ago, I met a nice priest who was the ONLY one of 5 priests, when told of my plan to be a “non-practicing Catholic” in passing, asked me “Why?”  He was incredulous, that I planned to stop attending Mass.  I told him I was fed up, and there was NO WAY I was spending another 3 months going to more churches, to see if they had kinder priests.

Ended up that he was great - well, at least until the sex scandals started to come out in the newspapers.  Everything was fine for almost 2 years, I got involved in helping fundraise for a new Pastoral Center, and felt ‘at home’.  But I learned that it was NOT ACCEPTABLE for pew people to speak out, showing alarm at the steady stream of news that hit the papers almost daily - even in our area.

I quickly got on his “poop list” for speaking out - and for writing letters to the editor of both diocesan and secular newspapers about it.  While I still feel this priest is an honorable man himself, he has many friends that are (better be sitting) child molesters.  The pastor he took over for was removed for having molested two boys.  In that parish, the assistant pastor was removed for having coerced an emotionally disturbed woman into having a one-night stand with him.

This priest had another close friend (brother-priest, I think they call themselves) that put himself into a monastery, and it was later learned that he’d been credibly accused of child molestation, and he admitted to it. 

None of my friends have ever done anything to warrant them jail - and yet, this priest has SEVERAL friends, all priests, that have done things that are not legal, and most certainly, are immoral. Though this priest still hates me, I think he tries to be faithful - and he’s stuck with our bishop that’s hopeless.  It’s not a healthy environment.  I give it to God - and to this day, I don’t shut up!  <grin>

I’ve given up trying to parish shop and Mass is very important to me.  So I blot out the ugliness of it, and focus on Jesus.  For this reason too, the Bible is VERY important to me.  And happily, I did have one priest I’ve known for several years become a pastor!!!  His parish is very healthy, and at least THAT one should stay like that.  Still, one parish does not a healthy diocese make.

How does the Catholic church respond to 1 Corinthians 9:5.

“Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-5.htm

If Peter was an apostle (and presumably married after the Crucifixion), why does the Roman Catholic church forbid priests from marrying?

Father cutie’s first lie was that he fell in love. His best defense is that he needs not apologize for what he was caught doing because falling in love is not a sin. However, what you witness in the photos, plain and simple, is a high profile priest indulging shamelessly in lustful frolic not love. Lust happens and Men of the cloth are not immune to it, that is what the sacrament of confession is for. It is evident that if Father cutie was way over his head with his affair was
Because he was not frequenting the confessional or even seeking advice from his bishop. This bring me to a second lie. In a TV interview,Father Cutie tries to dispel the rumor that the affair was his little secret by saying that he told the hierarchy about it. He said that the Episcopal superiors knew about for he he been in contact with them (not his catholic superiors but his current ones). So I sense a bit of deception on his part and that he was Planning well his exit strategy for a while. Meanwhile, until he got caught he continued to play the priest part hypocritically for as long
as he could get away with it.

Hello Nick,

The Catholic Church doesn’t forbid priests to marry; men who are to be ordained in the Latin-rite Church freely choose to not marry.

We have married priests, however, as we have married Lutheran pastors that have become Catholic priests by a special dispensation from the pope.

Also, we will soon have more married former Anglican clergy joing the ranks as the Anglican ordinariate has been created for Anglican clergy to come into the Church, along with their congregations.

Matthew 19:12 has Jesus praising celibacy for the Kingdom of God: ..” some men give up sexual relations for the Kingdom. Let him accept this teaching who can.”

Celibacy for Catholic priests is not an absolute and could change some day, but the Church does aim for the ideal, as was Jesus.

CC, if you don’t mind me asking, what region of the US do you live in?

I live in South Central Texas, and I have to say we are blessed with many healthy parishes and our diocese is doing okay, which means it could be more spiritually alive. However, there is much reason for hope, as we have a generation of young priests coming up and many fruits from ACTS retreats, Life Teen, and even EWTN.

liseux, you raise a good point as yet not discussed.  One’s experience and perception is often one’s reality.  The Catholic church is typically viewed as monolithic (and yes, the mass is the mass is the mass anywhere the mass is said).  Conversely, the administration of things spiritual and business is decentralized and local.  Bishops have no accountablility except to Rome—and even then are only required to meet with the pope once every five years.  Each diocese is run autonomously.  Even a neighboring diocese has no impact on the diocese and practices in the next county —assuming that county is in another diocese.  In the events described by Cradle, it seems there is something wrong there with the administration and even with the spinal integrity of the men mentioned.

Cradles situation reveals a flaw in Church organizational structure as we begin the 21st century.  Until the last 100 years or so, most people (the laity) were primarily occupied with agrarian pursuits of ensuring daily needs of food, shelter and clothing.  As the culuture and society have advanced in so many things—especially in technology, personal and media forms of communication and education we see where the Catholic church model for centuries has not advanced.  Bishops continue to operate as they have for centuries almost in a dictatorial way (if they CHOOSE to) and are really—in a practical sense, accountable to no one.  The laity has no voice to “call out” a Bishop on his behavior and to hold him accountable.  I know this must sound shocking to most Catholics to think we can hold a Bishop accountable because this sounds like a Protestant model.  However, you will remember the early church had elders to hold a Pastor accountable and even remove him.  Personally, I do not think appointing a Bishop “for life” or until he chooses to retire is a good model.  Likewise, local parishes should also have a say in who their next/new Pastor is going to be.

We all witnessed the disgraceful clinging to power Cardinal Law of Boston demonstrated whereby he had no choice but to leave lest the peasants with pitchforks physically remove him from the Chancery.  And even then, he agreed to leave only to receive a cushy golden parachute.  It should not be this way.  We do not like to think in these terms, however, politics and “who one knows” has always been a part of clergy advancement and promotion in church appointments.  Wresting any nuance of control away from such men will be resisted at every turn.  Granted, not all Bishops and Pastors are of this mindset.  However, in the cases where such abuse is evident or when the diocesan wheels have fallen off the track, the laity should have a forum and opportunity to hold such men accountable without waiting years or decades for the bureaucracy of Rome to investigate and take action.  By then, more damage has been done, people have left the church and those responsible may have even died.

I do not wish to detrack from those diocese which are managed well and have clergy of integrity.  Thoughts I have written probably would not even enter a Catholic mind if one’s experience is stellar.  I think we need to recognize that like politics —“All Catholicism is—often—local.”  Thus, were I a Bishop myself, I would welcome an elder board made up of laity to hold me accountable.  I would not welcome a board made up of understaff clergy who are accontable to me.

New Observer, I agree with much of what you say, but I think that the laity DO have some power and control.

I am a bit of an activist and communicator; as time allows, I write for a regional paper, write letters/call state and national legislators, my bishop, priests in the diocese and even the pope.

I know there are 1000s out there like me who are like minded. Think of the Catholic League, of which I am a supporter.

As an example, when the NCCB it appeared as about to elect a bishop whose supporters included some homosexual groups, I called by bishop and expressed my opinion respectfully. (Got much of my info. from the Register!)

I don’t know if my bishop took my words anyone’s in consideration, BUT the very orthodox Archbishop Dolan was elected, praise God.  I know that 1000s of other lay Catholic also expressed their point of view to their bishops.

When we stand for the truth, along with magisterial teaching based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Catholic lay faithful are powerful. Not because of ourselves, but because of God.

Yes, there are some bishops that are influenced by $$$ or prestige, but that’s been with us from the beginning (I recall Judas and the money bag). 

There is power in numbers, and truth attracts. You’re in the right place with the Catholic Church and with the Register.

(Clarification: I’ve written Pope Benedict a few times; I have never called the pope. Also, I write about what is GOOD going on, not just complaining.)

People must realize that the disciplines of celibacy in the Church are not just some random decision, but are a development of things pointed to in Scripture. I can’t cite them all, but those familiar with typology and examples of foreshadowing in the Bible know what this is about. As an example when David and his men sought to take refuge and eat the bread meant for the Levitical priests, the first thing asked of David and his men were whether they had been chaste, i.e. refrained from sexual intercourse for a period of time. Many times we meet types and figureheads of Christ and examples of events in the Levitical priesthood that are examples pointing towards God desiring celibacy and chastity. It was so for the Virgin Mary, it was so for John the Baptist, it was so for the apostles during their ministry, and especially Christ who is the model that the Catholic Priesthood seeks to emulate in full, not just partially. This is what is called development of doctrine. The life of the Church didn’t just come to an end when the apostles died. It continues to this day, Christ is alive in it and it continues to develop on things hinted at in Scripture, during the time of Adam & Eve, to Noah, to Abraham to Moses right up to this very day under Benedict XVI. So too moral teachings and disciplines and rites of the Church continue to be expounded upon, upheld or changed in things that can be changed to accomodate or defend the Church’s identity and teachings and approach to the world. Back in the Apostles time and before that, it was highly practical to marry, in fact your very life and survival depended on it. Today in our modern world, marriage and children are like a full time job on their own. They are not required and can be a distraction and burden on married priests. The Church has seen the benefits of both a married and a celibate priesthood and has decided on the best course of action, furthermore it is not just matters of practicality, but also because God has shown that He desires and welcomes this self denial as a holy virtue if one chooses to do it, and priests must lead by example to their flocks, furthermore as an example that chastity is accomplishable and if they can do it, then so too can couples who wish to marry in the future, homosexuals who struggle with their condition etc. etc. Such disciplines as a practice also help control oneself against other appetites of greed, gluttony, wrath etc. Through the discipline of one appetite, it is possible to discipline another, as a reverse example, if you have trouble being chaste, practice a discipline of fasting, by controling something like hunger, helps discipline you to control yourself in times of sexual temptation. Monks and other religious orders have been practicing these methods for a long time to great benefit. Furthermore, those thinking that the removal of the discipline of celibacy will bring in more candidates for the priesthood are fooling themselves. For one, this has never worked in any other institution, particularly in Protestantism for an example, and the numbers are still strongest in the Catholic Church. The reason is simple. Celibacy is a sort of weeding out of those who are unprepared to meet the harsh realities of the priesthood. In fact, celibacy is the least of a priest’s problems. The priesthood is not easy and it has nothing to do with just a vow of celibacy. Long hours, difficulties with parishioners, funerals, school children, finances, getting out of bed at late/early hours because someone is about to die and needs the Last Rites etc. etc. etc. and many many other things will come up in the life of a priest. In fact the vow of celibacy will bring in candidates for the priesthood that are likely to take it seriously and are msot prepared for the rigors and other disciplines that are going to come along. The celibacy thing is a smokescreen that others are using only to try and proove that they cannot control their seual urges, as if sex is somethign they absolutely require like food and water. This is demonstratably false, and all hey are really seeking is a pathetic way to undermine moral sexual laws, then ultimately doubt about the Church and doubt about the truths the CHurch proclaims and thus doubts about, death, the existence of hell and judgment that everyone wished they could ignore. It is good that many are turning to the Bible. Their mistake is that they stop there as if the Bible covers everything. By it’s own admission, it doesn’t. Papal Bulls and Infalliable Papal pronouncements carry as much weight and athority as any Apostolic letter. The CHurch Fathers have written amny works and none of these treasures in the deposit of the Catholic Church from whcih the very Bible you hold was compiled from and declared canonical should be ignored.

Liseux, you asked me what part of the country I write from - I am in “The Most Gay Friendly Diocese in the Nation: San Jose, CA”  - if you do an internet search on that phrase, and enter in “Metro” - you’ll get an article about this diocese from November 2009 - and a certain Fr. Jon Pedigo, who is a crusader for (better be seated) same-sex marriage.

On Friday, Jan 14, 2011 2:18 PM (EST) Liseux wrote to New Observer- “I agree with much of what you say, but I think that the laity DO have some power and control.

I am a bit of an activist and communicator; as time allows, I write for a regional paper, write letters/call state and national legislators, my bishop, priests in the diocese and even the pope.

I know there are 1000s out there like me who are like minded.”

Liseux, I am like-minded too - and an activist myself.  While I never fail to take an opportunity to PRAISE and ACKNOWLEDGE a cleric: priest or bishop (local or out of state) when the occasion arises, I also complain.  For that, I have been treated VERY poorly.

Most priests and bishops just want to be applauded - whether they deserve it, or not.  They are like the children that get awards and trophies, just for participating, showing up.  It keeps many of them emotionally stunted, and these men cannot handle any kind of confrontation.

I had two of them RUN from me, just to avoid having to speak with me.  It’s downright silly.  I agree with New Observer that we kin-folks are off the farm now, and we are literate.  We also speak “Bible” and we know HOW our church is supposed to run, in order for it to be healthy.

 
There are TWO wonderful laymen I know, one of them is a former executive of a high-tech company, he’s retired, and he knows Scripture WELL.  He offered to be on parish council, and some nun “discerned” him out, before he even got a chance to be on a ballot.  Go figure.

Too many of our priests and bishops here would not know the Holy Spirit if they tripped over Him.  I do not say that to be funny (it’s sad…) and I do not say that to be trite (it’s serious).  It’s just a fact.

There is ONE GOOD PRIEST I know that is excellent.  He knows the Bible, he can preach and teach it.  People love him.  He even appears to have a real gift of celibacy - and perhaps wouldn’t even marry, if given an opportunity.

But I think he’s among the 8% of priests that MAY marry, if mandatory celibacy was lifted. He would make a wonderful husband and father - because that man has integrity, and he is EMOTIONALLY MATURE, not a man-boy, like so many of the others.

I am so tired of seeing 80 year old males that are really ‘man-boys’ emotionally.  I’ve had them yell at me, just for bringing up topics that they don’t like.  It’s silly.  It’s not healthy.  It’s happenings like that from which I got the term: Pew People, with our thoughts being disregarded about our church, and even our valid concerns.  We don’t matter.

Ironically, I know 4-5 lay leaders (diocesan) that are clueless about matters of Eternal Value.  They can’t teach - so no wonder pew people are short on being “salt and light” and I even know a few that are FOR same-sex marriage, not being able to discern good from bad, a behavior that is God-honoring and one that is not.

I’m compelled to end with this - Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco gives WONDERFUL homilies on the readings each weekend, and he makes it public on radio.  He is Bible-literate, and he is a preacher and a teacher.  It is also due to him that California had a chance of passing Prop 8 (to stop same sex marriage, Nov. 2008) because he got his Mormon friends from Utah to help us in California.  Archbishop George= MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Johnno - Why is it that a priest is able to adopt a child, or even children (several have adopted 3 each) and only needed is permission from his bishop, but a priest cannot ever marry a woman, because a woman would be too much trouble for him?

Cradle - Adoptions and care of children have nothing to do with celibacy. As I said it’s not only just for a matter of practical economics that celibacy is useful. Celibacy is a self sacrifice and discipline of an appetite for other reasons that I have explained. Also regarded in the disciple of celibacy is very much the practice of taking upon oneself a suffering, a cross to carry. It is not just celibacy, but there is also fasting, poverty and other disciplines depending on which order you wish to join. Universal to all is celibacy. Scripture shows that God is pleased by it, and the priesthood emulates Christ whose bride is the Church, so too a priests is a married to the Church and he is faithful to her and works for her alone. The doctrine of what contitutes a priest is developed from the Old Testament patriarchs to the Levitical priesthood, and fianlly up til today. Even the Virgin Mary herself through apparitions has made it know that the celibacy and sexual moral integrity of priests is a blessed thing. The Catholic Church does not settle for less.

As for adoptions, I suppose these were meant to be in reserve for svere cases where abandoned children would require someone to raise them. There are usually special circumstances when this is allowed. None the less as I said it has no bearing on celibacy. A priest is to look after children anyway whether in his parish, village, or orphanage. In fact I know some that run these in third world countries. They are all still under the vow of celibacy.

Johnno writes:  The priesthood is not easy and it has nothing to do with just a vow of celibacy. Long hours, difficulties with parishioners, funerals, school children, finances, getting out of bed at late/early hours because someone is about to die and needs the Last Rites etc. etc. etc. and many many other things will come up ...”

Johnno, that excuse is tired and worn out.  Married (with children) Protestant and Evangelical ministers perform virtually the same functions.  The difference is that many Protestant congregations are willing to fund more pastors both full and part time to see that all ministries are attended to properly.  Yes, leading a chaste life by a priest requires a calling and the discipline of self control.  Single people do the same if they are living by God’s standard of behavior.

The church has created this newest debate by adopting a dual system whereby former Protestant clergy (married) are now able to serve in the Catholic church along with mandatory celibate RC priests.

Johnno wrote “Cradle - Adoptions and care of children have nothing to do with celibacy.”

Cradle’s response:
Raising children in a TWO PERSON household, a MALE AND A FEMALE is of utmost importance.  This is the PLATFORM the Yes on Prop 8 side is using in California to protect marriage between one man and one woman.  If you are claiming it doesn’t matter that a child has a mother and a father, then you are making a case for same-sex marriage to be accepted.

Johnno wrote: “The priesthood emulates Christ whose bride is the Church, so too a priests is a married to the Church and he is faithful to her and works for her alone.”

Cradle Catholic’s response:

Christ IS Christ.  No one person and no one church role emulates Christ FOR the church.

A priest, and all the members of the priesthood, are IN the Church.
They are not married TO the Church they are IN the Church.  All of us together, pew people and all clergymen, are the Bride of Christ.

If you claim a priest is married TO the church, how can he be IN the church at the same time?  It’s not a Bible based concept so it doesn’t stand up to simple logic.

I found this site because of the blog about the Memorial Service, looking around because I’m bored.  But, I got a question, WHY do you all care about this stupid thing with this stupid priest anyway?  So what that he bonked his girl friend.  You don’t think that’s anything new do you? So what that he got caught.  So what that he joined another church.  So what that he’s got a book out and people might want to read it.  Big F deal. 

The principal of my Catholic grade school, a priest, got caught bonking some of the guys in my 7th and 8th grade class.  He got arrested and I think went to jail, but it turns out he’d been doing that @ many other parishes. 

One of my religion teachers in high school left the priesthood to marry some woman he was bonking and I found out a year ago, he’s teaching religion @ a Catholic high school in another state. 

The professor in my mandatory theology class at a Catholic university, didn’t get kicked out his Order or anything or even fired, but it made big news on campus when he was busted after picking up a male prostitute during a spirituality retreat across the country.

As long as the church has stupid, man made rules that say no marriage no sex, you’re going to have messed up priests and fags in the priesthood because almost nobody else would even think much of it.  I mean they always told us how few vocations there are, what do you expect?

And you wonder why so few of us go to mass or care what the church teaches?  Think about it.

Ryan Allen - you wandered into a discussion among adults about the health of our Roman Catholic Church.

From the quality of your post, I think I hear your mother calling you for supper.  Better hurry up, don’t keep your older siblings waiting.

New Observer, I’ve often wondered what I would do if I found myself in an area like yours. It’s pretty much a spiritual desert where you live. One can either stay and fight the good fight, or leave and start life over somewhere else.

Since I have a family with four young children, I do believe I’d opt for the latter. One of my best friends, my sister-in-law is a transplant from CA from the 80s. Her parents are devoted Catholics with 9 children, and they moved them all here to Texas. They are quite the leaven in this area, now with numerous grandchildren, homeschooling most of them.

Anyway, you are in my prayers as you team with Archbishop Niederauer, whom I agree is heroic in his fight for marriage.

liseux, I think you mean to advise Cradle Catholic.  He/she is the one thristing in liberal CA.  They probably have home grown liberal Catholic clergy except for that one Bishop being mentioned.

Oops. Thanks for the correction.

New Observer -
Celibacy has always served us well in matters of convenience as well as in spiritual matters. THe excuse is not tired and worn out, it is very much valid. And anyway the Roman Catholic Priesthood with its discipline of celibacy is a free choice on the candidate’s part to devote himself entirely to the Church and take upon himself a cross to carry for the sake of others as Christ did and to show that restraint over sexual temptations and desires is fully achievable. There is no gun to anyone’s head to take these vows and there are suitable alternatives whereby they can be married and serve the Lord. In much the same way, God Himself appreciates celibacy and virginity in His priesthood, especially that they remain chaste when consecrating the bread and wine into the Body of Christ as foreshadowed in the Old Testament with the bread for the Temple offerings where the Levite priest insisted that David and his men have been chaste before eating of the bread, thus this teaching and example achieves its fullness in the discipline of priestly celibacy. That people like you continue to ignore all this in favor of some patchwork solution that you mistakenly believe will encourage more vocations and avoid mroe scandals is what is tired and unnecessary. It remains true that those willing to make such sacrifices are more likely to be more devoted to their calling, and if such a calling and discipline is too much for them to handle, there are legitimate ways out for them whereby they can still be of service to the Church in another role.

As for Protestant ministers converting to the Cathlic faith, this is a gesture allowed on their behalf since they are already married and more importantly took NO VOWs of celibacy to begin with. However, I believe there are restrictions on those married priests entering the Catholic Church, for example, that they cannot be promoted to the office of bishop etc. In any case, celibate priests and religious have served the Church well and continue to serve the Church well, and examples such as Fr. Curie will not take away anything from the good work that these men and the numerous saints have accomplished.

Cradle -
I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve said that adoptions and celibacy have nothing to do with each other. Adoptions can be allowable in extraordinary cases. It’s not a good idea to have children adopted by single parents. It is important to have both. But there are necessary circumstances where I can see this being permissable as a last resort. As for homosexuals adopting, the argument against homosexuality far preceeds anything having to do with adoption, but this is another argument entirely. Anyway I don’t know the circumstances surrounding these adoptions you specifically refer to so I would not presume to know anything and so I can’t comment on them or pass judgment on the decisions.

As for your other ridiculous statements. Christ commands us to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. So are you trying to say Christ is wrong in telling us to emulate God the Father? When Christ referred to Himself as the Temple, did you think he was made of bricks and mortar? For someone who claims to have studied the Bible, you sure misunderstand a lot or take a very hyperliteral view of things. In the same way, Priests are called to emulate and be like Christ and being like Christ are married to His bride, the Church. These are all Biblically sound allusions since the Song of Solomon to Christ’s parables of the bridegroom and bride to the Apostolic letters about Husbands and wives and the Book of Revelation and references to Jerusalem in the New Testament, and have been understood by the Catholic Church and brought to fulfillment gradually.The Priest is married to the Church, the Church is composed of all the believers, and thus the Priest is ‘married’ to all people in his flock, men and women. To then actually be married to a particular woman will take away from the beauty and spiritual truths to which the celibate priest signifies through his discipline and duties.

And just in case you misunderstand this to make it seem like this might also somehow make an argument for polygamy or bisexuality because the priest is symbolically ‘married’ to men and women in the Church, note that the priest is not actually having sex with any of them. It is to be understood that all their families are his families equally; men, women, children, all are on the same level for him equally as family and there are none that he gives more preference to over another. We are all the priests brothers and sisters in the same way that we are called to become brothers and sisters of Christ Himself. These teachings and symbolism are lost if the priest is actually married and has a family of his own. There are disciplines in the Catholic Church for priests and even laypeople to follow to shed light on invisible truths and order that sadly many of us ignore today or were simply never taught.

Nobody is forced to become a celibate priest,a nd if after becoming one, find they can’t continue, have a way out that does not cause scandal. As someone who is discerning the priesthood and also thinking about marriage to someone I love, I know and understand these things but Christ is far greater than any woman and so if I do make the decision to become a priest, I will not argue that I should be able to have it both ways. When Christ called to the apostles to leave everything and follow Him, or to the rich man to sell all his possessions and follow Him, likewise He calls us to abandon ourselves and everything we have and want and follow Him. Christ is not offering any other option. Those who want to reach the level of His disciples and do His work are likewise also expected to do this. He is not treating those called by Him today to serve His Church any differently than when He called His apostles when He walked on this Earth. The Old Testament is strongly filled with rules and regulations that the Levite priests abstain from sexual relations before entering into service in the Temple or else they were unclean. Such doctrines are developed from then until now and are more fully understood as the Church contnues to live and grow. The celibate priesthood reflects all this and the Scriptures fully allude to and support this.

Johnno, you wrote: “God Himself appreciates celibacy and virginity in His priesthood, especially that they remain chaste when consecrating the bread and wine into the Body of Christ as foreshadowed in the Old Testament with the bread for the Temple offerings..”

Where exactly is this in the NEW Testament?  The problem I have with the Roman Catholic church leaders today, and since the Dark Ages, is they have one foot in the Old Testament & one foot in the New Testament.
They pick and choose what rules work for them - where is what you wrote in the NEW Testament?

Johnno also wrote, “So are you trying to say Christ is wrong in telling us to emulate God the Father?”

CC Responds:
No - I am not saying Christ is wrong in telling US to emulate Him, and the Father.  I am saying Christ never told THE CLERGY to emulate Him and God the Father.  Everyone together is to emulate Jesus. “Us” - all of us.

Johnno wrote: “The Priest is married to the Church, the Church is composed of all the believers, and thus the Priest is ‘married’ to all people in his flock, men and women.”

CC responds - I still don’t understand HOW a priest could be married TO the Church and still be IN the church.  It does not make sense.  Will you try to explain that clearly?

Lastly, Johnno wrote: “...because the priest is symbolically ‘married’ to men and women in the Church, note that the priest is not actually having sex with any of them.”

CC response:
Marriage is more than sex.  Marriage is when two people become ONE.  It is a COVENANT.  If the Roman Catholic church throws around the term “married” so loosely, it’s no wonder so many Catholics divorce and that there are annulments for people - like the sweet Kennedy wife, the mother of twin sons that Congressman Joe disposed of, when he found another woman he liked better.  She wrote a book about her experience, and she seems to be more Christian, than many of her “Catholic” in-laws.

Until priests are allowed marriage, according to the Bible and universal Church Tradition-‘marriage’ will not be understood properly by Catholics.

I must point this out - the Roman Catholic church today is in crisis mode, because priests and bishops ARE having sex with “us”, the people.  The problem is that the clergy call it a “lapse” - a lapse could be a one-night stand, or a relationship that last even 8 years! 

When the statistics start coming out for how many clergymen have had sex with adults (exploitation of women by heterosexual priests, and of other men, by homosexual priests) it will make the statistics for the priests that molested underage boys and girls pale, by comparison.  This FACT was reported long ago - by experts that have watched the subject of clerical abuse for years, and they WARNED ABOUT IT, and they’ve been ignored.

Remember the Fr. Marcial Maciel story that’s just news now?  I heard about it 7+ years ago, and at that time, the accusers were being ignored by JPII.  This story is not news for those of us that have our heads out of the sand.  So it’s outrageous, for so many to be feigning “shock and disbelief” at it, at this late date.

JPII refused to ALLOW his friend to be investigated because Fr. MM was a Vatican cash cow, and a celibate men vocation booster.

Johnno wrote:  ” I believe there are restrictions on those married priests entering the Catholic Church, for example, that they cannot be promoted to the office of bishop etc.”

Big deal.  A man called to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be consumed by that alone and NOT with aspirations to seek “higher office.”

Johnno wrote:  “To then actually be married to a particular woman will take away from the beauty and spiritual truths to which the celibate priest signifies through his discipline and duties.”

Your argument that a celibate priest is able to love and serve God more than a married man doesn’t hold water.  Because a man is married does not mean he loves, serves and honors God any less in his life.

I think it does hold water, NO. As the Apostle Paul says that a married man is divided in pleasing the world and his wife; unmarried, celibate men can devote more of themselves to God.

I heard Billy Graham in an interview ask if he had any regrets. He said, yes, he wish he had spent more time with his family, particularly his children.  He said that traveling the world left his family alone.

His words, not mine.

That it might make sense that some priests should be celibate (like those who travel like Billy Graham) does not mean that all priests should be celibate. Most priests live relatively unexciting lives, which would be perfectly compatible with marriage.

There are lots of pofessions, like the military, medicine that are at least as time consuming if not more than the priesthood.

CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Fr. Cuties statement that God gave him the gift of the priesthood and then the gift of true love of a woman is so disturbing.  He either never believed or was taught that with the success of spreading the Gospel, Satan would find any means to discredit him and therefore let his guard down or he was tempted so strongly he went into denial or something like that.  It’s sad and he needs alot of prayers. We all do - especially our gifted priests.  Hope everyone who is commenting is praying for them to be holy.

Carolyn, it is not dogma that priests must be celibate. The Church teaching can change, though not anytime too soon.

Seeing as how the popes in the last millenium or so have advocated a celibate priesthood, can you as a Catholic obediently accept that?

Liseaux wrote: “Seeing as how the popes in the last millenium or so have advocated a celibate priesthood, can you as a Catholic obediently accept that?”

Cradle Catholic’s response:
I absolutely cannot accept it. Qualifications in Scripture & Tradition from Pentecost, through the FIRST millenium call for married MEN as ordained ministers.

God does not contradict Himself.  I obey God not men, not even those popes in the last millenium.  Like JPII that said mandatory celibacy, the PRACTICE, was “not discussible”.  Imagine if Peter said that to Paul-there would be no Council of Jerusalem.

The Vatican knows WHAT to do.  They simply refuse to do it.  But with the US threatening to sue Rome, & with all the hanky panky & corruption (sex scandals and money scandals) coming out, they will HAVE to start discussing more soon.  The jig will be up = and the piper will be paid.
It’s time for accountability and transparency for the people of God.

These men are “lording"over us, and God will not allow Himself to be mocked by these men that are power hungry and controlling, in His Name.

The Anglicans may be able to help.  They are seasoned, they obviously know the faith, and they have more normal life experience - being MEN. 

Manly MEN, not emotionally stunted man-boys, like so many in the Vatican and elsewhere in the Roman Catholic clergy.  The clergy has become feminized, by their own males.

CC, I wasn’t asking you, as I realize you are your own pope.  To be a disciple of Christ, one must be obedient and not remake the Church to fit his own personal tastes.

Jesus praises celibacy for the Kingdom of God in Matthew 19:12; Jesus himself was celibate for the Kindgom of God. If you want to aim for the lesser, do so.

Not every diocese is like yours.

In our diocese, partiuclarly from the families not practicing contraception, we have manly and many vocations. I have three sons contemplating the priesthood. They would knock your block off for saying they are feminine- but I will council them against such things.

Anyone can comment on anything in a blog.  There are no private conversations.  It’s healthy to dialog.  The more people that comment, the better.

Liseux, to knock anyone’s block off, just for hearing an opinion, your sons may have anger control issues.  You would know them better than anyone.

And if they need you to council them against such things, they’re way to immature to even consider a lifelong commitment to the priesthood. 

We have way to many immature priests already and many have anger control issues, and if they do not know Scripture, allowing themselves to be fooled into accepting Matthew 19:12 as reason for them to be forbidden marriage in the Latin Rite, and buying hook line and sinker that Jesus was celibate for the Kingdom of God—my word!  They don’t know their Bible.

We really, really need Godly MEN as ordained priests.  Men that know the Bible and that can preach and teach it - your sons will go from you being their mommy to their bishop being their mommy.  If they don’t know the Bible, and aren’t allowed to grow up, and make decisions on their own - without you - my sweet Lord!  We’ll have more man-boys!

If only pew people would read and accept the Bible’s qualifications for MEN in ordained church ministry.  The Churches own statistic is 22-50% of the clergy has homosexual inclinations.  But all too many of the rest of them have alcohol problems, anger issues, depression issues - Roman Catholic clergy aren’t a really healthy group, when it comes to being emotionally grounded.  What you posted, Liseux, is a foretaste of it.

CC,

You don’t even know your own mind. You complain about effeminate priests and the lack of “manly” priests,then whine about anyone with supposed anger issues.

I think you just like to argue.

I suggest you spend more time praying about these issues than raising Cain yourself and repeating yourself over and over.

Liseux,

I am in no position to do much about what the popes have said about the priesthood, but as a Catholic, I do take an interest in what happens in the Church, and I don’t think I should obediently accept things that I think are bad ideas.

For the past weeks, many lay people have expresssed many good reasons why we think celibacy is doing the Church more harm than good. We, lay people, are also part of the Church, and I don’t think it would hurt the higher-ups to listen to us once in a while. It is we who bear the consequences of their decisions.

Peace,
CKH
carolynhyppolite@blogspot.com

cradle catholic: While I agree that homosexuals have taken positions in the Church to promote their agenda, such as teaching, media and formation/discernment positions and have excluded well suited “manly men” for their opposition to the homosexual agenda, I don’t agree at all that a man’s closeness to his mother excludes him.  Jesus travelled w/ Mary his whole life.  It is HEALTHY to love your mother and it is a sign of the liberal agenda to try to distance children from their parents. According to the vision of Pope Leo XXXIII the Church was handed over to Satan for 100 years, the twentieth century, because he told God man did not love Him and if he was given 100 years he could destroy the Church.  We are just past that one hundered years and reeling from all the sin.  It is time to REPENT not to give in to the flesh.
Carolyn: Do you really believe that lifting celibacy requirements will change anything?  That is a manmade solution to a spiritual problem.  The problem is lack of prayer, lack of faith, lack of will, lack of true LOVE of God.  The answer is not giving in to sin. The men who did will now cheat or be absent fathers or marry poorly etc., etc. and a whole new host of sins will assault us.  The answer has always been the same: HOLINESS.  Pray without ceasing we are told.  Do holy hours before the Eucharist. Put CHRIST first. Love everyone out of love of Christ, not out of love of self. etc. The Church is wise to put this down.  This is spiritual agitation - rocking the boat to create discord and it isn’t from God. God has helped thousands of priests be faithful to their vows who wanted to be. NOTHING is impossile for God and no human relationship is worth the sacrifice of the intimate union with God to a holy priest, brother or religious or lay person.

Carolyn, at least you answered my question.

But how can you expect priests to be obedient and faithful to Church teaching when you are not so yourself?

It is your opinion that priestly celibacy is a bad idea. The facts demonstrate otherwise.

The great saints of the Church- St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, John Paul II of modern times have all been CELIBATE priests.  They demonstrate that God does superhuman things with our weakness.

To denigrate the priesthood of today focuses on a lack of faith on your part as to the power of God, in my opinion.

Priests have taken vows of obedience, something I don’t intend to do. Having said that, I expect anyone to ever fully put aside their brains and conscience, even if they are priests. I am concerned by how often the Church says so has become an subsitute for an argument. If God wanted us to be little robots, he would not have equipped us with a brain and an independent conscience. I expect priests to be faithful to the human obligation of being a just and righteous person. I expect priests to seek truth. No more and no less than I expect from myself.

As for naming the list of celibate saints, I never denied that one can be holy and celibate, only that it is a good idea to mandate celibacy for all priests.

I personally never understood why it was better for Saint Augustine to send away his long-time concubine with their sons instead of marrying her.

Peace,
CKH

Carolyn, this will be my last post on this topic today, as I have a stock show to take care of with my children.

I think that the evidence throughout the 1000s of years speaks for itself. Men and women who are celibate and without families to tend to can most ideally dedicate themselves to God. This is Paul’s bright idea, not mine.

St. Francis of Assisi, St. Clare, St. Benedict, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Thomas Aquinas and on and on were all able to fully dedicate themselves to the Lord because they were focused on Him alone.

Not Him, the world, the spouse, and the children.

I don’t think that with Christ and his Church we have to settle for mediocrity.

I am glad that the Holy Spirit hasn’t let good or better get in the way of best: a total dedication to God with a vow of celibacy.

Cradle Catholic -

The problem you have is that you think like a Protestant. You are basing your reasoning irrationally on a Bible only premise, or on some sort of belief that the New Testament completely replaces the old Testament. The Catholic Curch, from which the canon of Scripture comes from continues to develop doctrine and provide guidance in an ever changing world. It is a living Church. The entirety dogmatic teaching of our faith weren’t all once and for all neatly put into place and given to Abraham, nor Issac, nor Jacob, nor Moses, nor the Judges, nor the Pharasees, nor the Apostles. Everything was built up and expounded on and developed overtime. At one time all living creatures didn’t eat meat, in the time of Noah, God then told them that they could eat meat of clean animals, in the time of Moses, dietary restrictions were further pt in place, by the time of St. Peter, restrictions were taken off for the gentiles and their eating habits. So too with regards to marriage, polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships were tolerated by God during the time of the Patriarchs within reason, then the true worth of marriage was developed to be monogamous and faithful, likewise the priesthood was also developed and today the Church has in its wisdom made the priesthood celibate as a discipline to further please God. WHether this is found written in the New Testament is irrelevant. It is not in contradiction to Scripture, it is alluded to in Scripture, CHrist Himself says this is a desirable thing to be celibate for the sake of the kingdom, Paul encourages it, and finally the Church has developed it into a disciplinary rule to further strengthen the symbolism of the Priesthood.

You say - ” I am not saying Christ is wrong in telling US to emulate Him, and the Father.  I am saying Christ never told THE CLERGY to emulate Him and God the Father.  Everyone together is to emulate Jesus. “Us” - all of us.”

Then, this further strengthens my point, if you wish to interpret Christ’s words in a hyperliteral manner, then all of us should be celibate. Of course this is not what He meant. BUt for those that choose to further emulate Him freely, they should be celibate for teh sake of the kingdom. In the past the Levitical priests had to abstain from sexual relations before entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple and serving the Lord or else their unclean-ness would profane God. How much more should this be so for Priests who consecrate Christ’s Body and Blood everyday? Read up other books and documents from the Early Church fathers as well as those from the modern Church. They carry as much weight and authority as the New Testament. In fact some of them might even have made it into the NT canon. The Bible does not contain everything.

YOu ask - ” I still don’t understand HOW a priest could be married TO the Church and still be IN the church.  It does not make sense.  Will you try to explain that clearly?”

This is a symbolic understanding. A symbol that is shown by a living example. Christ’s bride is the Church. The priest in emulating Christ is symbolically married to the Church, if faithful to her and serves her alone. He is not literally married to a building, in the same way Christ was not literally a Temple building. By living in this symbolic way, the Priesthood emphasizes the spiritual truths of the realtionship of Christ to His Church which includes us, the laity and the priests. In a similar way we are all called to be a Holy Priesthood, but the role of the laity is different from the role of the ordained priest. The ordained priest has taken his relationship with Christ to the next level, an example of what all of us must seek to live up to in our hearts and mind.

YOu say - “Marriage is more than sex.  Marriage is when two people become ONE.  It is a COVENANT.  If the Roman Catholic church throws around the term “married” so loosely, it’s no wonder so many Catholics divorce and that there are annulments for people”

What you accuse the Catholic Church of, you must also then accuse the Bible of when it symbolically uses the terms of marriage to show the relationship between God and His people. Clearly you are caught up in taking things far too literally. The reason many Catholics divorce is because they do not follow their faith or even know it, much less do they understand marriage as a covenant, for if they did they would not dare to break it and become adulterers. You make a grotesque accusation against the Church which Christ Himself instituted. There is a difference between a symbol, which is non literal, and a covenant which must incude literal terms that are to be realistically followed. Again you show an inability to separate the symbolic truths that marriage as a convenant is supposed to symbolize in the grand scheme of things.

YOu then go on to accuse: “I must point this out - the Roman Catholic church today is in crisis mode, because priests and bishops ARE having sex with “us”, the people.  The problem is that the clergy call it a “lapse” - a lapse could be a one-night stand, or a relationship that last even 8 years!”

The Roman Catholic Church is in this so called ‘crisis mode’ because liberal bishops and theologians who do not follow the guidelines and disciplines of the Catholic Church have encouraged corruption to fester and all manner of heresy to spread. Look up all cases where sexual abuse was allowed to go unchecked and check teh quality of the bishops and leaders who were supposed to take care of the situation. Besides what is entirely laughable is that the total number of incidents that have taken place in the Church is a drop in the ocean compared to the scandals going on in other religious institutions, particularly ones that have no rules for celibacy, which has not halted but only made the problems worse due to the fact that it does not impose discipline on its members. And this still a far cry than what occurs in schools, amongst government officials and worldwide. If you really care about this, then look it up. The results will shock you and everyday it is covered up or ignored by the media, except when it comes to the Catholic Church, then they are willing to put their hypocracy aside and punish the one institution that they hate, because to this day it is still loyal to Christ and will ontinue to speak out against their sins.

Besides which, scandals in the Church are not new, and have been going on since the Church was instituted. Even amongst Christ’s disciples, there was Judas Iscariot, and as long as the Church remains, there too you will find those who wish to tear it down from within. Also the Church is composed of human beings and they will fail, but God does not simply cast sinners aside. remember the Christ is descended from the clan of Judah, Judah was not an upright man, his sons displeased GOd so much that God took their life, then Jesus’ bloodline goes through Judah and Tamar’s son Perez, a union from Judah and his daughter in law who he mistook for a temple prostitute. Look into the lives of the Patriarchs and read the Bible itself and you will find many such eamples. King David was a womanizer and a murderer. But God still chooses to work through fallen people no matter how bad they may be. He can redeem them, and good will still triumph despite them. The same applies to the Catholic Church, no matter what conditions it may suffer from, its truths contianed in its teachings and traditions and rules are guaranteed by Christ and the Holy Spirit. And you Cradle are free to ignore them and continue to persecute the Church and so persecute Christ at your own risk. Christ instituted the Church and gave authority to Peter to loose and bind things on Earth that will be loosed and bound in Heaven. And so Peter is suceeded by the Popes for the last 2000 years and their authority is recognized and granted and led by Heaven itself. Listen also to the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven, who through approved and recognized apparitions has made it known that she and her Son are highly displeased by the behavior of priests who do not follow their celibate vows and commit all kinds of iniquity. You must learn to be humble and take the time to study the Bible with proper guidance along with documents of the Catholic Church about its disciplines, traditions and moral teachings. If you do you will find a wealth of information that is beautiful and that will transform how you see things from a perspective far beyond that of the fallen limited world.

New Observer -

You said - “Your argument that a celibate priest is able to love and serve God more than a married man doesn’t hold water.  Because a man is married does not mean he loves, serves and honors God any less in his life.”

This is not what I argued at all. I said that the Priest through his actions and lifestyle serves as a symbol of Christ and Christ’s relationship to His Church.

The ideal for the priest is to aim for a level by which he already posesses everything simply by having God and God alone. When you die and go to heaven there will be no wives nor husbands as Christ scolded the Pharaisees and Saducees when they pressed him as to whose husband would the woman who’d been married 7 times be in the afterlife. The character of the priest must be one of such a level that he behaves as if the transitional and temporary things we posess and experience in this life, such as marriage and sex, no longer appeal to him because he has achieved a level far above that through complete devotion to God. In this he has found something more valuable than what human marriage will ever provide, nor any earthly convenience or pleasure, because none of these compare to the reward of being in a full realationship with God in heaven.

As an example, think of a child. A young boy would find delight in simple things, perhaps playing with toys, or for an example, eating chocolate cake. This for a young child who has not had the experiences of an adult might as well be heaven, and the most amazing experience in all the world. If an adult man looked down to him and said to him that a relationship of marriage and the pleasure of sexual intercourse with a woman are so amazing and awesome, a young boy may not see what precisely there is in it, for he thinks nothing of girls, nor does he experience sexual excitement on even the least psychological level. The young boy may take the adult man’s word for granted, believing the adult might know what he was talking about and after all he is too young to try it out. BUt the boy might turn around and ask him whether or not when they had sexual intercourse, which is supposed to be the most amazing thing ever, then wouldn’t they also have been simultaneously eating chocolate cake at the same time? After all that is the most etraordinary pleasurable experience for the child. If the child is then told that they didn’t eat cake while having sex, or that it was impractical to do both at the same time, the child might then grow incredibly sceptical of it and perhaps in his young mind think that sex with your wife is not worth bothering with since you can’t have your cake and eat it to. Likewise, those who place too much emphasis on sex and marriage are not of the level of maturity to understand the experience of heaven. Some might be of the thought that you get to have sex a lot in heaven. But this is not at all what heaven is.

In the same way that we understand in our maturity that sex and marriage are joys that far supercede the eating of chocolate cake, the joys of heaven and being in the presense of God are of a level far beyond our still immature understanding. Since for adults sexual intercourse is probably considered the most pleasurable experience and are thus obsessed with it, the priest’s attitude must be to show that there is another level of extraordinary pleasure far above that which requires a level of spiritual maturity that we all are to live up to. Those saints and mystics that have had a taste of being in the presense of God have even described it in terms that are akin to an experience of extraordinary ecstasy and language that is symbolically akin to sexual rapture. When God freed the Israelites from Egypt, they were still attached to the Egyptian gods and pagan idols. So before God took them to the promised land, they had to spend 40 harsh years in the desert to break themselves from their old ways through fierce discipline before they were brought to a land of milk and honey. Likewise the discipline of celibacy is to aid the priest to gain a grander thing. God often calls us to give up something we hold dear so that He may replace it with something of far greater value. A priest is not his own. He freely gives up everything for God as he is able. The biggest sacrifice he can make is letting go of his life and sexual intimacy for a life or service to God whereby he can gain a far greater reward. And by us witnessing this character in our priests, it is a reminder to us that there is also something far above and beyond what we perceive that we can gain that is mroe wonderful than anything this world can provide.

New Observer,  A married man does love, honor and serve God less.  It’s not even questioned.  The pull between serving God and serving spouse or children is always present.  St. Paul talked about it in one of the letters.

Pam, there is no “pull” involved.  As a woman, you are unqualified to comment regarding what a man’s perspective is concerning this matter.

New Observer, if she agreed with you, I bet you’d say she WAS qualified to comment.

I wouldn’t say a married man loves God less, but it’s just common sense tht a married man can only serve God less. Unless, that is, he is neglecting his family.

St. Paul was right on that one.

liseux, as a woman you are also unqualified to comment regarding how a man thinks in his devotion to Christ.

Yea right. Males are not some unique species, New Observer. We’re all human.

That’s the same tactic the pro-aborts use with telling men they have no right to comment on a woman’s choosing to kill her child. If the man agreed, they wouldn’t be telling him to be quiet.

If I agreed with you, you’d be singing a different tune.

Jesus ordered his Disciples to go and spread the Word; his Disciples, in helping set up communities, ordered them to ordain men of family, of solid community standing, of good moral character.

The crappolic church, on the other hand, has fallen so far into disrepair that it expects the priesthood to be a legion of !@#$% eunuchs.

This kind of crap, along with anti-semites like you, are the reason I left the crappolic church.

Mike, if whatever group you belongs to promotes communicating as you have, then it’s certainly doesn’t follow Christian principles.

You’re in my prayers, Mike.

Wow, Mike - if you left the church what are you doing blogging on a Catholic blog? Anti-Semites?  How is the Catholic Church anti-semitic? And I agree with liseux, your comments aren’t exactly communicated as a Christian.

Carolyn wrote: “I personally never understood why it was better for Saint Augustine to send away his long-time concubine with their sons instead of marrying her.”

I agree with you 100%.  In fact, when celibacy was mandated, the POPE at that time was married, and he had children.  He ABANDONED them all, just to take the esteemed position as leader of the Roman Catholic church.  It bothers me that we have “princes” of the Church too - the cardinals.
It’s not how our Church is to be run, according to Acts of the Apostles.

We DO need to question our leaders.  In the Dec 26th issue of Our Sunday Visitor - there’s a large article called, “How mistreated saints stayed true to the Church”. - It outlines the life of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, who was BEATED brutally and repeatedly, by her “Spiritual Director”, Father Conrad Marburg, a “zealous, ascetical Franciscan priest whom Elizabeth’s late husband believed to be a truly holy man.”

Marburg felt it his duty to bring Elizabeth to a life of strict self-denial, and was known to slap her across the face for the most insignificant fault.  She died in 1231, at the age of 24.  It was Marburg that “took the lead in gathering material for Elizabeth’s canonization.”

Liseaux mentioned St. Teresa of Avila - a woman that wanted to reform the Carmelite order.  Her protege, chaplain and confessor was St. John of the Cross.  Well in 1577, a “band of renegade Carmelites”, happy with the “opulent furnishings, expensive food and wine, and gossiping with visitors in the parlor” instead of keeping to a life of simplicity and prayer, KIDNAPPED John, imprisioning him in a tiny cell for 9 months, almost starving him to death, and refusing him water for basic cleanliness.  His “brother Carmelites flogged him so brutally that he bore scars for the rest of his life.”

The 3rd saint they wrote about is Joan of Arc - who was imprisioned for NOTHING, given no lawyer, not permitted to call witnesses, and burned at the stake on May 30, 1431, aided by BISHOP Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, a Frenchman under the thumb of the English, who supplied Joan a “confessor”, Father Nicolas Loiseleur, who REPEATED EVERYTHING SHE SAID to her enemies.  Her ‘trial’ was a sham.

THIS article calls us a “Church of Sinners”, and reports, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church states candidly that the Church is ‘at once holy and always in need of purification.’”

The Bible is trustworthy, and it is ALWAYS holy and it needs NO PURIFICATION.  It never contradicts itself.  We can trust its wisdom.

So we pew people HAVE TO QUESTION - where were the pew people to help St. Elizabeth of Hungary that died at age 24?  Which of St. John of the Cross’s ‘brother priests’ spoke up for him?  None.  When he managed to escape, Teresa’s nuns took him in and cared for him back to health.

How about Joan of Arc?  Her case was “non-discussible” until her mother and her brothers petitioned Rome to look at her case, where it was found that she was “Orthodox and as true a daughter of the Faith as the Church had ever known.”  They KILLED her!

Seems like everyone that speaks up gets flack.  Even Martin Luther just posted his 96 thesis, to get the attention of Rome, trying to end ABUSES.
They wanted to kill him too - he had to RUN for his life.

Mandatory celibacy has caused nothing but problems - any man, whether pew person or ordained clergyman, should be able to marry at any time in his life - be he priest, bishop, or pope.  That pope that abandoned his family was wrong.  We are in a Church of sinners.  It is high time we take the wisdom of the Bible (Timothy, Titus) and put it to use.  There will be no trust for any churchman without it.

I agree w/ New Observer that only MEN should weigh in on what it’s like to live a totally celibate life, and forever.  Women have NO IDEA what that would be like.

It should never be mandated, because in context, God does not ask any man to live a life alone.

Even the Nazarite vow in the Old Testament allowed men to marry - the vow making a man dedicated to God completely was fulfilled by 1) no drinking alcohol, or the fruit of the “vine” 2) no cutting their hair 3) no touching a dead person.  Marrying a woman was fine.

New Observer, That’s a pretty dumb statement.  You are criticizing the Apostle Paul, not me.  And as a woman I can comment on relationships and commitment and the power of grace to overcome temptation and sin. We aren’t discussing how an orgasm feels to a man or what it takes to get there. We are talking about being married (which I am) and how it affects our freedom to devote our time without reserve to God.  Shame on you.  Rather sexist.
Cradle Catholic you are not open to the power of the Holy Spirit.  You see everything on an eartyly plane.  God allowed Abraham to send his concubine and son Ismael to the desert. God had a PLAN (again).  You can NOT JUDGE BY APPEARANCES. Everything is not just as it SEEMS.  I am sorry that you struggle with that.  Somethings are just MORE important.  Jesus said if you love spouse or children more than Him you are not worthy to be a disciple.  The problems you see are the result of SIN and the cure is not marriage.  The cure is repantance, prayer and GRACE!

Cradle Catholic,

A few years ago, my best friend and I used to get together every Sunday to watch a saint movie, one thing that came up over and over again is that almost every saint suffered at the hands of a superior—so much for not lording it over them.

Peace,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com

Michael, I’m sorry you left the Catholic Church.  Pope Leo XIII had a vision in the 1850’s of Satan appearing before the throne of God asking for 100 years to prove men really don’t love God.  He said if he had the 100 years that he could destroy the Church.  God gave him the twentieth century.  Pope Leo was so distressed by the vision he wrote the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel: “St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle.  Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil…” So we have been handed over for all that time and alot of terrible things happened in the world and in our Church.  But Jesus has always been in the Eucharist even when the pedophile priest did the consecration and in the confessional even when the womanizing priest was hearing the confession and He is in every sacrament.  The hundred years are over but the sin is not.  The priesthood IS a marriage.  The men have made a gift of their celibacy and they make the sacrifice willingly.  It isn’t celibacy that is the problem it is sin and the anecdote is not marriage, it is grace which comes from repentance and prayer and holiness.  Please come back.  Leaving because priests or laypeople sin is a mistake.  You aren’t there for them.  You are there for Jesus Christ truly PRESENT and that has NEVER changed.

Celibacy is refraining from marriage for those men in the clerical state.
Have we all forgotten that women religious also do not marry? They become the bride of Christ. The notion that somehow celibacy can only be understood from a male perspective is inaccurate.

Pam writes:  “That’s a pretty dumb statement.”

Nothing takes the place of reading.

Hello Cradle,

You help to prove the point of celibacy for priests with your post about St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Joan of Arc, and St. Elizabeth of Hungary. They were harassed by those within the Church who were WORLDLY and who did not obey Church teaching.

I see you and your followers calling for married priests in the role of the worldly and disobedient. No, you’re not beating people or making political deals with bishops at the expense of saintly women (to my knowledge!), but you are bringing disobedience and the worldy culture to bear in your decisions.

St. Teresa of Avila dealt with those in her order who wanted to have lax lives, lives which reflected the convenience of the culture.  They resisted her ideals of PERFECTING the order. You do the same.

You too want to bring worldliness into the priesthood and reject the PERFECTION of Christ’s model.  In Matthew 19:12 the celiebate Christ praises celibacy for the Kingdom, and in Corinthians Pauls tells us that married men are divided.  You settle for the divided men.

Cradle, married men have a place in the Latin-rite, as deacons, and as some priests who have come in through the special dispensations.

Why can’t you have faith in Christ’s model for the Church and in God’s power to raise up priest from among the faithful?

Why can’t you be obedient and look to the ideal instead of clamoring for what Paul calls “divided” men?

New Observer writes, “Nothing takes the place of reading.”

Oh yes, something does: understanding.

And Pam is right- you’re statement was dumb.

liseux:  You are placing a value judgment on something unsaid.

Can you translate that statement?

I’m reading it, but I’m not understanding it.

Pam wrote: “The cure is repentance, prayer and GRACE!”

Cradle responds:
The cure is understanding, repentance & OBEDIENCE to God’s Word=the Bible.

Liseux wrote: “You too want to bring worldliness into the priesthood and reject the PERFECTION of Christ’s model.”

Cradle responds:
Priests, bishops and popes are MEN that live IN the world.  None of them are the sexless angels you want them to be.  They are not perfect.  They are not our perfect Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Liseux, your expectations for these MEN is toooooo high.  It’s in the stratosphere.

Only when these MEN get caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jars, will rabid Catholics that worked themselves into near frenzy, insisting our clergymen be ‘superhumanoids’, face the truth: they’re only men.  As “LEADERS”, it’s their ROLE in the church that’s different…and special.  It is our responsibility to help them, to support them, to encourage them.  It’s not to help them live a lie.  No double lives.

They’re to KNOW MORE about Christianity than do pew people, and they’re called upon to TEACH what they know about our faith, to us = PREACH the Word.  Only this has ETERNAL VALUE for us all.  No more cover-ups.  No more indulging the Vatican, and by our silence, DISRESPECTING God’s Word.

Cradle, it’s very ironic that you capitalized obedience in your response to Pam. I think you should get some of that. One arrives at obedience through much prayer and sacrifice, specifically by praying, “Not my will, but thy will be done.”

Believe me, you do not know better than Jesus Christ, the celibate high priest who praised giving up sexual relations for the Kindgom of God in Matthew 19:12.

Why you keep aiming for good when our Lord praises best is beyond me. Don’t you have faith that Jesus can bring to fruition what he desires?

You say, “Priests, bishops and popes are MEN that live IN the world.”
We agree.

They are also called to not be of the world, but you are asking them to be more enmeshed in the world than Jesus calls for in Matthew 19:12. Wives, children, schooling, discipline all divide a man of the cloth. Jesus and Paul knew this.

I’m taking a breather, Cradle.

You have a good afternoon.

Cradle, it boils down to faith. Do you believe Jesus when He says whatever you ask of me believing that you have received it, I will give it if it is in accord with the Father’s will?  This is grace.  You are saying we are doomed.  No one can overcome anything.  It’s all a lie.  And some of us are trying to tell you the GOOD NEWS! We have experienced it in our OWN LIVES!  Christ is greater than sin and temptation and CAN keep us faithful to our vows to Him! He really meant it when He said He is Lord of heaven and earth.  If today that seems incredible to you, talk to Him and tell Him some people are talking about this grace thing and you don’t see it. They are expecting too much! Then remember WHO you are talking to. Keep hounding Him like the importunate friend knocking at the door and in His time He WILL give it to you. And go to a sacramental confession just to be absolutely sure you are in a state of grace because He can’t get as close to us when we are in a state of serious sin.  I know you have said you have given up on it, but do it this once. God bless.

To Liseaux supporters:  She wrote this about ordained ministers: “They are also called to not be of the world, but you are asking them to be more enmeshed in the world than Jesus calls for in Matthew 19:12.”

I ask all of you, what are we pew people supposed to be like?  Are we also intended to be “not of this world”?  If so, WHO can be married?  Are we all not supposed to be a priesthood of believers?  Please, read the letters Paul sent to Timothy and to Titus.  It tells us not only the qualifications for men in ministry, but it tells us how we pew people are to live too.  The roles are all right there.

At the rate Liseux-supporters are going, putting ordained men on such high pedastals, attributing such lofty expectations for them, but not asking them to KNOW the Bible and to TEACH and PREACH it to us, our Church has made “Sacrament Dispensers” of these men, available at our calling, at all hours of the day and night, thinking their “powers” will bring us closer to God, and to eternal life with Him.  That’s not so.

Folks, if we are not IN the Kingdom of God right now, and that means OBEYING GOD, not men, we will not be in the Kingdom of God for eternity.
This is very serious, and nothing with which to trifle.

We can and do make idols out of people and out of institutions.  For many rabid Catholics, their idol is the men in the Vatican, those that legislate man-made laws.  Read Mark Chapter 7, to see what Jesus had to say about man-made laws.  Jesus said “obey God, not men.”

When these men agree with what’s written in God’s Word, terrific.  Obey them.  When these men twist God’s Word out of context, to make it fit their own agenda: speak out against it, with love, but with zeal too.

If this blog max’s out the number of comments - this is #301 - not only will we have Carolyn’s terrific comments, but we’ll also have your blogspot.  I’ve never used a blogspot before, but your wonderful feedback encourages all of us to check it out, should this board become filled.  I think the NCRegister allows 350 comments.  Your comments have been fabulous, Carolyn.  Thank God for you!

I think the last comment from Cradle Catholic about whether we are all called to like Christ is right on. The reforms of Vatican II were supposed to remind us all that everyone is called to be Holy, not just the clergy but many want to return to that unfortunate period in the Church when people thought that holiness is for the clergy.

I am worried that many of the commenters treat marriage as some kind of second class institution beneath the dignity of the priesthood.

Peace,
CKH

1 Peter says that we “(you) are a royal priesthood.” The body of believers are set apart as a “priesthood” of believers with no role being elevated above anyone else. 

liseux, you keep quoting Mathew 19:12.  Why did Christ select some men who were married?  Married or celibate does not appear central to the issue.  Married life or celibate life does not impact one’s devotion to Christ for men or for women.  You are misguided if you think all nuns and priests are on their knees daily in prayer hours on end and visiting the sick day after day making themselves available 24x7.  Phone calls to rectory after 5pm are not returned until the next day.  You know yourself than many of these guys lead a fairly charmed life.  The days of St. John Vianney hearing confessions for 72 hours straight are over.

Peter was married.  You are telling us that Peter was less devoted to Christ because he was married.  The form of Peter’s death demonstrates otherwise.  There is a symbolism in Mathew 19:12.  For those who are able to “renounce” marriage for the sake of the Kingdom” —that is a fine thing.  For those who are unable to renounce marriage does not make that godly woman or that godly man LESS in God’s eyes than a priest.  We are all priests —a royal priesthood.

New Observer, Peter left his wife behind. What kind of a married life is that? Was she present at his crucifixion in Rome?

The days of St. John Vianney are NOT over, as the Lord continually brings to us new graces and new saints. John Paul II is an example of that.

You two REALLY lack faith in God’s supernatural plan and our responding to it.

We’re beating a dead horse here. God is in control, and celibacy isn’t going to change any time soon. Praise the Lord.

I have a family to take care of. Yall have a great evening.

liseux, so Peter said to his wife “See ya babe, I’m outta here—- have a nice life.”  Sure, liseux.  That is how Christ works in our lives?  Get a divorce for dissertion?  Preposterous.  You only presume such things.  Missionary events for the Gospel enabled the Apostles to leave and return home in the same way as their contemporaies do now.

Since you “have a family to to take care of” your logic thus would agree it is not possible for you to also be a godly wife and mother.  A celibate nun is of greater importance in God’s eyes than you are as a woman.  It’s OK.  I understand,—you were trained to think this way as a child in Catechism.  Most of us were trained to “think” the same way in Catholic grammar school by elitist nuns who were better than us.  And they were trained by those who came before them.  Every woman has a role in God’s eyes and no one is better than the other.  This includes women religious.

Cradle Catholic, New Observer and Carolyn, In the time of Peter, men were called away from their families.  It was part of their culture.  The sons or relatives would step in.  It was a great honor.  Look at how the prophets went where God sent them and called a son out of a family and annointed them. It is not as you try to make it sound. Your inflammatory language shows you know you are wrong about this issue.  As to married v. holy orders and religious life it isn’t a question of better. Everyone has a role in God’s plan.  St. Ann was supposed to be a mother and bring Mary into the world.  Mary was supposed to be a mother and bring Jesus into the world.  St. Theresa of the Child Jesus was called to be a religious. God has a plan and our job is to draw close to God and find out what He is asking of us.  You are voicing your opinions here and can write your pastor or Bishop, but there are spiritual realities you aren’t aware of or aren’t ready to admit.  Like the role of the Holy Spirit.  Cradle you keep saying you follow the Bible but the Bible says Jesus named Peter his successor and gave Him the keys of the kingdom. His successors HAVE the authority given by JESUS to guide the Church.  Yes we should speak out against error, but being celibate isn’t error.  It is done under the authority of the rightful succesor of Peter. The Catholic Church has been blessed with the fullness of truth and there are 2000 years of teaching.  There have been supernatural occurrences - visions and apparitions and they all have a bearing on this.  If we all grow in holiness we will go a long way to repairing the Church’s ills.

Hey!  New Observer:  I LOVED those nuns that taught me for 12 years!  And with Valentine’s Day coming up, I send each & every one of those lovely ladies a big hug, even if they’re 100 years old now!  Holy hugs to all!

Holy Family & Holy Cross were the orders with whom I was most familiar.  All were great; each lived in community.  Back then, none lived alone in an apartment, as they often do now.  With rare exceptions, it worked well.

So it may be (and I stress MAY be..) easier for women to remain celibate, than for men.  Of course, this comes from my standpoint as a woman, knowing that many women go, even to the ladies room in groups, many women love to go shopping in groups, the park, theater, dinner, etc, rarely alone, but rather, in groups - and not necessarily with men either.  No offense against males, but sometimes it’s just more FUN to go with a group of women.

So I can see where that MIGHT be a lifetime of serving; it could even be healthy for women.  If it’s not, it often results in nuns relying on alcohol, or perhaps lesbian nuns abusing other nuns.  I can’t imagine that happened with any of the nuns I knew when I was a kid, but most certainly, I know that did happen in other locations.  Any unhealthy behavior needed to be stopped, and pronto.  It wasn’t.  No one questioned back then. 

But even should women in community live and work together successfully, men play a huge ROLE in a woman’s life, whether celibate singles, or married, and also in the life of their children.  Women need a male’s perspective, for balance.  The ideal is for nuns to have a Holy Spirit-filled bishop, & even more healthy priests, to give a male’s perspective.

I have access to excellent, godly MALE advice, as do many married women.  But the fact is, right now we have a LOT of males in the ordained clergy, but few REAL MEN.  Most of our leaders are “man-boys” emotionally.

That’s why so many of them refuse to take responsibility, even when their decisions are bad, or wrong, pointing the fault-fingers at anyone but themselves.  A friend likes to say, “Perhaps they’re getting the yellow streaks up their spines repainted”, when some clergymen are away.

In terms of males being in big groups, “brother-priests” with NO female perspective, it’s just BAD, BAD, BAD.  This has resulted in too many man-boys, or an effeminate clergy - either homosexually oriented, or just weak in every way: emotionally, physically and even spiritually weak.  They are stunted.  They cannot lead.  No Holy Spirit-Fruit that’s evident.

Even God agreed with this saying about ADAM, “It is not good for man to be alone.”

As for St. John Vianney being in a confessional for 72 hours straight, hearing confessions until he keeled over from it: God does not ask that of anyone.  In fact, it’s downright unhealthy! 

Why do you suppose rabid Catholics that whip themselves into a frenzy about the loftiness of the priesthood, consider it so good to make oneself sick, and due to serving the church?  How is anyone served by such over-the-top behaviors?  It is unscriptural.

If anything, they are giving pew people an example of what NOT to do.  “My ways are not your ways” said the Lord. If only pew people and our church leaders would read Timothy and Titus.  All we need to know is right there.

I am coming to the conclusion that few leaders in our church, and hardly no one in the pews, understands Paul.  St. Paul is being totally ignored; his wisdom, given him straight from the Holy Spirit, is disregarded. How about every Catholic parish across America studying the letters of St. Paul - beginning with his letters to Timothy and Titus?!!  Now that’s the ticket!

Pam,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.  Yours is a far more reasoned disposition.

New Observer, you denigrate women with your last comment, “Since you “have a family to to take care of” your logic thus would agree it is not possible for you to also be a godly wife and mother.  A celibate nun is of greater importance in God’s eyes than you are as a woman.  It’s OK.  I understand,—you were trained to think this way as a child in Catechism.  Most of us were….”

No, I didn’t go to Catholic school. I went to public school where I defended my faith instead.

You also denigrated women with your previous comment that women were not allowed to comment on certain topics.  Quite a man. 

Is this the forte of the dissenting Catholic men on here?  Makes sense. That’s why the worldly Cradle is in league with those who persecuted St. Catherine of Hungary and St. Teresa of Avila.

They also lived by “My will be done” just like Cradle (and you).

As a mother who has responsibilities, I know God calls me to a great vocation, which posting long-winded diatribes on here like Cradle has time to do takes away from.

Remember, NO, it’s THY will be done, not “MY” will.

liseux, it is you—who need to own your own logic.  Your role as a godly woman, wife and mother are no less (or greater) than that of celibate nun who also serves God.  She is likewise not above you.  In God’s economy, only your roles are different.  Hopefully, you might like to rethink what you are saying.

And no, you are still unqualified to speak for how a man thinks since you are a woman.  Likewise, a man cannot begin to be an authority for how women think.

Cradle - It would seem that the area of the country where you live is vastly different than where I live. I live in the Northeast. Our Archbishop (Cardinal Rigali) is a wonderful, holy man. The priests that I know are dedicated and caring. Your perspective of the priesthood is quite sad.

You say:  “Women need a male’s perspective, for balance.  The ideal is for nuns to have a Holy Spirit-filled bishop, & even more healthy priests, to give a male’s perspective.”

I say: In terms of women religious they absolutely do not want a male perspective. As a matter of fact, the radical feminists among them (which are in great number) have almost single-handedly “destroyed” the Faith. They do not want men in their lives and are responsible for the gender neutral nonsense responses at mass that we hear to New Age practices. They live IN THE WORLD now and most of them are just as secular as everyone else. They don’t wear habits and blend in so that you would be hard-pressed to identify them as sisters.  Where has this gotten them? NO VOCATIONS. The traditional sisters who are detached from the world are booming with vocations. They are joyful instead of angry; and obedient instead of rebellious. They don’t want to change the Church; they want to build up the Church. So too, it is with priests. They are embracing celibacy as their gift to God for the greater good of the Church. There is absolutely no way they could balance family and the priesthood and be effective in both roles. Our Pastor “works” round the clock. What this all boils down to is this. If you are going to be a priest or a religious you must first know yourself before you make a commitment and second, once you do you are to be nothing less than obedient.

Pam - I loved your post!

New Observer, you brought up a valid point that we are all baptized into the three-fold ministry of priest, prophet, and king.

However, not all are called to the ministerial priesthood.

I will not try to say Mass, and won’t expect to do so, even though through my baptism I am of a royal priesthood.

No ordained priest, no Eucharist. I value and respect the ordained priesthood very much.

THAT IS WHY SO MANY ARE LEAVING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH - YOU ARE SO ARROGANT TO SAY THAT THE ONLY VALID MARRIAGE IS IN YOUR CHURCH…  SHAME ON YOU” Arrogance should not be part of the church. The problem is not the ones who are leaving, the problem is the church is arrogant from it’s mistakes and change.

liseux, I think we are on the right path after a few rocky exchanges.  In the culture we seek identity.  We are naturally and highly identified by what we do —Accountant, Office Worker, Pastor, Salesperson, Teacher, CEO, Bishop, Fireman, Clerk et al including the common (low self-esteem “I’m just a Housewife”).

For the Believer, it is the realization of not *WHAT* we are (WHAT we do) but moreover, it is **WHO** we are—in Christ.  We are first and foremost sons and daughters of the living God.  Our world may respect a Court Judge or a university professsor more than a Bank Teller, however God does not.  If we are in Christ, the Bible says “we are highly exaulted.”  My point being—regardless of role, it is WHO we are in God’s eyes.  You recall that Abraham was not a “high priest” and yet his obedience to the Lord was declared as righteousness. 

The positionary status of one’s occupational calling is irrelevant.  Priest, Housewife, Plumber, Missionary Nun, Semiconductor Engineer, etc all become irrelevant to God including those called to singleness and celibacy or the married life.  The Lord is not impressed by lofty earthly titles nor does He conversely look poorly on those whom “we” view as having mundane occupational callings.  It is *we* (in our humanity) who view such titles as high or low.  Thus, whatever we are called to do “in Christ Jesus” we do so with our best to serve and honor Him.  Catholic Clergy, Nun, Deacon, Protestant Pastor or Deaconess are of no greater value to God than are those not called to ministry.  It is not what we “do” but who we “are”—in Christ.

I value clergy and the role they serve.  However, my value to God is no less than theirs on the scale of importance.  For if we ever consider our own value is less, all one needs to do is look at the cross to see the price He paid on our behalf.

Jesus said in Luke 14:26, “If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus said “anyone”.  Jesus did not say only men fulfilling the role of pastors or bishops, and in the ordained ministry.  Jesus said anyone, meaning you and me, Liseux, and New Observer, MaryM, Cardinal Rigali, and Pope Benedict. 

Jesus asks us ALL to put Him first 24/7, & to offer ourselves and all our loved ones, our possessions, and our very LIFE, to Him, as a living sacrifice.  Or we are NOT his disciples.

Being Jesus’ disciple is to KNOW Him (through His Word), to LOVE Him, and to SERVE Him, by sharing the Good News of His Precious Blood being shed for our sin, so we can have a restored relationship with the Father, and have the Presence of the Holy Spirit live inside of us, enjoying Him forever.

It takes full submission to HIM, in order to be a family member of the Blessed Trinity, and a citizen of Heaven.  We hold nothing back.  Our pride is put on the altar, and sacrificed to Him, just as Jesus placed Himself on the Cross, as the Perfect Sacrifice to His Father, for our sake.  We are NOT our own.  We were BOUGHT with a Price.

Alvarez, the Catholic church DOES recognize valid marriages of other Christians.  If two Congregationalists for example have a valid marriage in their faith we recognize that.  Not sure what you mean.

New Observer, thanks for your post. I appreciate your point of view on this topic.

L. Alvarez, I’ve not heard of the Church stating that only Catholic marriages are valid.

I know that the Church recognizes the marriage of two Protestants. So much so that when they get a civil divorce and want to marry in a Catholic Church with a Catholic, the first marriage is an obstacle.

However, my brother married a divorced Anglican and the Church doesn’t recognize his marriage as a valid marriage. He was married by a JP and not even an Anglican priest.

Perhaps these types of invalid marriages are what you have in mind.

L Alvarez & liseux - Being involved in the RCIA program I am aware that the Church recognizes all marriages as valid with the exception of a Catholic who has married outside the church without a dispensation. It may have been that the Anglican Church required an Anglican to be married in the Anglican Church and not by a JP so that marriage was looked at as being invalid from an Anglican Church perspective.

Hello Mary M,

“Catholic who has married outside the church without a dispensation,” also includes Catholics marry baptized, divorced Christians, yes?

liseux, I believe you are correct with the lone exception being if your name is Kennedy.  You will recall a few years back Joe Kennedy received an annulment from the Boston Archdiocese to void his 12 year marriage to wife Sheila.  This was granted AFTER—after he had already married his Congressional Aide Elizabeth Kelly a few years earlier.

This is the problem.  Many “think” if the church says OK —then it’s OK.  The real question to be answered is what does God say?

This was an abuse, and there are others with the last name $$$$ and INFLUENCE for whom the same happens. The laity needs to speak out on this so that Church teaching is followed.

liseux, I agree with you.  Funny, the last time the laity really spoke out, Cardinal Law refused to listen until the peasants (laity) stormed the castle with their pitchforks.  And even then,—he was given a cushy position in the safe confines of the Vatican.  Go figure.

Liseux - What is the best way for the laity to speak out, in order for Church teaching to be followed?

I’m looking for effective methods of being heard 1) on a local level, 2)a national level & 3) a level great enough to reach the Vatican, so our lay voice will have an impact on the overall health of the greater Church, and as a result, trust brought back.

I agree with you that the last name $$$ and influence has become too pervasive in our church.  That happens in my parish too- with the A-list people being hand-picked for parish council, and otherwise godly men and women being disregarded.

But sitting back and just complaining or trying to handle issues merely at a parish level does not work.  I’ve seen more & more people just flock from parishes, going somewhere else to worship (other Catholic parishes) and people just leaving the Catholic church entirely, because we are not heard.

If we look at this in terms of pasturing sheep, it would be as if some sheep got disgusted with not being acknowleged by their shepherd, and they wandered off into another fold, hoping to be recognized and have their (spiritual) needs met there.  The original shepherd (parish) doesn’t even seem to notice sheep are wandering off. 

Bottom line: the scenario I describe is not the way pastoral overseeing is to be, according to the Bible.  Jesus went & found wandering sheep, and cared for them. Jesus acknowleged their existence, recognized them as living beings, nurturing them to health and (spiritual) life.

Jesus had no overlooked “pew people” in His sphere of influence.  Jesus didn’t just care for A-list sheep, those with $$$$ names and influence.
Outside of the obvious: prayer - how do we change this?

Cong. Joe Kennedy’s ex-wife Sheila was so angry at how she and her twin sons by Kennedy were treated by her diocese, she wrote a book, drawing the Vatican’s attention.  I believe the diocese decision was overturned, and HOW annulments are given was affected, as a result.

How can all the folks on this blog, average pew people, have similar influence?  While we disagree on some things about our church, I’m sure all of us care about making it healthier.  Our intentions are honorable.

I heard about that book and saw an interview with her. I sided with her- the Episcopalian whi didn’t want a divorce. 

I write letter to my bishop, the bishops council, and sometimes Benedict XVI.  I realize this is just on an individual level.

One way to get a message out more broadly is to write a letter to the editor, of say… The National Catholic Register.

Beyond that, I’m sure there are other groups out there committed to making a difference and being heard on Church teaching matters.

Maybe others have ideas?

Hello liseux - All Catholics are bound to be married in the Catholic Church regardless of who they marry. Catholics cannot marry anyone in the Church if they or their intended spouse has a prior marriage and that marriage has not been presented for review to determine if there are grounds for an annulment. So, if a Catholic were to attempt marriage to a divorced Christian it could not take place in the Catholic Church without the prior marriage issue being resolved. If the couple decided to marry outside the Catholic Church their marriage would be considered invalid from the Catholic Church’s perspective and the Catholic spouse could not present him/herself for reception of the Sacraments.

That’s what I was t’inking!

Leave it to the Register’s Jimmy Akins and Co. to provide an ever joyous mix of Roman scourgers and Salem witch hunters. The priest is gone. Let him go. He admitted he messed up and that was a hell of a lot better than what a lot of child-abusing creeps who dragged the Church through a lot worse in terms of its reputation. Some of you folks, from Akins on down, would keelhaul a dead man. Remember the Our Father and the parable about the debtor who couldn’t wait to trash the next guy who owed him dough…but more importantly, remember what happened to him when his lord found out he couldn’t be as merciful in turn to the debtor who owed him money.

You’re going to BLOW MORE PEOPLE OUT OF THE CHURCH than bring them in. Nice going. Presiding Bishop Schori will love ya for it!

To Carolyn Hyppolite and New Observer-

Earlier in this discussion, we spoke about how only males understand what it is like to be a celibate male.  Women are not able to give a first-hand testimony of a lifestyle of celibacy for a man.  Women could only GUESS what it would be like, and most likely, women would guess wrongly.

Secondly, somewhere in this blog or in another blog on this topic, a poster (I thought it was New Observer) wrote that only a woman should counsel a woman, and a male priest is better off not being alone with a woman ever, for any reason. 

Well, New Observer (or the person writing that post) was 100% correct.  Fr. Thomas Euteneuer’s statement this week is proof positive that no priest should be counseling a woman, alone, and for ANY reason.

Fr. E was instrumental in the Pro-Life movement; I recently heard him speak about Family Values at a parish I was visiting.  He was wonderful.  What a shame.  His ministry for Pro-Life and Family Values is over.  He admitted to inappropriate behavior with one woman, but there are reports that there may be others.  Time will tell.

Facts are that in recent days, he began to do exorcisms and he even wrote two books on the subject.  He released a statement this week that he participated in an indescretion with one woman who was coming to him for counseling, for exorcisms.

What a shame.  The man is obviously not homosexual.  He is obviously not a child molester.  But he found someone needing counseling that involved exorcism appealing?  Something is wrong.  Very, very wrong. Carolyn - I hope you are discussing this on your blog. 

Earth to the Vatican - it’s time to READ the Bible and OBEY what it says about qualifications specific to men in the ordained ministry.  End mandatory celibacy now.  Any priest, bishop or pope, should be able to marry a woman at any time in their life.  Give a woman her rightful place in the church, as the wife of a clergyman.

Fr. Cutie was only vocal when his relationship was outed.  Fr. Euteneuer was unceremoniously called back by his bishop, and his wonderful work in Pro-Life issues and Family Values teaching, halted.  And well it should be.  He is no longer qualified to be a church representative.  How sad.

But what can we expect?  God is not honoring an institution that refuses to HEED His specific instructions in the Bible about the qualifications for our leaders.  How many black eyes do we need to endure, before the Vatican gets the message?

Cradle, He was a priest who succumbed to temptation instead of fleeing it.  No more no less.  No need to marry off the whole priesthood because some fall.  No need to start a nation of only women and a nation of only men. You are not open to God’s will in this.  God bless.

Pam - I totally agree with you. Temptation is everywhere and it touches everyone including priests and satan found a good one to tempt.

CC - The Catholic Church is not an institution. She is the Church of which Christ is her head. As Jesus promised, the Holy Spirit would be with her.
As I have said before as Catholics we do not base the Catholic faith on the Bible alone.

I just want to make two points:

1. From the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, “Ecclesiasticus 15: 21 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man licence to sin.” I don’t testify against Father Cutie. The bible bears testimony against him. And for that matter to any of us who thinks that the warm, cozy, loving thing that lead us to sin is somehow approved by God or worse, that we were not sinning at all.

2. While I admire Cradle Catholic’s views, I also agree with what the others say that being own’s authority on Scripture interpretation is a dangerous thing. Who will correct your error? Even if you say that the Holy Spirit will correct you, there still remains the question as to how the Holy Spirit will work to correct your error.

As a Catholic if you reject just one of the solemn, official statements of the Church because you feel strongly that it oppose what you decide Scripture to mean and then you still continue to receive the Sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist dispensed by this very same Church, aren’t you heaping condemnation on your head?

For myself, also a bible-reader, between my interpretation of Scripture and the Church’s Magisterium, shall I exalt my own? Shall the Church be in error while I be in the right? Even if there is a shred of doubt that a Church official teaching may be in error to my mind, would I assume that the Holy Spirit want me reject that teaching of the pillar and foundation of truth which is the Church? Even if the Church has been wracked from the inside with its own wayward clergy, would I doubt the promise of our Savior when he said that he will be with the Church until the end of time? That no force of evil will prevail against it?

Do I stand to judge the body of Christ, or do the body of Christ stand to judge me?

To:  DR-C re your post on Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 3:20am EST:

You highlight some valid points, but therein also points out a problem for the Believer.  Jesus said in John 16: 13 ““But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”  NOTE:  the emphasis on “disclose to YOU—which is personal.  The words of Christ, not someone else.

I do not accept that the Holy Spirit speaks only via the Magesterium.  By the words of Jesus, He says the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, not “some” truth,—but all truth.  Jesus does not say He will speak ONLY through a select group of men for intrepretation and distribution.  If you believe that the Holy Spirit only speaks through the Magesterium you are denying the Gospel passage above which says the Holy Spirit will also speak directly to you personally, ...as well.  Logically, we must stop reading Scripture because the Holy Spirit only visits the Magesterium rather than the hearts and minds of mere men.  John 17: 17 “Thy Word is Truth.”

You say you would not doubt the promise of our Savior that He would be with the church in the end time.  Amen.  And I presume you include all members including those “in Christ” Protestants who do not accept that the Holy Spirit only works and reveals truth to Catholic church officials.

New Observer,

The Church does not teach that the Holy Spirit teaches only through the magisterium. She teaches that the deposit of faith has come down to us through Holy Scripture, the teaching of the popes, and through magisterial teaching.

No one of these could exist without the other- similar to the Trinity.

We only know that John 17:17 is scriptural truth because of the Holy Spirit working through the Church- that is, the Councils of the Church and her popes deciding which books of the NT were inspired or not.

So, like a three-legged stool, if we pull out one of these pillars or legs, the entire structure collapses.

Liseux - But of the three-legged stool, what if there is no unity in it?  One leg - Scripture, ought to be the gold standard of measure, with the other two legs measured by it.

But instead, we have the leg of Scripture, and a completely DIFFERENT size, shape and style leg for Tradition; yet another size, shape and style leg for the Magesterium, and THAT leg continues to grow, and change shape, depending on who’s in charge at the time.

What a weird stool we have!  One where people will fall off, and get hurt.  And that’s what’s happening.  I pray Benedict, with his expertise in church history, will go back to the “leg” (The Deposit of Faith, left to us in Scripture, and handed down to us - in context and in full - by the apostles), and measure the other two legs by it.  Then there will be consistency, and unity as well = because even most Bible-believing non-Catholic churches are in unity about the imporant points - about matters that have ETERNAL VALUE.

By NOT following the truths of Scripture (and by putting Tradition and Magesterium in PLACE of Bible truths) the entire structure IS collapsing.
Worst of all - there is NO trust in our church, and there can never be, until our Magesterium goes back to the basics of recognizing Jesus is at the Head.

By giving Peter the “keys”, Jesus did not mean to hand over a set of car keys to a Maserati, for men that came AFTER Peter to take for a spin, and to drive recklessly, in a manner that disregards God Himself.

The entire church ought not be at the mercy of mere men.  By our agreeing to obey (pray, pay and obey, with no questions asked…) we face the problems that come with it, and we face the financial collapse of our parishes and dioceses as well.  Ignore God? We must be prepared to pay.

CC, because God chose to use the magisterium of the Church as well as the popes to give us the New Testament, Holy Scripture is not a gold standard above and beyond the other two pillars.

From what I understand, it is on an equal level with the other two.

The New Testament did not fall out of the sky, nor did it come with a Table of Contents. It was the Church, along with many of our early saints-  St. Augustine, St. Jerome, who determined which books were canonical and which were not.

The Early Church passed around the letters of Pope St. Clement I, the Shepherd of Hermas, and other “gospels” and these were read during Mass in some areas. When the bishops questioned why some manuscripts were read in some areas, a movement began to have unity in the readings.

Thus, over decades, the New Testament canon was gathered, and much discussion was held as to what was inspired or not.

Magisterial teaching and the pope’s counsel were used to determine what you call the “Gold Standard.” 

That makes them an integral part of the picture, and they still are today.

That’s why the Catholic Church hasn’t accepted homosexual relationships as biblical, female priests, abortion as “therapuetic” and other items accepted by mainstream, cultural Christianity.

We need the three legged stool. Our brethren are sitting on the ground, as their chair was broken long ago.

liseux: you wrote, “That’s why the Catholic Church hasn’t accepted homosexual relationships as biblical, female priests, abortion as “therapuetic” and other items accepted by mainstream, cultural Christianity.”

I am glad to see the Catholic church and Christian Evangelicals are in full agreement and together on this.  You ought to get out and meet these people sometime.  You would be pleasantly surprised regarding how much you have in common.  Not on everything, but more than you might have once thought.

New Observer, some evangelicals might be in agreement on these items. Some that I know are not, as they accept abortion as birth control, priestesses, etc.

I pray that we may one day be one in spirit and body, as in the Body of Christ.

Cradle it seems your hang up is that the Church is headed by human beings, but that is actually not the case.  It is headed by Jesus Christ and the Pope is lead by the Holy Spirit in matters of morals and religion.  It is this truth that you seem to struggle with in alot of posts.  Grace exists.  It is more real than the earth you see. So while men might be inclined to something, if it is not God’s will for the Church, the Holy Spirit will watch over the Church.  “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it.”  You are carrying a heavy burden of mistrust.

Pam - I do carry a heavy burden of mistrust.  If St. Peter and the other eye-witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were still at the helm, I’d have no problem with following their lead.

But our church is not being led by the Holy Spirit.  It is being led by men, and men with huge failings.  In fact, when St. Peter was being a hypocrite, and St. Paul took him to task for it, Peter knew Paul was right, and Peter changed his ways. (Acts of the Apostles, Council of Jerusalem, with St. James acting as spokesperson in that decision.)

That would never happen today.  Our church leaders REFUSE to admit they are wrong about anything.  They cover up for each other, playing pew people, for fools.  For the most part, we are fools.  We refuse to even question them - St. Paul would have NO CHANCE of ever questioning John Paul II on anything.  JPII would tell St. Paul, “It is not discussible.”

One big blunder was how JPII refused to allow even an investigation into Fr. Marcial Maciel and the allegations made against him.  He was JPII’s friend.  The Holy Spirit was NOT behind JPII, when he was protecting a man that not only had credible allegations of abuse against him, but a man that fathered one (and maybe more) children out of wedlock, all the while posing as a privileged Vatican insider, and a “man of God.”

I find it odd that a reason for NOT putting the Bible on a high platform is that men wrote it, when many of them were eye-witnesses, and yet, the same people put MEN on a high platform, but men hailing from the Middle Ages, or the year 2011, or from men that were alive in the year 400.  It’s just silly.  I obey God, not men.  If St. Peter and St. Paul, St. James, Timothy and Titus were still in charge, I’d follow them, in a heartbeat.  Those men were TRUSTWORTHY.  Those men feared God.  Those men were really being led by the Holy Spirit.  Their fruit proved it.

liseux, my sister-in-law is Evangelical.  Evangelicals do not accept women priestesses nor abortion.  Paul’s teaching is strictly followed and I have questioned and had discussions with members of her church at social occasions in her home.  Women as Pastors/Teachers, abortion as birth control is totally not accepted as church teaching.  People may still do as they please as even some Catholics do not follow church teaching since we live in a free country.

Evangelical Christianity is completely different than Mainline Protestant denominations where you have liberal wings of Episcopalians and Methodists who have some gay and lesbian Pastors and even marry homosexuals.  Please not confuse Evangelicals with these other people.  As a voting block, Catholics and Evangelicals could change this nation for the better.  It is the media that enjoys segregating Christians to advance their own goals by focusing on things which divide us.

I am glad your sister-in-law is closer to the truth than some of the Evangelicals I know. 

Evangelical Lutherans do accept abortion, and the ones I know are no different from the other Christians who’ve voted for their truth rather than searching the scriptures for it.

From the Evangelical Lutheran website: “A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse.[E] This is especially true in cases of rape and incest.

This can also be the case in some situations in which women are so dominated and oppressed that they have no choice regarding sexual intercourse and little access to contraceptives. Some conceptions occur under dehumanizing conditions that are contrary to God’s purposes.”

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Abortion.aspx

This last paragraph makes man more powerful than God, and frankly, I disagree with that. Every child conceived is ALLOWED to be conceived by God and has a purpose only God knows.

Perhaps these Lutherans should stop voting for truth and/or remove the “Evangelical” from their name.

Also, I was really surprised at all the references to birth control on their site. God is a God of love and fruitfulness, not death and barreness. 

Does the Protestant relial on birth control, rather than self-control and biblical example trouble you?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church is not “evangelical” since the Lutheran Church was founded well before the evangelical movement. It is considered a mainline protestant Church.

Do you think they should take the “Evangelical” from their name? Is there a difference for them?

No, the “evangelical movement” has an understanding of what it means to be “evangelical” but that does not mean they have a copyright on the word.  There are Anglicans who consider themselves to be evangelicals. They are Catholics who call themselves evangelical to link to this specific movement. But the ELCA had that name before any of those people.

We will just have to do our homework to be keep it all straight:).

Peace,
Carolyn H.

Cradle, The Church is STILL lead by the Holy Spirit. Please stop disregarding the Vision of Pope Leo XIII.  God ALLOWED Satan 100 years!  Why would God do that?  The only reason I can come up with is that God is Love and Lucifer was his first-born Angel and even now God wants Lucifer to understand Him and see his (Lucifer’s) error. He wants Him to see that he is wrong and God’s LOVE is more powerful than ALL OTHER FORCES!  So you have grown up in a time when the Church and the whole world was SIFTED LIKE PETER.  Have FAITH.  God is not leaving things like this.  One of two things WILL happen: either Christ will return very soon for HIS Church or men WILL repent.  Both options are wonderful!  Come back home and be part of it and help it come about!!!

liseux, I am glad we are having this discussion.  Southern Baptists in the Bible belt typically define themselves as Evangelical, but Carolyn is correct that Lutherans are only co-opting the name.  My experience is that the majority of Evangelicals are non-denominational and operate as a community church in town.  Except for disagreement about the Pope, transubstantiation and purgatory, Baptists and most Evangelicals would welcome any Catholic with open arms before many of these mainline Protestant denominational beliefs.  btw, the National Council of Churches often cited by the media regarding how Americans view faith issues —are totally left wing.  You will find no Evangelical church aligning with the National Council of Churches nor will you find Baptists there as well.  The media will attempt to fool the unsuspecting public that many of “our” Christian churches are now embracing women pastors or performing homosexual unions.  NOT.

There is media slant also when the issue of gay marriage is in the news. The first images now on TV reporting pepper us with continual video of gays and lesbians at City Hall holding hands in front of a magistrate and then kissing on the mouth.  You and I will never accept this, but the continual images over time are designed to affect our young so by the time they are adults they will be immune to this abnormal behavior and accept it as just another life choice.  Our young are the target audience, not us.

I have that book ‘Dilemma’ it is a must read, Fr. Cutie is straight to the point and tells the truth about the Catholic church and all of it’s hypocricy because that is just what it is, this Pope I cannot wait for the 15th April 2012 when he resigns, I just hope the next Pope does not have the sme views or more really good priests will be resigning too.
Thank you