This is where I think the Catholic church gets it wrong. It should never be a sin for a man to marry and raise a family. I'm not Catholic but I have many wonderful catholic friends and have worked with them in charity work. They are great people. But this one point seems very wrong to me. Priests should be an example of what families are supposed to be like. Not just encourage good families in spite of themselves.

I'd think it would be an advantage to live in the same reality as the people you're telling how to live. Right now, having a priest do family counseling is like having a vegetarian butcher pick out a tasty steak for ya.

Geez, what a SCANDAL! A man that is married with kids!!! What is the Catholic church coming to.

So, a bishop who has consentual sex with an adult resigns.

Priests who rape children are allowed to continue being priests.

Really?

Priests and politicans in California are almost the same. He should contact the former CA Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately.

@HairFarmer Perhaps you haven't heard. . . Jesus rose from the dead

After all, doing it to a young boy doesn't violate your celibacy.

"I am wondering what is it about the cloth that makes it so appealing for a woman to sleep with a Priest."

I am wondering what it is about the vows a priest took, that make it so hard to follow?

You seem to be confused about who's in the drivers seat here...surely, women arent stripping nake during sunday mass trying to be the one to de-virginize the priests...

so Derek, was it the woman's fault he did not uphold his vows of celibacy? You sound very judgemental of her. I find fault with the church and their archaic views that human sexual behavior is wrong or sinful. Humans are attracted to one another. It is the church that needs to reevaluate their rules.

This is why Catholic priests should be allowed to marry and have families like all other religions. Men, by nature... nature, are sexual hunters. Putting a big no-no on that is just begging for trouble, as we have clearly seen time and time and time again. Look at all the molestations and abuse we've HEARD about. I cringe to know what we don't know, who hasn't stepped forward.

Let these people marry and have children. The Catholic church needs to step forward into the 21st century. Oh, and btw, I'm Catholic.

Whelp, I guess NFP isn't 100% effective then, eh?

The Catholic Church, these people in robes claiming to people "of God", has a decades long policy of hiding known pedophiles, and even moving them to "new" locations to prey on children over and over - and people continue to follow "the beliefs" and leaders of the this "Church."

There is NO excuse what-so-ever for what the "leadership" of the Catholic Churchas has done against the children and families of the people who placed their trust in them; knowingly placing pedophiles and child rapists in their midsts. Let me say the again "KNOWINGLY placing" pedophiles in their midst.

My question is: why has this only been uncovered in the United States? Can you possibly imagine what the poor children in countries like South America are going through still today where there is no legal system in place to stop it! No one ever asks that question - even though more and more is uncovered even after so many broken promises to put an end to it.

Why people have ANYTHING to do with the Catholic Church anymore is simply beyond me. Pathetic in my book.

Celibacy, was instituted in the 4th century, to keep the clergy from gathering wealth to pass on to their family's and children, thus depriving the Church of it's revenue; it is out of date and must be changed; the Vatican has now allowed married pastors of other faiths to convert to Catholic and become Catholic priests and remain married; if the Catholic Church wants to exist in the next century it will do away with celibacy.

It's almost refreshing to see a priest get in trouble and there are no traumatized altar boys involved.

It is a bit odd, however, that a priest who has his own children gets fired while all the priests who 'had' other people's children simply got job transfers.

If God is a mystery man in the sky, how can Zuckerberg have a soul? Just askin.

BrownsBacker: I know you know the answer to your question but I'll spell it out for those who don't:

Preists, and their bosses on up to the Pope, don't follow the church's teachings because it's all crap and they are fully aware of that fact. Anyone who believes in the actual existence of hell would NEVER molest children. If there's a vengeful god, if this god finds every child precious, then there would be no last minute forgiveness for repeat offender child rapers. There would be a special place in hell reserved just for them.

But there is no god, vengeful or otherwise, there is no hell, special place or otherwise. Period. They know it and they bugger kids with impunity, not for an imagined immunity.

That said, people do NOT need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven to be good people. These child molesters would be bad people regardless of whether they believe or not. They've just found a sanctuary for their evil deeds in the catholic church.

If these priests/cardinals/popes were held accountable for their actions by our legal system instead of being allowed to be protected, then they'd at least be locked up in jail. Not as bad as hell, perhaps, but close enough. Especially when the other inmates discover what these pedophiles were up to on the outside.

Are you kidding? Do you know how much it would have cost the "church" to support preists and nuns if they were allowed to have families? Celibacy means more money for the "church".

He probably would have been protected better by the Catholic leadership had he been a pedophile. Seriously, I really believe this is true.

The Catholic Church are the biggest bunch of hypocrites going.

And it's probably true wherever these little empires are being grown whether it's a Church, Penn State football, or the boy scouts!!!! Beware the empires of men....

well considering that NOWHERE in the christian bible does it say they are suppossed to be celibate leaders of the church with nuns and all that, itd be better if they just followed example, i mean according to their own history in the bible the high adn low priests of god in his own personal temple all were allowed to have families, it was encouraged.

...surely, women arent stripping nake during sunday mass trying to be the one to de-virginize the priests...

Sadly, no . . . but it sure would spice up their "Catholics Come Home" tv ad campaign.

And the award for longest post that no one will ever read goes to....FLAG WAVER!!!!

How does this award make you feel? Do you think it lessens the joy because you know nobody will ever read all of it? How are you going to top this?

Enquiring minds really want to know....

Or not.

Flag waver

There is no excuse for copying and pasting the ENTIRE Internet.

I enjoy debate on either side of a topic. But, far as I am concerned, people like "Flag Waver" should be banned from Newsvine.

A little history. the original Christian Church had no requirement of celibacy. In fact, most of the members of the earliest church members were more concerned with the the husband and wives being equally bound. Celibacy began to creep in in the 2nd century and became more prevelant in the 3rd. It wasn't really codified until the Council of Carthage in 394. Even then, enforcement was inconsistent. Even as late as 888, the Councils of Metz and Mainz had to admonish priest about living with their spouses even if they were continent. Finally, in 1123 the First Lateran Council forbid anyone in the priesthood from marriage and it wasn't until the Second Lateran Council that required celibacy.

In short, the early and original church had no problem with marriage. It took over a century to get to the point where celibacy of the priesthood was considered canonical. Of course, there were always those who disagreed and one of the resls was that the reformation saw splinter denominations return to marriage among the priesthood.

This isn't surprising. But I worry aobut the kids.

let them marry and let women be priests.

@Hairfarmer

'Jesus is rolling in his grave over this for sure!'

I don't know if you were trying to be funny or not but everyone knows that Jesus is not dead. He was seen by over 500 people when He was resurrected from the dead. 500 people can't be wrong.

@HairFarmer

Even though you and I disagree about the Resurrection of Jesus (without which there would be no Christianity) I DO agree with your statement "Too bad his followers can't stop making his legacy look so bad." What this says to me is that Priests, nuns, monks, bishops and all other ordained Catholic clergy should be allowed to marry. No prohibition in the Bible about this. In fact originally Catholic clergy could marry. This tradition came later.

I'm not religious but the whole celibacy thing is the problem. Ditch the celibacy and let them be normal. It creates problems and accomplishes nothing.

500 people were standing there when he approached Mary from outside the tomb?

Hairfarmer,

Right on! Very funny and thanks again for proving what humorless lemmings the religious are.

@Ayesha: "500 people were standing there when he approached Mary from outside the tomb?" No that appearance came later according to 1 Corinthians 15:3-6. "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." By "fallen asleep" Paul meant they had died. And by the way this is not intend as hate speech. I certainly don't hate you or HairFarmer (I got his joke). Just posting my side of the issue. Like I said before. Let the priests, nuns, etc marry.

Looking at all the hate speech here makes me sad. To all the athiests posting here: just because you do not believe does not make your hate speech any less offensive. Take your language and turn it around - apply it to you - and see if you would call it offensive and hate-filled. And before you start in on how you were called hateful terms in the past, or even the present, does not give you the right to be hatefule and throw hate-filled insults around like you have.

The issue of hypocrisy is not with the Catholic church (at least not in this scenario)! It is the priest who didn't respect the vows he took. I personally don't think it is a big deal to work for God and still marry & procreate, but this guy wasn't forced into his role. He knew what he signed up for and he still broke the rules. In this case: don't hate the game, hate the player.

He could have very easily converted to the Anglican/Episcopalian church and became a Bishop there if he wanted carnal pleasures, a wife & family. If he decided to not to become an Episcopalian Orthodox priest he could have even married after he took those vows. The Anglican church's beliefs are very similar to that of Roman Catholics so he could have had everything he wanted. But he tried to have it both ways, so don't blame the church for him being greedy.

Why is his former church paying for his kids' college education though? Has he not supported them over the last 15+ years? The money should go to a needy person that is NOT a giant fraud!!!!

let me get this straight..........they get rid of the family guy and keep the pedafiles.

Got to have your priorities!

This guy must be one of those FAMILY VALUES loving REPUBLICANS...Perpetually living a lie, ie... do as I say-Not as I do!

@Jessica (who is making a lot more sense than Angie, posting right below her): Its not a matter of who makes decisions, in the sense that you could say the same thing for a Nun frock. I mean, the question is what is so appealing about the outfit of a person sworn to celebacy?

And yes, I wonder exactly what the heck is so hard for a Priest to have the sense to give up his career over wrecking his religion? But in this case, it is more a matter of whoever (man or woman) would desire to sleep with said celebite (a word? you get the point).

TYLER! Can you please remove that long post?

When are we finally going to dump the refuse we know as religion down the toilet....?

Derek, Blaming this on women? Wow, no issues there, eh?

I left the Catholic Church in the 9th grade when a priest decided to beat me over something stupid. When this lame religion (like all organized religion) comes out of the dark ages and allows priests to marry, 90% of their problems will be solved.
A lot of "sane" priests left the church to start the Old Roman Catholic Church. They allow their priests to marry and have accepted more modern views.
I'm not a member of that either but at least they're smart enough to know what's going on in the modern world of religion.

I need links to prove that Jesus arose...Or it never happened...I only believe things I can see on the net. If it can be linked from a worthy source...Such as wikipedia, or perhaps even snopes...I will accept that as proof...Merely reading it in a bible proves nothing...Anyone can get one of those things at any cheap motel.

As to Greg...I am sorry to admit...I did not do well in Sunday School. My parents tried. I was raised by Christians, went to a private school...And yet...I am agnostic...It could be that as educated myself, I began to realize that religion is really just a form of control. I am not against it, if you would like to follow...But I am okay with just having the freedom to live my life without fear of judgement. I do believe in karma...Because I have experienced it from both sides. I do my best to treat people as I would expect to be treated....

Anyways...Jesus was a convicted felon. Everyone knows that right? ;)

Good that the church is taking care of the family. I wonder if the church will allow him to remain a Catholic? Anyway this is another reason that the Church teaches us to put our faith in God not in man. I would say he neglected the family more than his vows because they were in another state. The Catholic church is not subject to the teachings of the bible, rather to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and those teaching have been handed down from the very people that walked with him and made so many mistakes. Those are the true teachings of the Catholic Church, the bible was written many years later and the other religions have been formed by groups that wanted a change in the rules.

Jesus is/was also the first Zombie look up Zombie on WikiPedia and you'll find the definition and it fits....

Links on the internet... lol... That's the best idiocy I've read today...

Miner, it's called hush money!

I was unaware that Jesus was the first Zombie...But if it was on the net...It must be true....LOL

Ah...You smell that? Sarcasm...It smells like...Funny, only it burns...Like napalm in the morning....

;)

Priests have not always been required to be celibate. In fact there were even popes that had wives and families. The Apostle Peter whom many consider to be the first Pope was married and had children. The "requirement" that priests remain celibate seems to have been first debated sometime in the 4th century. After that time, there were priests that were married before they became ordained priests. However, they were expected to remain celibate just as their unmarried colleagues. However, as I stated above even Popes were married and had children in the middle-ages...This is the same period of time that the papacy could be purchased.

Is there a particular reason why everyone is assuming that the mother of these teenaged children was not a "child" when these children were conceived?

Perhaps because most Americans believe in "innocent until proven guilty"? Why should we not assume it? If a co-worker down the hall becomes a father, do you immediately assume that the mother was underaged?

They also say obama was born in America, but we know that is false too.

Nice!

Priests should be allowed to have sex with a consenting adult. A sexually frustrated Priest is not good for the church. Sex is one of the most wonderful things God ever created, or for you non-believers, one of the greatest highlights of human existense!

I'm still waiting for Pope Coitus the first.

Well here we go again. As a Catholic I am offended that the Church now will support the childrens higher education. My contributions would support a bishops illegitimate family. Sounds similar to the U.S. welfare system. Why can't he go out and get a job & do it himself now that he doesn't have duties in the Church? Not one time has the Church helped my family thru illness, loss of work, death, education, vacation, etc. I don't contribute anymore, but give elsewhere locally where I can see the good from it, firsthand. I agree with the responses about pedifiles being transferred vs this situation.

On a visit to Rome many years ago, we struck up a conversation at a local restaurant with a visiting U.S. priest. He was on Sabbatical(vacation) had all expenses paid by the Church, had dinner with the Pope & was having a good time living the high life. Even mentioned the menu. He said he visited regularly. He also didn't have a parish at home. Maybe he just wandered around freeloading, because that is what it sounded like. Made me think twice about what my contributions were being used for. That sealed my wallet.

However, it is a problem when you want to be called priest and be married at the same time, and asking people to change the law, etc to suit your needs. It's just mean you are feeling insecure about your choice and forcing people to swallow it so you can feel fit-in.

Have you noticed that young people are leaving the Church in droves? Young men and women don't want to be priests and nuns. Why? Because of the harsh, unyielding demands the Church makes. Let's see...which King was it that wanted to divorce and couldn't because it was prohibited within the Church? What did he do...well he started his own religion. Episcopalians are much like the Catholic religion with the exception that priests and nuns can be married. Would it really be too much to ask that the Catholic Church follow this example?

I was married Catholic (under duress from MIL) How can a nun and priest lecture to me on sex and well rounded happy marriage when they've never had it? How can they say that my child from that marriage, that ended in divorce is not a real child now?? Values are mixed up. Change the religion to fit the times and the Church could thrive again!

I have more respect for this guy than I do anyone left at the Vatican.

They promote the raping of children by hiding and moving pedophile priests.

There is nothing biblical about celibacy for priests, bishops, nuns,etc. The 12 disciples had spouses. The first priests and popes were married with children. The Bible is actually silent on the question if Jesus was married.

Celibacy was an invention in the middle ages (by man, not God) to prevent the church from owning all the property and passing it on to the heirs of priests. If priests could not reproduce, the problem went away.

I am a firm believer in tradition based on principles of the Bible. This man made tradition needs to be eliminated for the good of the church and the good of young children everywhere.

It's humanly impossible for a healthy man to keep it in his pants (or robes) 100% of the time.

Most Catholics practice their faith in a very Episcopalian way. Not many follow the Pope on issues like birth control etc. and the Pope knows it. Without celibacy, birth control, priiest being allowed to marry etc. The entire church would just be Episcopalian and not need a Pope and is Italian mob.

As a 'cradle Catholic' I must say that I am incredibly disappointed in this. However, there are some things I have to say.
Firstly, I can't believe that the Church is paying for this guy's kids! He made them, he should pay for them.

Secondly, the Church does not "force people to be celibate" as so many seem to think. It's not like these people became priests and then found out that they had to 'abstain.' They knew going into the seminary that they would have to remain celibate. Many don't become priests for this reason. So, blaming the Church as a whole is ridiculous.
It isn't "impossible" for people to remain celibate. True, celibacy isn't for everyone, but that's why those people don't become priests.
And there are many reasons why priests remain celibate. One of the big ones does have to do with money: priests generally don't make enough to support a family. Also, it is accepted that priests should be 'married' to the priesthood. Their jobs (which sadly, some fail to perform) don't allow them to be 'family men'

Thirdly, I wish people would remember that not all priests are pedophiles. That kind of blind generalization is like saying that all Penn State coaches are pedophiles. It just doesn't work.

It Kinda of surprises me, that all anyone is talking about is how the priest and celibacy and what is right.

DOES ANYONE FIND IT STRANGE THAT THE CATHOLICS REFER TO THE POPE AS THE 'HEAVENLY FATHER' !!!!!!!

I am sorry but my Baptist teachings say the "HEAVENLY FATHER" is in Heaven, not Rome.

Maybe Catholicism should take DADT for a spin? See how it feels? Watch the incidents of sexual indiscretion fall.

As far as I know your Baptist teaching is correct. I have never heard the Pope called Heavenly Father; maybe Holy Father...

Some of his titles include:
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God, but I can't find a record of anyone calling him Heavenly Father.

If you can, tell me...

Killerteam -

"They also say obama was born in America, but we know that is false too."

-Because everybody knows [a la Phaedra, RHOA] that Hawaii is a foreign country.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that priests can't marry. It says if you can go without sex, it's better to remain celibate so you can focus entirely on God.

You'd think the church that heralds itself as the "one true church" would possess better reading comprehension when it comes to the Bible.

Toosano, you misread my post. Sorry. The rest of your point makes no sense based on that.

The bible teaches ONLY those that HAVE been married are qualified to run a church.

Doug In Reno-2751675

@Ayesha: "500 people were standing there when he approached Mary from outside the tomb?" No that appearance came later according to 1 Corinthians 15:3-6. "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." By "fallen asleep" Paul meant they had died. And by the way this is not intend as hate speech. I certainly don't hate you or HairFarmer (I got his joke). Just posting my side of the issue. Like I said before. Let the priests, nuns, etc marry.

And how do you "know" what Paul meant?? He told you?? All you are doing is adding your interpretation to a book that has little or no value.

As to the comment that 500 people cannot be wrong. ROFLMAO Only an idiot would believe such a remark.

you are correct it did say "resignation to the Holy Father in Rome" But still the Holy Father is in Heaven not Rome...

Well the guy should be pope-not that imatters. Here's a guy who didn't acknowledge the family until they were teenagers and had years to do it. Now that they are practically grown it's hard for anyone to say much.

And what about ethics here-about living a lie? Does that count or not. Maybe it does, because to be a Christian you need to forgive and move on. and what a better way to move on and promote forgiveness is to name him pope.

Eric Hoffer once said the greatest sinners, often become the greatest saints.

Retirement and Spokenite;
Organized religion sure is a double edged sword, yea?
Maybe you need to find a better way to spend your money. It's not like you can buy your way into heaven.

Derek, The rest of my post makes no sense? Every bit of it is true. Try rereading it with glasses on, or maybe have your mom explain it to you.

Humans have made up bullsh*t religions as long as control of people has been needed.
Catholicism is just one that took hold, as have the rest.

Hairfarmer: The "turning in his grave" line is one of my favorite jokes; excellent post. Also loved the ZZ Top reference, "Jesus just left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans". You've really got them eating out of your hand on this one. Keep up the good work.

Did you all miss the paragraph about the church giving "spiritual" support, not to mention regular old money, to the family, who, according to the archdiocese, wants to maintain their anonimity? Or could it be that the college is tuition is the price of silence that the church is more than willing to fork over? Sorry for my skepticism, but the Catholic church so engenders it.

Thanks Norm...

Jesus would have loved to see you have such a sense of humor....If not for those damn Romans he might have made it...

;)

The requirements for spiritual leaders within the early church, whether you want to translate it as priests, elders, ministers, bishops, deacons, etc. includes being the husband of one wife. Obviously this was not used to exclude single men like Paul, Paul wrote it, but it was used to say men who led the church could not have multiple wives or be divorced.

Peter, the first Pope, was married. We know that because in the Gospels, Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. Paul mentions apostles who travelled with their wives on evangelism or missionary journeys.

Monasticism did not begin as the norm for all ministers. It was to be those who felt called to separate themselves from the world. Those early monks were not the local parish priests who lived among the people. Multiple factors were part of the push for celibacy. Some spiritual, as a sacrifice, and some more pragmatic. As the Roman Empire fell, and feudalism grew, the Church was seen as the one place where position was not hereditary, but rather a calling from God. So the push towards celibacy was partly fueled by the desire to prevent the priesthood from becoming a hereditary class. St Patrick was the grandson of a priest in Britain, but by the time St. Patrick became a priest, married priests seem to have disappeared.

Whatever the pragmatic reasons for celibacy, it is not working for modern times. As to the spiritual, God may still call some men and women to stay single, but obviously resisting the temptations that causes is not the norm. Both the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Churches, as old in their traditions as the Roman Catholics, allow married priests.

I understand that the Catholic Church has a new slogan:

"no childs behind left"

Toosano, try putting on glasses yourself. Your bigotry is blinding you. I am no proponent of religion. Doesn't mean I have to make ignorant statements about it like you do. Get over yourself.

The entitled people here like you always amaze me. And you probably think you don't have an inflated ego.

UNeffenbelievable...

They look down on this man for fathering kids, and then they cover up all the priests that molest kids.

WTF is wrong with these people?

People should just quit religion altogether. They are ignorant, and a fraud.

Tax the mudderfudders.

EAE

Obviously this was not used to exclude single men like Paul,

The bible doesn't give any information to whether Paul HAD been married. Just because he had no wife at the time doesn't mean he hadn't been married.

He very could have lost his family by disease, bandits, or possibly even a shipwreck. There have always been ways for people to die.

bill , at comment # 1 , sounds like an honorable man to you?? He took a vow of celibacy and broke it repeatedly for years and years. And you find this deceit to be honorable?

The Apostle Paul told men they should marry if they couldn't control themselves. Same for the women.

Deacons and others in Church offices were to be the husband of one wife. If his wife misbehaved, he could be removed from office.

All Scripture is inspired by God. If the celibacy in the Catholic Church didn't start until the FOURTH century, that wasn't what God wanted those who followed Him to do. IF the person had the gift of celibacy, then they continued in it. Otherwise, they got married.

JOregon Thank you for mentioning that Paul may have been married. Many people think Paul was indeed a widower. Not uncommon in those days, but all we know for sure was Paul was not married when writing his Epistles. The fact remains that the passages about a church leader being the husband of one wife was not interpreted in the early church to prevent single men from serving in the ministry, just to prevent divorced men from serving.

Derek, talk about making no sense, lol. You're basically telling me that I did not experience what I did! You seem to be comprehensively diminished. Really read my posts and tell me how I have an ego for relating my experiences as a Catholic.
Seriously, are you a priest, or maybe an altar boy? You aren't getting it.
Nobody on this earth can defend actions that the Catholic church pulls on the world.

Wow, what a bunch of idiots ripe and raring to wear some doctrinal dunce caps. I would SO hate to be in your shoes having called good evil and evil good as well as blaspheme the Only Begotten of the Father. Go right ahead and collectively collapse my remarks as they will only stand as a testimony AGAINST you at the judgement bar of Christ. You all are farther from the truth than Pluto is as far from the sun. To you, the light of the RESTORED gospel is smaller than a grain of sand from the seashore. Good luck keeping your miserable souls warm as well as having enough light to go forth in this dark and ominous world.

Wow, Greg. You have some serious hate going on there, yourself.
May God have mercy on your pathetic soul, and get that hate under control.

I dont think God have a problem with him having kids! God want us to worship him but at the same time we can still pratice and enjoy what was giving to us like having wife, kids etc...

God is whatever you want him to be. Everything you've read about 'God' was created by man, so why should that stop anybody today from making up new stuff?

That priest was doing it RIGHT!!

God is certainly not whatever you want him to be. Yes, everything written about God was written by men but they were men inspired by God to write what they did. They did not just dream it up out of the blue. Their hand was directed by God to write what he wanted written not what the scribe wanted to convey. That is one reason many books that were considered to be added to the Bible were rejected, they were not considered to be inspired by God.

Power Source is right - When i was in college writing papers my hand would suddenly be directed by god and i had no control over my words. Got F's on all my papers and I blame God.

@alwaysanother

As a member on our local parish financial board, your statement is VERY far off base. In fact, not one penny of our contributions from parish members goes to Rome or the Vatican. In fact, our parish supports over 25 charitable groups OUTSIDE of our church (such as: Habitat for Humanity, the Welcome to America Project, two other churches in poor neighborhoods, a homeless center for men, a home for pregnant teens, etc.). Our parish is growing so large that we had to build a new facility that seats 1600 people, and we still have "standing room only" at each mass. Our youth programs for grade schoolers and teens have exploded with kids.

Did you know that the Catholic Church is the largest provider of services to the poor and homeless IN THE ENTIRE WORLD? This is also true for just the USA (yes, we provide more services to the poor and homeless than the US government or all of the individual states COMBINED).

Check your facts before spouting negative comments about something you do not know about. If you believe your facts are the truth, then please respond with the links to back it up.

Dear AZ...I am grateful for the gospel inspired outreach of your parish. It sounds like you, your rector and your congregation embrace the fact that WE are the church. Keep up the good work. BTW I am an Episcopal monk. I have my own, personal issues with the magesterium of the RCC. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting and rejoicing over those who share in the priesthood of Christ, in service to others. Priests and Deacons are ordained to serve the people. It sounds like your priest really gets this. Regardless of the few things that continue to divide our different faith communities, I am your brother. "whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me also." Peace!

Powersource: More likely they were inspired by mescaline from cactus, or mushrooms from some "divine cow". Is it any wonder the cow is sacred in India? Think about it. And they were "not considered to be inspired by God" from whom, exactly? O yea. Some mortal MAN. If God wants me to believe he is out there, he will let me know in no uncertain terms. I will never believe some dude that has absolutely no more knowledge than I do about the situation, no matter how charming he or she is. I have read the book. Three times to be precise. There are more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese. That is the ONLY book I have ever read that offers up more questions than answers, and it contradicts itself more than The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I am happy to let people believe what they want to believe but if you start trying to trample my individual rights based on your bull@!$%#, be prepared for a fight :)

Katherine, the church is privately funded and can disburse their funds anyway they see fit ( none of your business), If your dad was a priest , you would probably not be alive, as most priests do not have children. Churches do some wonderful things , and they do some not so wonderful things. EVERYONE has the right to believe or not believe. I do not attend church, but believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom for ignorant people to make ignorant comments.

Bill: Blah..blah...and your point?

katherine - because Priests do not make lots of money. He would not be able to support his children because of the Church.

BTW - I do feel it is wrong to force celibacy onto Priests and Nuns.

@willow: I get that he doesn't make a lot of $$$, but he didn't make a lot of $$$ their whole lives and probably didn't see them all that much since they are in another state...??

Why all the sudden would the church reward his indiscretions by paying for the kids' college?? I mean, it's their money. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it; I'm just curious??

Bill, The church is in large part funded by the congregation, as part of the congregation I dont want my donation being used to pay for someones college education. It's bull!!!

He should have been an Orthodox priest, at least they can get married. Sounds like he had a guilty conscience and did all this on his own. If he would have chosen to stay in the church I'm sure they would have allowed him to - because the church believes in forgiveness.

katherine - the real answer?

GUILT

"hey lady, and kids...we feel REAL GUILTY about how one of our priests screwed you, quite literally...here's some cash, please dont make a big deal out of this. and be thankful you werent a small child when this happened...oh you were how old? stop...we dont want to hear any more *plugs ears* lalalala...here, take the check...we are done here"

Delilah,

I agree.

bill you have no idea whether or not katherine is a catholic and contributes to the church if she does then you better believe it IS her business. Privately funded does not mean some billionaire is funding the entire operation of the church. The statement that if her dad was a priest then she would most likely not be alive makes no sense since you have to have children to be the dad of anyone. There are more pirests who have had women then you might think. It has always happened and it will always happen since apparently the pope covering up child molestation for decades isn't enough to get the church disbanded and the ignorant peasants will apparently put up with anything including harm done to their children.

I agree with Jessica, as strange as it appears the church is paying for their college education because they feel responsible for the bishop's actions. It may seem strange to us, but given the level of celibacy it is not surprising that they see this differently that most of us. I expect the resignation has freed Mr Zavala, he is now free to celebrate the miracle of life and family.

bill-765872-

I totally agree that the Pope's church can disburse the sheeple parishioner's money any way they want-sex abuse settlements, moving pedophile priests around the world, more bling for the Vatican, and providing college educations for the secret offspring of priests.

I don't attend church either, but as long as the ignorant parishioners want to subsidize the above with bake sales, fish fries, bingo games,catholic school tuition, and tithing-they have every right to do so, just as I have the right to marvel at their stupidity.

Roman Catholic priests that convert from other Christian/Catholic faiths (Church of England, Greek Orthodox, etc) are allowed to stay married.

Also, the Catholic priests in Ukraine can marry. They also get to wear the snazzy black vestments.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/europe/23ukraine.html

Regarding the Catholic Church having the ability to spend funds an any manner they please; I guess we all have to start thinking about them as the largest "SuperPac" the world has ever seen! I hope the de-frocked priest will take good care of his family. I just wish that he had quit the priesthood prior to starting a family. I worry more about this behavior than the question of being celibate. The clergy is supposed to be "married to the Church" if I remember my CCD classes correctly. Having another family would really be called bigamy. In the very old days, the Church answer to his behavior would be ex-communication. Now, a letter of resignation does the trick. Yes, times have changed. I hope that in the future, members of the clergy can just be like an other decent people. Tell the truth BEFORE your secret life is discovered and your family is dragged through the muck. Be fair to all.

It IS our business, even if they are private, because my govt. gives the Church tax exempt status, which I do not approve of. Is just like Exxon-Mobile, a private company, deciding not to pay their legit income taxes, or make illegal campaign contributions. It IS my doggone business.

randy thompson: Churches function on donations, which are from income which has already been taxed. Are you for double taxation? (This is also why the inheritance tax has to go, too.)

And let's not forget... if you're not making $32,300 a year, you aren't paying taxes either.
Are you for taxing the 50% of Americans that aren't paying ANY taxes?
If not, you're a hypocrite. If so, you're a heartless stone of a man.

Are you making less than $66,193? If so, you're only paying 5.58% taxes, and that's certainly not your "fair share" either.
Are you for taxing the 75% of Americans that pay virtually no taxes?
If not, you're a hypocrite. If so, you're a heartless stone of a man.

Are you making more than $66,193?
Congratulations, you have the right to b*tch.

I have a message for you libs out there that are athiests.... Practice saying this: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.... you can say it now and take him for your savior, or you can say it after Jesus comes back for his people before he sends you to hell, because every tongue will confess and every knee shall bow, before him on that day.

@willow Lots of Catholic families don't have the money to send their kids to college either!! If the church can see fit to give this family money, then they should open up the coffers of Rome and divide the wealth (and there is considerable wealth) to everyone!!

I have to interject here, I have an aquaintence who was a priest and he did it what most consider the right way, he left the priesthood and got married, then they had children. The Church lost a rightrous priest , and as we can see there are precious few of them. I have problems with those who do break their vows, any vow is sacred, whether you believe in a God or not.

All any person has is their word, that is truly ours! My problem of a Church being run by a human or group of humans, allows the problem of hypocracy, creating an atmosphere of superiority of particular individuals.

Do we as human beings need to think we need a reward at the end of our time, for doing the right things with our lives? I you do you need a religion, if you can be a decent person without, you don't. Morals and hypocracy are the reasons for religious beliefs. All too few of us mere humans are lacking those attributes.

There is no problem with religion, what the church does it sees everyone as a child of God and gives all the benefit of doubt. Some goes in and finds they are not fit to take the vows and that is OK. it is hard to be a holy or even be a Hero. Some can try but they can't and some can. The church is not evil nor any religion. We live in a world that influences many people , many nations and leaders to do evil because of greed and perversion. I only wish that the world would realize that the core of evil acts are done by people not of the church. An individual can be good w/o religion but most do admit it is influenced by the good of holy people (example Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mother Teresa). So just like any one on this earth all the problems comes from bad people outside such as countries, business men (wall street). The church did not do that they help people that are affected from the bad eggs.

It is also false that the church judges people with no religion, maybe some people in the church but that does not represent the whole. Remember the church does not make pornography and bombs. people outside the church does. The church is not plastic surgeons to those in Hollywood.

So all in all there is a new word emerging called religious discrimination. It is not so much words but now people are doing it by blaming the worlds ills on religion. so Don't be a hater!

Always another: Not only that but I read an article the other day about Catholic Charities giving up on their adoption centers because the gov decided not to fund them this coming year. Mark seems to have his head in a very peculiar spot.

Alwaysanother: And you'd better think again, unless you think that all those people being taxed (oh noes!) are tearing up their tax refund checks every year. Or don't benefit from police, paved roads, fire protection, public education et al. Nevermind governmental assistance programs. Sorry, but the cold, hard fact is that 50% of the Americans that make money (read: exclude those under 18) GET money back. The 25% above that are barely taxed. The way the tax code is written, the "Middle Class" is actually not in the middle. They're really the 24%-10%.

95%? ROTFL! Would you care to provide a source for that estimation? I'm curious to see how that numerical fantasy comes from.
Each diocese is on its own. I know my Church's income and last year 73% of it was used for... repairs. Heck, the reason why the Church at large isn't able to be held financially liable for lawsuits is BECAUSE there isn't any mingling of finances!

Which is ironic, since the Catholic Church operates so many charitable institutions that actually feed people. Want to really help the hungry? Go tax colleges. They raise rates every year and their sports programs reap huge, untaxable sums.

Danaelle - Then need to reread the article closer. They closed because they didn't want to be forced to accept gay couples adopting from them. You seem to have your reading comprehension in a very peculiar spot!

yea pretty stupid. Can't imagine some guy that wants to be with woman.

maybe the boys were born of a virgin?

Only Jesus Christ,the only begotten Son of God was born of a virgin.Repent and believe the Gospel.Read and obey Acts2:38

Pretty sure that isn't true, Lawrence. If you can offer even a scrap of empirical evidence, I'd certainly be inclined to accept it. But as it stands, it's just a story, and even many Christian theologians and historians seem to be conflicted on whether Mary was an actual virgin (by our contemporary understanding of the word) or simply a "young woman."

Why not try writing your own thoughts - if you are capable of having any.

this is how the fable goes, according to the king james bible, mary was not a virgin, nowhere does it say she was, it says that jesus was born through immaculate conception, meaning mary did not have sex to have jesus, it does not mean she never had sex at all.

why can't we put info on about other religions with big problems? Why was my post collapsed?

Organized religions are full of problems, including the "born agains" and the Jews.....maybe no wants to hear anything bad about the others...I am posting this again.

An Orthodox Jewish community has had to face
up to claims of child sex abuse after 83 men and two women were
arrested.

An initiative was set up to encourage victims
to come forward despite pressure from the close-knit religious society to hush
up the crimes.

Some 117 male and female victims have
approached authorities in Brooklyn, New York since 2006. There were 89 accusers under the age of
17.

Awaiting trial: Suspected paedophile Andrew Goodman has
been accused of filming sex acts with young boys on a webcam at his home in
Brooklyn, New York

According to the New York Post, one suspect
Andrew Goodman, 27, worked with Jewish charities involving vulnerable young
people and the disabled.

He was charged with sexually abusing two
Orthodox boys at his home in the Flatbush neighbourhood last September.

One child was abused between the ages of 11
and 15, the other from 13 until he was 16 years old.

Luke 1:27. to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of Daivd: and the virgins name was Mary.

No fable, Gods word. Try reading before stating something you do not know about.

flag waver: Because it is the same danged information that we had to scroll through in the first second and third posts. be more original. Maybe your posts won't be collapsed :)

Let's write down EVERY detail of your life and see how you stack up relative the the standards you have established for yourself.

Don't judge an organization that large on one (or even several dozen) members. If an Walmart employee steals from the store or even rapes a child in the store, should the entire Walmart empire go down? What about the Dunkin Donuts worker who was prostituting herself out the drive-thru window - does that make Dunkin Donuts a farce of an organization? Do you know how many truck drivers abduct women or children, and you don't even hear about it? Should those international trucking companies be closed? Every company has bad apples, and the bigger the organization, the more you will hear about just because of sheer numbers. There are 1 billion Catholics in this world!

Good comment three. I'm sure the bible bashers are sooooo much better in life than the bible thumpers. lol. Just another republican and democrat. I'm better! no I'm better! uh ah, it's your fault! Nah ahh its your fault.

Then in the next breath when speaking about foreign affairs...."Geez, can't we just accept them for who they are???"

If any of those businesses KNEW there was widespread child rape going on in its stores and was proven to have gone on a systematic campaign of covering up the rape, moving employees around to avoid prosecution, and allowing thousands of more kids to be raped . . . then yes, we could judge an organization at large over its action.

Also large trucking companies don't tend to claim that they are absolutely infallible, that they are god's representatives on earth, and don't do things like fight condom use among even MARRIED COUPLES in Africa where one person has AIDS.

But in general, I agree with you that the Catholic Church is a lot like a crooked trucking company.

I agree with Bart. Organized religion has one purpose and that is to control people. Nothing else matters just a long as you can control all of those who profess to be in your faith. It's just an issue of control and I don't care what the religion is or who runs it or manages it. It's all about control.

Kim: Dozens??? Maybe in just one diocese...

Kim, what was the address of that Dunkin' Donuts?

The problem remains that organized religion has brought about much misery through human history. Wars were and are being fought, groups of people have been persecuted, prejudice has been legitimized all in the name of religion. Take religion out of the equation in the Middle East, and peace might be achievable. I don't think anyone is saying we should not live a moral life, but maybe we could rid ourselves of the dogma associated with organized religion.

@ Kim565722: We're not talking about one employee at a Dunkin Donuts or one fictional Walmart employee, we're talking about thousands of priests who have been molesting children, embezzling money, abusing kids, or in this case telling people they should live one way while they live another. Dunkin Donuts or Walmart does not provide direction on how to live your live, but the Catholic Church hierarchy does, and they are often ripe with hypocrisy!

If, in your example, thousands of Dunkin Donut employees prostituted out the window of the drivethru, then yes, it would be a farce of an organization.

There may be 1 billion Catholics in the world, but the hierarchy is smaller and they are the ones setting the standards for the way people should live.

Uh, Wild Bill...two purposes...you forgot about the "making tons of money" part of the equation.

I wouldn't look down on Dunkin Donuts but I would certainly not be ordering cream filled Long Johns from that location

How is it hypocrisy that someone who is found to be in violation of the rules resigns? It would be hypocritical if he was allowed to continue in his office.

I'm truly sorry you're so offended by organized religion, because for many -- including myself and my family -- it brings truth, comfort, and most of all God's love and grace into our lives. Not because someone told me so, but because of my own direct experience, with a fully informed conscience guided by centuries of great thinkers and philosophers. Perhaps you had a different experience -- or none at all. But there's no need to ridicule those of us who find great joy and peace in living a life of faith in Christ.

you'd think with 1 billion catholics in this world, this world wouldnt be such a sh!thole if only a few dozen of them were rotten apples.

Kim - but further to your point, given all your fine examples of rotten humanity...why arent christians doing MORE to prevent women and children from being raped by truckers?

Or is that just up to the trucking company to "deal with"...just like it's up to the catholic church to handle all those child rapes...and I think most of us with rational brains can conclude, neither is doing a fine job of self-policing it's employees.

but that's free will for ya...what can we do if truckers want to rape and kill women? not a whole lot I tell ya, not a whole lot...

So you prefer "unorganized religion" ? God is organized,Jesus Christ,the Son of God is organized.Ministry is organized.Get over it.

If you think this world is a sh!thole, imagine had the Nazis or Communists succeeded in wiping out organized religons.

Wow, it's amazing how people will defend a corrupt organization in any way they can.

so true, think about this, more people have been murdered in the name of "church" since the beginning of time, the catholics have always been murderers, read your history not the bible

If you think this world is a sh!thole, imagine had the Nazis or Communists succeeded in wiping out organized religons.

Then we'd be able to say that they accomplished at least ONE good thing.

Funny, I never knew that what me and my family believe affected sooooo many of you.

bonos_rama & Mark 865096: Thanks for saying you agreed with the Holocaust, The Killing Fields, and Stalin's Purges. Nice to see such educated "humanitarians".

C Dickinson: More people were killed in the 20th century than in all prior centuries combined. And for what? Communism, Fascism, Nazism. If you read your history, you'd know that the Church hasn't fought a battle in hundreds of years.

One should not ignore the fabulous things the Catholic Church have done for the world. Who first brought schools and hospitals to areas? How many colleges were started? How many people are fed, clothed and housed by Christians of all faiths. It's sad that there are so many who will constantly and with vigilance look for reasons to discredit religion. I can't help but wonder, "what did it do to you"? The Catholic Church has imperfections as it is made of imperfect people.

Setting aside the whole religious debate, I would expect a senior member of any organization to abide by the rules they've developed. If you can't abide by the rules, work to change them or quit.

Clarification: quit BEFORE you break them.

I guess the Dunkin donut worker WAS the dunkin donut.

It happens, people are imperfect. If you believe the Bible, look at David and Bathsheba in the Old Testament, Judas Iscariot in the New Testament. They were leaders in an organized religion and screwed up.

It's a fallacious argument to say that because a leader did something wrong that organized religion is false.

I'd echo P.Hawk above that we shouldn't forget the good that organized religion has done, such as charity work and education services.

Kayner: How the hell can it NOT affect so many of us, when it is used as a basis for so many of the laws that are on the books? What you believe god wants permeates everything that happens in this country. From the attempts at abolishment of Roe v Wade, the illegalization of prostitution, everyone who lives in a dry county and has to drive for miles and miles to buy a beer is affected by what you believe. It was used as an excuse to invade the middle east... the basis to deny same sex couples the right to get married, Santorum wants to repeal the repeal of DADT because of religious beliefs. The list goes on and on and on and on and on.....

The Catholic Church would have much stronger numbers in spiritual personnel if it allowed its priests, and by extension, its nuns to marry and have children.

It is not a natural state to expect men and women to be celibate. For a faith that holds up eliminating any birth control (except the rhythm method - which is totally unreliable) I don't understand how the church can continue to demand its priests and nuns be celibate.

While I don't know that I agree with the celibacy either, I'd like the educate you about the "rhythm method." Catholics haven't used that for over 50 years. Natural Family Planning (NFP) is what they now use, and I've seen way more "oops" babies with other forms of birth-control than with NFP. It is fool-proof.

I remember reading that celebacy was introduced into the church in around the 14th century. Up till then, priests were married and when they died, all property and money went to the family--NOT the church. So the pope at the time decided that being married kept the priests from their priestly duties and decreed celebacy from then on. Of course, when the priest died, all property and money went to the church.

Whether it's true or not, I can't say, but it sounds about right.

An interesting note: cel·i·bate

(sl-bt)

[Latin caelibtus, from caelebs, caelib-, unmarried.]

Usage Note: Historically, celibate means only "unmarried"; its use to mean
"abstaining from sexual intercourse" is a 20th-century development.

"Chaste" means refraining from sex. I understand that nuns are required to take a vow of chastity. Do the priests?

Even St. Paul said "It's better to marry than to burn". Stop the madness, let them marry.

AMEN

Chris is at least partly correct. The sanction against marriage was, theoretically at least, for priests and nuns to be wholly devoted to their vocation without the distraction of spouse, kids, in-laws etc.

It did work for some. But in the larger picture, it is not only unrealistic, it puts a terrible burden on those who, with all the best intentions, took the vow. The loss is not merely sexual. It consigns priests to a disconnected, isolated life.

Until quite recent times, the Convent was the best answer for many women. . . .far better than being sold into marriage with a brutal man. The convent is a life in an entire community, not isolation. It was far from perfect and perhaps not a woman's first choice but there are far worse circumstances.

Chris,

You may have some basis in truth, but for now, a diocesan priest has a will and can leave any property that he has to whom ever he wants. If you are a priest in an order and take a vow of poverty, you have no property to pass on.

As for not being able to council family problems, does any counselor have to have experienced the problem before they can be effective? Do you have to have lost a child to help a grieving parent? I don't think this is a valid argument on its face. Are some priests better than other at helping families and couples, absolutely; maybe this is a better tact to take.

As for no marriage being a reason that there would be more religious if there were married priests, I would suggest you consider that the number one religion with a problem with low number of religious is the Jewish faith. They can be married, but there seems to be some other reason that their numbers are so low.

Now, I don't agree with no marrage. I think it could be a very good thing. I don't agree with there being no female priests either. I just suggest that people look a little farther before they make some comments based on anti religious talking points.

@ Kim: Design a fool proof system and only a fool will use it.

a little off topic, but I have to respond to the above poster

Firstly, Jews don't consider the "low number" of practitioners a problem, when compared to other religions. The more followers does not equal more truth. Jews have historically been proud to be a small, distinct group of individuals.

Further, Jews have never prosthelytized...just never been a tenet of the faith. As such, they of course will be smaller in number than the religions that carried out the Inquisition or forced natives of conquered lands to "see the light"

Finally, there was this thing in the 20th century called the holocaust that virtually eliminated European Jewry. Worldwide, numbers have just now returned to pre 1940s levels

Don't knock it until you've tried it. I've received plenty of excellent and thoughtful advice from priests about being a husband and a father.

I'm really amazed at just how offended people get when it comes to the Catholic Church. No one's forcing you to join or demanding that you submit.

Eric,

To clarify my point. Some posters point to the inability of priests to marry as being the reason that there are fewer priests. The fact that there are fewer rabbis, as compared to the Jewish population as a whole, would indicate that marriage, or lack of it, may not be a valid argument.

As for the horror of the Holocaust, it has nothing to do with the relative numbers of rabbis.

As for the rest of your comment, I would suggest that those who use this argument in todays world fail to accept all the bad things all people have done and the ability to change.

response to Kim:

While I don't know that I agree with the celibacy either, I'd like the educate you about the "rhythm method." Catholics haven't used that for over 50 years. Natural Family Planning (NFP) is what they now use, and I've seen way more "oops" babies with other forms of birth-control than with NFP. It is fool-proof.

I am proof that the rhythm method (or whatever you want to call it) DOES NOT WORK, but after my birth, my parents practiced real birth control (condoms, then birth control pills) after me and planned for my brothers. BTW, my mother is a practicing Catholic.

response to David:

...I'm really amazed at just how offended people get when it comes to the Catholic Church. No one's forcing you to join or demanding that you submit.

I'm really amazed at the amount of Catholics who can't debate and take criticism of the Church's bad and illogicial policies. And this is coming from a woman who was raised Catholic BTW.

As for the horror of the Holocaust, it has nothing to do with the relative numbers of rabbis.

Fair enough...but that wasn't what your above post said, at least not clearly

As for a relative low number of rabbis compared to the Jewish population as a whole, I wasn't able to find anything supporting that

I was able to find a few articles that talk about shortages in some areas, like the Deep South, but overall nothing like what you suggest

Id be interested to see your source

reminds me of the joke

Pope John Paul was welcomed with wide arms at teh Pearly Gates of Heaven. St Paul began to tell him of all the wonderful amenities Heaven has. "And we have a library with every book that was ever written in the course of human history" the Pope's eyes grew wide "really? Id love to study there" St Paul answered, "of course, enjoy" A few millenia later, an inhuman scream was heard in the normally quiet halls of the library. Pope John Paul was found kneeling and sobbing. "They spelled it wrong, it was wrong, they forgot the R" Is all he would say. St Paul intervened and said, "my friend, what do you mean the R?" Pope John Paul responded "the original order, it was supposed to say, celebrate"

Kim-565722 says above that the rhythm method is "fool proof"-apparently she has been hit in the head by one of those swingin' incense balls too many times.

I researched the rhythm method after a friend told me that she started taking birth control pills in the 70's after having 3 rhythm method babies in 5 years.

These facts from christianfamilyplanning.org- which is rhythm method friendly:

"How effective is the calendar rhythm method?

Annual Failure Rate-24%
Most women do not ovulate at the same time each month, and no woman's cycles
are identical every time. For this reason, the calendar-rhythm method is not
considered very effective unless menstrual cycles are always the same number of
days. Even then is it very easy to miscalculate if you are not constantly
vigilant or well-organized. The annual failure rate for married couples is 20%,
with an increase to 29% dating couples, and a huge 38% for cohabiting couples. "

The method that drunken teenagers often use-withdrawal- is more effective than the rhythm method......

@Chris-1131451

The Church does distinguish between Celibacy and Chastity. I'm not sure regarding the requirements for nuns, but for priests, whether or not they take both vows is order specific. All priests in the Latin Rite must take a vow of celibacy (and by extension must be chaste as any other Christian who is not married). But not all priests have to take a vow of Chastity. For example, the Secular Priests do not have to take vows of Chastity. Certain orders do not require this vow either. I think the Franciscan Order priests do have to take both vows. I'm not sure whether Augustans or Benedictines have to take both vows. So if a Secular Priest is not chaste, he is in the same disgrace as the rest of us that do like fornicaShion. But a priest that did take a vow of Chastity and breaks it is another story and is much more serious transgression to his priesthood. I don't know if the Bishop of LA belonged to any order that required a vow of Chastity.

As a Benedictine, I can give you a definitive answer about our vows:

1. Stability: a vow to remain a part of a particular monastic community for the rest of your life.

2. Obedience: It used to mean unquestioning obedience to your superiors (Christ was believed to have practiced perfect obedience by dying on the cross). Nowadays we don't accept an abbot to be God's infallible representative on earth. Abbots are elected by the community to be the shepherd and administrator of the monastery...NOT a dictator or potentate. They are a moral guide or compass for the community. A community won't hesitate to vote out an abbot who sets himself above and apart of the community. The superior of all is the servant of all.

3. Conversion of life: A vow to strive to constantly make oneself over to be be as Christ-like as is humanly possible. A never ending process. The concepts of poverty and chastity are incorporated in this vow.

My order is ecumenical but largely Episcopalian. We have both male and female members, married and single. The concept of chastity for us means married members must be monogamous. Single members are expected to refrain from looking for hook ups on craigslist but are free to avail themselves of the married state should the right person come along.

I understand and accept that thousands of people have suffered at the hands of people who acted in the name of religion over the centuries. Life was barbaric on many planes in the "olden days", but these are not the those days. Yes, the Catholic Church (and all other faith communities) has some "splainin' to do (as Ricky would say to Lucy) when those who abused the innocent, and those who shielded them meet their maker. We need justice, not bloody vengeance or we are a guilty as humanity was during the dark ages.

For those who feel all people of faith are morons or hypocrites, I would ask you to understand that a true believer KNOWS that bigotry, hate and hypocrisy clothed in prayer is STILL bigotry, hate and hypocrisy. This goes for Jews, Muslims and Christians who try to practice charity, gentleness and compassion. And there are many people of no faith who do a better job than some of the so-called faithful. We are all flawed, imperfect people. Our 3rd vow gives us the opportunity to work on that.

So how about this: Give a break and the benefit of the doubt (and perhaps a word of support) to those of us who try to practice the golden rule and follow the great commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Please don't paint us all with the same brush. That shows a lack of balance and ignorance. Consider the person and their actions and not the institution.

Peace

While I do not actively follow any of the established religious groups I found your comment at #9.16 to be very refreshing and absolutely on point with my own personal beliefs as they pertain to relating to others and their beliefs. In many ways my notions are quite unique but the most important consideration in my personal theology is that we must not interfere with the choices of others. Share when asked but never ever try to influence them in any way.

Some have asked me how I would respond if a loved one were to make some very bad life decisions and I have indeed encountered that situation on occasion. My only response is to try and offer advice and guidance to the extent it is accepted but beyond that their choices must be their own. The only time that I differ from that to any extent is in the raising of ones children. They must be guided and steered in the beginning so as to prepare them to survive and exist in our society. That is our obligation to them and to those they will encounter later in their lives. However once they have set out on their own even our own children must be permitted to make their own mistakes and learn their own lessons and as a parent I know that can sometimes be difficult to do. LOL

In any case thank you for a well worded and very appropriate comment. It is just too bad that the majority of others cannot see things as you do when it comes to relating to others around them. We really don't have to make everyone else exactly like us but an awful lot of people seem to feel that is their mission in life.

@Spiritguy

I always thought that Benedictine priests could not marry either? I know Franciscans have three levels in their order 1)Priests 2)Nuns 3)Laypersons (married or single). Are Benedictines structured the same way? If you don't mind my question, are you a priest or layperson member of that order?

Whao...

I really would prefer to hear Jews talk about JEWS.

Like any other American, I think the ____-American can/should speak for him/herself.

Re-reading...

I hope everyone understood the above comment to say how Jews (like me) don't need/want to hear a gentile's "understanding" of Judaism.

I have some (OK, maybe a lot of) understanding of the Christian "Bible," but I don't/ won't speak for Christians. Non-Jews, please don't speak for me.

If you have noticed, most of the discussion is filled with ignorance of the Catholic Church from both “Catholics” and non-Catholics. It’s crazy that the mention of Judiasm (filled with ignorance also) creeps into the conversation when the article has nothing to do with that group.

But on the subject, did you know that the Catholic Church, at its very core, at its very heart is Jewish? It was founded by 1^st century Jews after all. Of course the Church looks very different now than it did 2,000 years ago. But the Church has not lost a sense of where it came from even though that fact is lost on the majority. Examples of this are infinite but check out the architecture of a Catholic Church. They are built following the plan of the Temple of Jerusalem. There is always some connection to its roots. Well maybe not the modern churches, those look like they were designed from the Matrix.

Agreed.

It is commendable that today's humans generally don't go around bludgeoning one another over raw meat... we're evolved beyond that (for the most part). BUT, no one should be delusional enough to think that celibacy is natural. It is NOT. And fortunately, sex between two consenting adults is - in contrast to the bludgeoning scenario I mentioned - is A GOOD THING because NO ONE IS HARMED.

so ''Lone Truth'' you would support my having sex with my sister. My tubes are tied and she consents and no one is harmed. is that what you are saying? wise up

Why is it, larlex, that opponents of gay marriage can only purport to argue against it by arguing against something else? It's telling that the only way you can make your argument is by changing the subject.

Apparently, larlex did not read lone truth's comment correctly to elicit such a stupid response. Wise up

For the sake of argument, let's accept the broadest definition of what religion is. Then, 90% of the world's population willingly embrace religion, and have done so for centuries. You cannot argue that religion is unnatural.

As to whether religion is harmful, you must then dive into the particulars of each religion, and they are most certainaly not all alike as the ignorant claim.

Something that needs to be understood about the reason for the Catholic Church's demand of celibacy is that it is not meant to close people off. Anyone who would rather be married than be a priest is completely free to choose that path in life. The Church finds it perfectly acceptable to serve God by being the best parent that you can be. Zavala appears not to have considered marriage or life as a married deacon before devoting himself to the priesthood and that is why he had issues with remaining celibate. Not because Catholicism suppressed his desires, but because he found later in life that he wanted to be a parent more than a priest.

You cannot argue that religion is unnatural.

I beg to differ. What is natural is that which helps us adapt and survive. Religion works against those forces. What is natural is that which occurs in nature. Religion is entirely the product of human greed for money and power, wrapped in a guise of trying to answer the (ever-dwindling) number of unanswerable questions. Greed and ignorance are themselves natural, but there is nothing natural about a monstrous organization lying and stealing by capitalizing on greed and fostering ignorance.

As to whether religion is harmful, you must then dive into the particulars of each religion, and they are most certainaly not all alike as the ignorant claim.

Of course they're not all alike, but they are all mechanisms for control. And the further removed a religion is from the quest for money and power, the less a "religion" it really is (e.g. Buddhism). Each religion has its place on a continuum from helpful to harmful, but anything most people would recognize as a religion is more on the "harmful" side. I would be interested in hearing the examples you would put forward by way of counterargument.

religion is a natural by-product of our mental evolution. The same 'searching' that lead to better shelter and more nutritious food sources which helped our brains grow to the size they are now, is the same 'searching'that makes our large brains look outside of our scope of knowledge for super-natural explanations.

I religion natural, yes, but not because of the religion(s) themselves!!

Can't say it any better than that, JerseyJ9!

Dave in NM says: "What is natural is that which helps us adapt and survive". What an interesting agrument against both celibacy and homosexuality. Adaptation through natural selection requires each member of the species to strive to pass its genes on to the next generation. We have evolved to desire sex because we need it to reproduce, as you correctly point out, sex is part of our nature but that desire exists because the need to reproduce is a critical part of our ability to adapt and survive. Just as it is with every other living thing. Your argument then holds that homesexulaity, since it does not advance adaptation or survival of the species, is unnatural. Good argument!!!

religion is a natural by-product of our mental evolution.

I don't really disagree with that, but I do think that once it outlives its usefulness in explaining the unknown; once it is supplanted by science as a mechanism for answering the unanswerable, keeping it alive is unnatural and counterproductive.

Dave in NM says: "What is natural is that which helps us adapt and survive". What an interesting agrument against both celibacy and homosexuality. ... Your argument then holds that homesexulaity, since it does not advance adaptation or survival of the species, is unnatural. Good argument!!!

You're cherry-picking some arguments while ignoring others. I also said that what is natural is what occurs in nature, and as has been exhaustively documented, homosexuality occurs in a vast variety of species. There has been evidence to indicate that homosexuality also serves roles in the survival of populations, and therefore it may actually be adaptive. More to the point, the unnatural nature of religion was just one part of my larger point, which was that religion is actively harmful. Homosexuality isn't (unless you would care to be the first among dozens or hundreds of people I've asked to identify the harm it causes, who actually comes up with an answer?). So even if it were unnatural, homosexuality would be morally permissible. Plenty of things aren't natural, but cause no harm, and should therefore be allowed. Art, for example. And besides, since people are born homosexual, allowing them to behave consistently with their nature, while harming no one, increases their happiness, which in turn contributes directly to their own well-being and that of society.

Ladies and gentlemen, please review the John Jay study on the Abuse Scandal and comprehend that the abuses were not caused by the fact that Priests are celibate. Furthermore, please reflect on the the fact that other religious institutions also faced scandals in their own congregations and by their own religious ministers. Therefore, this crisis was/is not solely present in the Catholic Church but in other ecclesial communities. One interesting thought raised by the study, however, suggests that this crisis arose from a social-cultural phenomena (i.e. what has been popularly called the "sexual revolution"). But this isn't the particular aspect I want to focus on.

Dave in NM's comment is what has impelled me to comment:

"Any time you demand that humans not act like humans, you're begging for trouble. Celibacy is unnatural, and people act so surprised when attempts to enforce it are unsuccessful."

Allow me to follow through your argument: because you've somehow concluded that celibacy is "unnatural", those who are living a celibate life are living "unnaturally", that is, they are not acting like humans. Well this is a rather interesting argument, but it begs the question: why is celibacy "unnatural"?

It is because a man has made the choice to not marry and have children? Or is it because a man, being a man, is impelled, no demanded by his nature as a man to procreate? I thought we lived in an age of freedom where men and women can do whatever they want never considering their nature (sarcasm). We do live in an age that values freedom, but human freedom is not defined by who we are but by what we are (our nature as human beings-persons). Pope Benedict says, "Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled."

Allow me to present a counter argument: mathematics is unnatural because it isn't found in nature. Therefore anything that isn't found in nature isn't natural, that is, unnatural. therefore, mathematics is unnatural. And yet we use mathematics in our daily lives, but no one goes on saying that because mathematics is unnatural we shouldn't use it. A person like that would be regarded as a fool.

Of course, this argument can be regarded as being silly and sheer folly. But it does raise the question as to how much of the unnatural are we using in our natural everydayness?

You go on to conclude that: "Religion is unnatural and harmful anyway, but Catholicism is more so than most, just because it tries so hard to suppress its adherents' humanity."

Now here's a statement that requires close attention. First, it is an article of the Church that if a man wants to be a Priest he must first choose to live a celibate-chaste life. After the man has willingly chosen and promised to do so, he is accepted and called and ordained as a Priest. A man is free choose a celibate-chaste life; is this a suppression of the "adherent's humanity"? Is not freedom the most human characteristic of a person? So how is this a suppression?

Your point that religion, in that case Christianity, is unnatural is true. Christianity is a revealed religion, that is, it is a completely supernatural phenomena (i.e. the Christ Event) that has affected the lives of countless people throughout human history. Your point that it is "harmful" is rather confusing. Christianity is meant to help people reach Heaven, or if you will Eternity, Happiness, Goodness, Truth, Love. So I see it not as a "harmful" thing, but rather as a helpful thing.

I would like to end with a final thought: is celibacy really the problem here or is humanity the problem? Food for thought.

NE: bullet points, so as not to belabor this thread any more than necessary:

• Celibacy is unnatural because humans feel urges, not to procreate, but to copulate.
• Nature is mathematics. Our study of mathematics is just a means of understanding nature.
• The harm of Christianity (among other religions) is not in its stated metaphysical goal, but in its actual use and effects.
• "Phenomena" is plural.
• Celibacy is just a symptom of the problem. The problems are greed and ignorance, as the same are enforced and rewarded by religion.

I agree with you. We were meant to procreate and have families. It's not natural to require someone to be celibate; maybe they'll figure it out and change that requirement.

Dave in NM, I would be nearly the last person to say homosexuality is harmful or should be prohibited. I also agree that many things that are unnatural are actually beneficial. I suspect religeon is beneficial for most people who engage in it. It gives meaning to peoples lives and creates a moral foundation. That fact that some leaders in religeous sects are unable to lead the lives that they profess as the proper course only means that they, like us all, are humans that do not live up to our own expectations of right and wrong. Has anyone ever lived perfectly the convictions that they claim to believe...I doubt it...I fail routinely to perform perfectly at work, with my family, etc...things I know I should do better but fail. While pediphiles belong in jail...the fact that some exist in the Church does not prove that the teachings of the Church are false.

Nonetheless, humans are the only creatures on the planet who are capable of being homosexual. Sex for humans is not purely a function of animal instinct..though we certianly are driven to sex by instinctual desire. We unlike all other species are capable of choosing partners. A dog in heat is not selective she acts purely on instinct as does the male. In the animal kingdom however, and sadly sometime amongst humans, sex can also be about domination and power. When a male dog mounts another male dog he is not seeking sexual gratification but physical dominance. Animals do not have a cogent abiltity to select to have sex or not to have sex. They are driven by instinct not desire. Only humans connect sex and desire to love.

I suspect religeon is beneficial for most people who engage in it.

I disagree. My brother routinely votes against his family's best interests because his church tells him to. But my point was not about the harm religion does its own practitioners; it was about the harm religion does to society. Mafia membership is beneficial to a lot of people who engage in it; it is not for their sake that it is rightly deemed unacceptable.

It gives meaning to peoples lives and creates a moral foundation.

But that meaning is illusory, based on a lie, and the "morals" of that foundation are skewed, conditional and ultimately harmful. My children are getting a MUCH stronger moral foundation, because it is based on the fact that good deeds and human decency are their own rewards, not simply to be engaged in out of bribes and threats (i.e. heaven and hell).

That fact that some leaders in religeous sects are unable to lead the lives that they profess as the proper course .... While pediphiles belong in jail...the fact that some exist in the Church does not prove that the teachings of the Church are false.

None of which is related to my point. I wasn't referring to the hypocrisy of religion, or the evil wrought on children by its anointed. I was referring to the damage religion does to society: the waste of resources building tax-free temples to bronze-age myths; money coerced from people who can't afford it; legislation to disenfranchise Americans based on their innate attractions; women denied rights; research defunded; a political party bought and used against the American people - THESE are the kinds of evils to which I referred.

humans are the only creatures on the planet who are capable of being homosexual... . Only humans connect sex and desire to love.

Wow. Um, OK. Pretty narrow definition of homosexuality you've got there. But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying, despite your opening statement, that homosexuality harms someone? If so, whom, and in what way? If not, then - uh - what's your point?

"Celibacy is unnatural, and people act so surprised when attempts to enforce it are unsuccessful."

Monogamy is also unnatural... but yet we try to pretend it is.

Dave In NM,

I agree with you 99%. The 1% being, everything human beings do must be considered a charactaristic of being human. Humans do religion, even way back in our evolutionary history, so I'd have to argue it was natural.

Religion (spirituality) itself is not unnatural, but it does make us vulnerable to pressure to perform or submit to acts that are extreme and harmful. It is psychologically related to artistic expression, an attempt to understand reality representationally through symbols.

The pressure to conform to religious ideas and practices is applied mainly in the form of fear... Fear of death translates easily to fear of eternal punishment or fear of ostracization from the group.

You are correct to distinguish between religion and 'religious institutions.' As for type, there are only two basic types of religion, Revealed and Intuitive. Among either type all differences are strictly superficial, so yes all religions are the same.

Whatever,

Your figures are off. As of 2004, 16% of the world's population was estimated or self identified as: Atheist, Agnostic, Un-affiliated or Non-Religious.

The latest U.S. Census Data indicate over 16% of the U.S. population does likewise. Moreover, comparing stats from 1990 through 2000 through 2004, the rate of increase in people who so identify is accelerating faster than the major religions everywhere except Africa.

At that rate of growth and considering the age of the Census Statistics, the real numbers are probably much higher.

People will do good or bad, because they are people, not because they are or are not religious... but religion does seem to have a dramatic effect on the amount of harm we're willing to do to one another. When you have two convenient excuses, (God's Will or Satan) you can get away with an awful lot of mayhem.

I'd argue the revealed religions are more harmful than not simply for the fact they demand humans ignore their basic nature and ignore commonly observed facts of reality such as, donkeys don't talk, horses don't fly and people don't come back from the dead.

Well dave...I dont agree that I have a narrow definition of homosexuality because I dont consider acts of dominance in human or other animals to be acts of sex. I would argue, correctly, that sexual attraction to the same sex for sexual gratification is a requirement of homosexuality. No other animal besides humans have that. Finally nothing I said previously could even, in the most uneducated mind, be construed as suggesting that homosexuality is harmful to those who engage in it or should be prohibited by the law.

I dont agree that I have a narrow definition of homosexuality [yet I argue] that sexual attraction to the same sex for sexual gratification is a requirement of homosexuality.

Kind of my point, there. You concocted (or adopted) a definition of homosexuality that conveniently excludes all homosexual behavior elsewhere in nature. Sounds pretty narrow to me. Most people would say "having sex with someone of the same gender." Is that not broader than your definition?

nothing I said previously could even, in the most uneducated mind, be construed as suggesting that homosexuality is harmful to those who engage in it or should be prohibited by the law.

OK, then, that leads me to the second part of the question I asked you: If all this tap-dancing aimed at showing how unnatural (human) homosexuality is is not intended to argue against it, then what is your point, and how is it the least bit relevant to this thread?

Actually dave, your narrow definition of what was natural and unnatural is what got me going on this topic. It was you that claimed only those things that contibuted to adaptation and survival were natural...I was merely proving that your definition excluded homosexuality as well as celibacy. In your mind a male dog that mounts another male dog as a showing of dominance even though there is no act of sex is still evidence of homosexuality? You want to attribute human emotions and desires upon animals. I think you may need to go talk to your mom about the birds and bees at least one more time.

It was you that claimed only those things that contibuted to adaptation and survival were natural...

And what occurs in nature. And I didn't use the word "only."

I was merely [trying desperately to prove] that your definition excluded homosexuality as well as celibacy.

And you were mistaken. It's OK. All is forgiven.

[An act in which] there is no act of sex is still evidence of homosexuality?

Um ... who brought up cases with "no act of sex?" Actually, don't answer that, at least until after you've answered what I keep asking you.

You want to attribute human emotions and desires upon animals.

Do I? I said homosexuality occurs in nature. And since you've become increasingly frantic in your attempts to argue against my points, I have asked you twice (and will now make it three times): what is your point?

Soggy wrote: Your argument then holds that homesexulaity, since it does not advance adaptation or survival of the species, is unnatural. Good argument!!!

Counter argument: Homosexuality IS normal and advances adaptation and survival because, as the world has more and more people, you are finding more and more homosexuals being born. Without this increase in homosexuality the birth rate rises exponentially, creating more people than the world can sustain.

also wrote: Nonetheless, humans are the only creatures on the planet who are capable of being homosexual.

Wrong. :)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=homosexual%20penguins&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalpost.com%2F2011%2F11%2F07%2Fgay-penguin-separation-means-survival-of-the-species-zoo-keepers%2F&ei=fxAFT6OMD4XMtgeA76XQBg&usg=AFQjCNEU9EmbgwTohBuS5M2n73aTym_rvA

Soggy,

Danaelle has you dead to rights. Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 1500 animal species. Not all of those examples involve territorial or group ranking disputes.

There are well documented examples of animals that form lifelong homosexual bonding pairs, such as geese, giraffs and penguins, in relationships lasting for decades.

Recently a male pair of wild emperor penguins was observed to have rescued and raised an orphaned chick. Scientists have also documented numerous examples of what appears to be true altruism in many different animal species.

Rooks, mice, monkeys all have shown a willingness to share food even when there is no reciprocal benefit. Just a few months ago a popular video appeared on MSN Live Science showing a wild male gecko risking its life to distract a snake from an unrelated male gecko so it could escape. Being unrelated males they would ordinarily be in competition for food and mates.

Elephants are well known for showing particular and long lasting reverence for their dead. They will wander off their migratory routes to visit the bones of dead family members years after the fact. Our primate cousins exhibit anger, sadness, sorrow, and forgiveness.

Point being, we can no longer say with authority that humans are the sole proprietors of emotion in the animal kingdom. Isn't your dog happy to see you when you come home from work?

Lets cut to the chase here, you obviously dont believe that God exists. If you do than your definition of Him is severely flawed and needs to be fixed.

So i challenge any of you who commented to

1) prove the existence of God and thus religion to be a farce or

2) pose your definition of God

* it should be noted objective 1 is impossible to complete by nature but if you think you're up to go for it!

JohnOrgovan,

You are chasing your tail. You pose a feeble challenge, immediately announce it is impossible to meet and, voila! You declare yourself the winner??

It should first be noted the onus of proof of any proposition is always on the proponent and never on the skeptic. You will fail equally as completely to prove god exists as does anyone who attempts to prove he doesn't.

But the fact remains, I don't have to prove he doesn't exist. There is simply not one shred of credible evidence for such a supernatural being as described in the bible. (since the source of this discussion is christian)

I could challenge you to prove I don't have an invisible omnipotent parrot on my shoulder whispering social instruction and morality in my ear... and you could not prove it isn't true.

Tom Cruise could challenge you to prove Zenu didn't enslave the Thetans or Mitt Romney could challenge you to prove his father isn't presiding over his own planet right now and you could not conclusively prove it isn't so.

The inability to disprove such preposterous propositions is not proof they exist in factual reality.

It should also be noted the supernatural claims of judeo/christianity are no less absurd than the claims of L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith!

There is no question whatsoever that religion exists, but that fact offers ZERO proof that god exists. There is no question feathers exist, but that offers no proof there is an invisible, omnipotent parrot preaching in my ear.

There exists a book entitled Gone With The Wind and in fact hundreds of unexploded Civil War cannon balls can still be found all over Atlanta Ga., and yet this is not proof of the physical existence of Scarlet O'Hara or Rhett Butler.

Some say the existence of god is inferred by the complexity of the physical universe. Well we can also infer that Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler had parents. What is that inference worth?

What is severely flawed is the world view of primitive, Bronze Age nomads who were ignorant of simple facts of nature that you and I take for granted. They thought the world was flat.

They thought their crops failed because they offended some spirit in the sky. They thought killing a goat or a sheep (or a person) and burning its body would make things all better.

I do not argue they were stupid, but they were profoundly ignorant. That ignorance has been "fixed" by several thousand years of learning, discovery and progress that has benefitted mankind 1,000,000 x more than belief in a blood thirsty sky god who demands the brutal ritual murder of his own child.

So let's cut to the chase here... Judeo/christianity is a primitive death cult. If you believe humanity is so insignificant and pathetic and flawed and dirty, and you believe that the ugly death of some madman thousands of years ago makes it all better, then go right ahead and act accordingly. Just don't get any of that disgusting gore on me.

And don't pretend for one minute to say it is a fact of reality. I'm not bound by it and I don't have to prove it isn't true.

My definition of god is:

1. A device in the form of an omnipotent being with human attributes, invented by primitive human beings to explain the cause of incomprehensible natural phenomena (reality) and to alleviate the gnawing anxiety of the realization that death is imminent and inescapable.

2. An imaginary supernatural being for which there is not one shred of credible evidence.

3. Abstract, vestigial memories of our parents retained from earliest infancy.

4. The entire universe and insofar as humans are made of the same substance as the universe, including us.

I'd say my definition beats any definition that includes a man slitting his own son's throat and burning the body on an altar in order to seal a deal for land... any day.

JohnOrgovan, (With apologies to all for being so long winded.)

What's the matter tough guy? Too much for you to digest?

OK I'll make this one short 'n sweet. It is easy to demonstrate that (revealed) religion is filled with elements of farce.

The following is excerpted from the Wikipedia description of theatrical farce:

(Parenthesis are mine.)

“… Aims at… the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations, disguise and mistaken identity…”

“… often highly incomprehensible plot-wise due to the large number of plot twists and random events…”

“… Viewers, (believers) are encouraged to try not to follow the plot in order to not become confused and overwhelmed.”

“… also characterized by… the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances.”

I'd have to say that's a pretty damned accurate description of, 'sacred' scripture. So, your lame challenge is met on several levels.

WHAT.... a Str8 Bishop! Doesn’t the catholic church have enough sex scandals to deal with...

Well, now we know what your hangup is.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing at all. You might want to consider educating yourself.

Ummmm, a lot of the bishops who have protected (in the past) pedophiles were themselves homosexual, and they also are definitely not liberal. There are a lot of conservative homosexuals--many of them are in the Catholic church.

You are doing an interesting conflation here of pedophile, homosexual, and liberal. These things don't necessarily go together--there are many heterosexual pedophiles (some of them were Catholic priests, as not all the children molested in the past were male), in fact there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones (because homosexuals only account for about 4% of the population). Many homosexuals are conservative because they tend to be quite wealthy and it is in their best interest (Ever heard of Log Cabin Republicans? Ever noticed how many "outed" politicians and pundits are Republican?).

Anyone who hasn't figured out that the main reason why most molestation occured between priests and boys hasn't yet figured out that people would think it odd if a priest started wanting to escort a little girl everywhere, especially overnight. That is, people are attuned to men being attracted to little girls or young teens (and teens being attracted to older men--especially authority figures)--and so it was at the time much easier for priests to gain access to boys than to girls.

Also, many of the cases of molestation were not pedophilia--they occurred between priests and boys of 16-18, who would otherwise have been considered above the age of consent (and probably were, by law, at the time). Any similar liasons between priests and girls who were above the age of consent probably aren't being prosecuted--the girls are less likely to have seen themselves as "victimized." And, of course, the church used to openly encourage homosexual men to enter the priesthood since they were supposed to remain celibate anyway.

I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when 16-year-old girls used to brag openly about their conquests of older men (college boys, fathers of the children they babysat, teachers, preachers/priests). In states where 16-year-olds are legal, they probably still do.

No respected study has ever found a link between pedophilia and homosexuality--and, I assure you, they tried. It was commonly assumed by everyone to be the case, and people were surprised to find no link at all. Most pedophiles, even those who prey on young boys, identify as heterosexual--such men just prey on boys because they have greater access and also because there is a higher degree of shame among the boys and a lower likelihood that they will tell, and less of a chance of being found out through pregnancy.

beanathome, virtually everything you posted above is false. I have studied criminal behavior for over 30 years. I have an advanced degree in criminology. By a huge majority pediphiles molest children of the same sex as they are. I am not calling it homosexulaity because its not. It is a sexual deviency based on more power and control. But you are factually incorrect to say that there are more hetersexual peds than homosexual ones, at least if you look to who they victimize. Also the Catholic Church openly supports socialism and opposes capitalism. It is conservative on a couple of narrow issues but as an institution is nearly completely a pro-socialist liberal organization.

The rest of your post is silly and not worth commenting on.

...and a money making machine...

@WalkWithMeInHell...your wife is not alone. There are many, many of us "recovering Catholics" who did the exact same thing. Catholics Come Home my backside!

@ OhNo

The Vatican is the only legitimized Mafia which has nearly unfettered access to any country it pleases. They were in recent history the single biggest land/property owning organization in the world, but that may be changing rapidly due to lawsuits and declining membership in many countries.

The Vatican Jesuits are a powerful syndicate, whose cash reserves once swayed nations. At one time they were one of the biggest investors at the US Federal Reserve. There is speculation that the Jesuits were involved with the Kennedy assassination, with the compliance of LBJ, and there is lots of info out there to be googled (but half of it is nonsense). It may sound like a wacko conspiracy theory, but I have friends who were in the DIA and NSA that now believe this rumor to be credible to at least some degree.

All this is why the Vatican is pouring all it's energy into coercing 2nd & 3rd world nations which have Catholic majorities. They realize that in modern nations their flock is dying and leaving. Exploiting people in poor nations is their only hope of survival.

Jimi you're totally right, and I have no idea where the Catholic church got the idea their priests should be unmarried, it has been long thought that Peter, John, and Paul were all married at one time, they may have become separated because of their travels but there is also that possibility that they did have the opportunity to go home once in awhile to be with family. So far as I know the Catholics are the only denomination requiring celebacy (and we all know where that has gone over the years.)

They got the idea from the old Babylonian religions and most of their doctrines as well. They also claim to be the true church but fail to remember they began around 600AD when Constantin told all those they professed to be christian if they would bow the knee to him as the Pope he would legitimize their churches. all those churches that had became apostate came a running, but those that held to what is now known as Baptist believes today refused and were hunted and killed by what is now the Catholic church. It was John the Baptist that baptized Christ, not John the Catholic. And Peter who they claim was the first Pope had a wife.