www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings What does the Church teach?

Dear Maximus,

I'm not angry at you, Friend!

We're just talking here, discussing and things get heated up because we all believe in the views we hold.

You reflected on what I said to you and you accepted some of it, rejected the rest. That's great and what a wonderful world it would be if everyone could converse that way!

(And I never suggested "banning" priests at any time - we have too great a shortage of them to do that ).

Stay away from strip clubs - you were right in your observation about committing adultery, as St Paul remarked as well!

Alex

Joe & Alex,

Joe you made remarks regarding: how many social problems would be avoided if sex were to be kept within the proper confines of marriage... and that basicly if a greater percentage of fathers committed to that role and stayed with the woman they impregnated -- I couldn't agree more.

It has been a concern of military generals throughout the ages I understand, that their civilian society and culture be able to produce the quality of canidates/recruites needed to sustain their nation militarily.

What does this have to do with the Church or the discussion? It has always been part of Church Tradition as I understand it to transform any nations culture into a Christian culture. The Church was to peirce deeply into the society of that nation. Perhaps one aspect, and perhaps a significant aspect, to this modern crises in the Church that roils the Church. Is the question of the culture and society from whence the Church picks it's new Priests out of? Is our society and culture good breading grounds for good Priests? Does guilt not only lie with the Church hierarchy but society in general?

According to my mother. When she was little, all she knew was the Church, was to be Catholic, she was embroiled in Catholic culture - to the point of being told by her parents not to play with non-catholic children as they would weaken your faith. The Church in many respects was the center of her community and identity. This is hard for me to even comprehend as I was raised in a totaly different society and culture. The Church by-in-large always remained on the back-burner.

I don't suggest that we go back to a time when children are forbiden to play with non-catholics (of course I keep Byzantines in these regards as catholics) but it might really help society if the Church was more an intrinsic part of it. The sexual culture and other cultural problems might not be to the extent of the trouble and burden they are if the Church was once again a center and focal point.

Dear Maximus,

You addressed your last post to Joe and myself.

But it sounded like you didn't get around to me.

Did you?

Alex

Alex,

Yes, I was including you in my comments to Joe. I quoted you because of the cultural sexual relation aspect of it.

Sorry my post wasn't clearer and much to vague.

“Many times I have heard people refute Scripture teaching on this subject saying that NT verses were written by men.I goall the way back to Leviticus. It was given directly by God.(So is NT but people argue the fact about time spans inwhich it was written, Jesus didn't say it,Jesus himself was Gay etc.)”

Nicky's Baba,

Speculation grows wild berries. The area of study you have mentioned falls under the Historical Jesus or what I refer to as the Hysterical Jesus. Such speculation has Jesus having intimate relations with the Beloved Disciple (John?), Mary Magdalene, and that most of that which he taught was made up by the Evangelists. These things are determined by groups like the Jesus Seminar, which does not include one practicing Catholic or Orthodox scholar. The reason is obvious. The intent is not to subscribe to faith. Their books can be found all over the shelves of bookstores like Borders. This inquiry into the Historical Jesus is commonly called the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus.


“What concerns me is what you stated about a group's behavior in a prior thread.Do you think this has anything to do with the reluctance to ordain married men? Married men are likely not to be as easily intimidated as young un-married seminarians or worry about people viewing the Priesthood as a Gay profession.I think I've heated up the conversation enough for now.”

I don't make decisions regarding the ordination of married men nor can I speak on behalf of our bishops. As a deacon-student, my marriage is not a roadblock to ordination to the diaconate. In the (Latin) seminary, at least from my own previous experience, new students can be heavily intimidated. I let my fellow students know early on where I stood in my sexuality, and this is probably why I was never “hit on.” Like many students, I was tested to see if I was “available” or “in the market.” Discussions about purple Playboy underwear, bars that would be a “scandal” to the laity, and conversations with the other spreading his legs wide apart to see if the new student would try to catch a “glimpse” of the other's privates were common tactics to determine whether a student was a target. In addition, there were the many conferences on homosexuality and accepting our gay brothers. This sent many confusing signals to new students who came from families and communities where these issues were non-existent and were taught something totally different than what was being conveyed at the seminary. Most of the students who left the seminary got married. These girls were known as “vocation breakers,” but we considered them our “salvation” next to Christ Jesus. My wife was considered a vocation breaker. At work, the only time priesthood is discussed is in the context of homosexuality and pedophiles. This is sad. There are many good priests out there who live a chaste life and who give it all they got.


Joe

Hi Mr. Thur,

You are right so when talking to these folks thats why I say it's Levitical law.What is bad about the Historical Jesus programs on TV is that un-churched folks buy into it. The behavior of these people at the Seminary enrages me.I know that is was a Latin Seminary but you see we have Priest that comes once a week to our community to say Divine Liturgy if he can't make it there is no Liturgy.They are chasing vocations away!If that is how homosexual seminarians behave I want them out of MY Universal Church. That includes Vocation Directors ,Rectors ,Priests, Bishops etc who condone it or remain silent. I work my a_ _ off to keep my community going.Not having a permanent Priest is a BIG strike against our survival.Then to think there is someone somewhere taking their own vocation not too seriously and chasing future Priests away. I don't know the situation in our Church,but after reading what you posted, I do think the married Priesthood is God's way of protecting our Church from these problems. Your wife isn't a vocation breaker you just chose to marry the younger & prettier one instead of a 2000 yr old battle-axe!

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba,

Maximus points out the cultural mileau from where vocations come from. Our culture today is pitiful. It is basically geared to be a culture of death. My experience was from twenty years ago and no longer reflects the institution I experienced. Most of the seminarians were there to serve God and His Church. Marriage may or may not be the solution. The problem lies deeper than we may imagine. Today, we have a frontal assault against Christianity, a campaign to trash Christ and His Church. Every sin, every scandal, and every mistake made in the Church will be magnified a thousand times in order to discredit God's Revelation. Let's pray for all our priests and the dedication they have made to serve in that ministry.

Joe

Dear Maximus,

Thank you for associating me with cultural sexual relations .

I try to be a gentleman at all times, courteous, thoughtful and sensitive.

Given my Eastern Slavic background, it was an uphill battle.

But I think my wife is happy with me now .

Alex

From the Associated Press:
March 21, 2002

In an annual message to priests worldwide, the pope said ``as priests we are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination.''

He said they had succumbed ``to the most grievous forms'' of what he called, using the Latin phrase, ``mystery of evil.''

``Grave scandal is caused, with the result that a dark shadow of suspicion is cast over all the other fine priests who perform their ministry with honesty and integrity and often with heroic self-sacrifice,'' the pope said.

John Paul said the Church ``shows her concern for the victims and strives to respond in truth and justice to each of these painful situations.''

It was the first time the pope publicly addressed the issue since widescale accusations of sexual misconduct by priests surfaced in the United States in recent months. The accusations have led to the resignation of one bishop, from Palm Beach, Fla., and tarnished the reputation of Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston for failing to take action against a child-molesting priest.

The problem has worldwide implications for the Church.

= = = = = = =

Questions:

Will everyone understand what is meant by the term "sin" or the concept of "betraying the grace of ordination?"

What do you think those worldwide implications will be?

In the meantime, will we still be able to appreciate the ministry of the other fine priests?

= = = = = = =
From the Associated Press:

March 21, 2002

Law has acknowledged moving now-defrocked priest John Geoghan from parish to parish despite years of evidence Geoghan was a threat to children. Geoghan has been accused of molesting more than 130 children over 30 years.

The latest call for Law to resign came in Monday's Wall Street Journal, where former Education Secretary William J. Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues, echoed a demand made previously by fellow Catholic conservative William F. Buckley and by the Boston Herald.

"Priests — including Cardinal Law — who have been involved in these cover-ups must be removed from positions of authority," Bennett wrote.

Geoghan is serving a nine-to-10-year prison sentence for fondling a boy in a swimming pool. Because of the scandal, Law has apologized and turned over to prosecutors the names of more than 80 current and former priests suspected of child abuse over the past 50 years.

But Law, 70, has shown no intention of stepping down as leader of the fourth-largest U.S. archdiocese, with 2 million Catholics. He has been archbishop since 1984, and up until this crisis, was regarded as perhaps the most powerful American prelate in the Roman Catholic Church.

"Archbishop is not a corporate executive," Law said at a Mass last month. "He's not a politician. It's a role of pastor. It's a role of teacher. It's a role of a father. When there are problems in the family, you don't walk away. You work them out together with God's help."

= = = = = = =

Question:

Is Bennett and Buckley's request for Cardinal Law to resign a solution to the problem?

Was the Palm Beach, FL bishop's actions ( http://diocese.maco.net/florida_catholic/fc03132002.htm ) the only way to express true sorrow as a failed Father?


Joe

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Well regarding the global implications - I'm not entirely certain. But I know here in Wisconsin the Latin Catholic Church problems have been in the news paper daily now. There is even talk and or action being taken to change some Wisconsin laws to make it easier for victims of Priests or religious leaders to sue the Catholic Church and other religious bodies. I suspect we are about to get a glimps into how influential the governmenatl powers of the USA are. I think the Catholic Church is about to be *helped* to change by US leaders, and I think it is possible that the US may eventualy extend this *make-over* to other religious bodies worldwide, by ways of *encouraging* other nation leaders for these changes. What this make-over would be I'm not sure, but I would suspect it will effect Priestly fraternity as we have known it.

Yes, I agree with Bennett and Buckley that the Cardinal should step down it would be for the good of the Church. He may be a "father" figure, but his children are lacth-key kids, they would rarely be visited by their papa, so no need in to dillude himself into thinking he's been at the dinner table every night working out problems with the "kids".

I think Bishop O'Connell is a man of high character. He puts the Church before himself and has acted within the paramaters of a good father and skipper - let the women and children off of the ship, not choosing to take everyone else with him, he has choosen to sink with the ship by himself.

I believe Cardinal Law is a good man. I believe he does love the Church. And I believe he has done much good in not only his life but in that life of him that has been a Bishop and a Prince of the Church. But I disagree with him on his position not to step down. I think it is a mistake, a second mistake if you will. Everyone should keep in mind, the Cardinal included, that one could have been charged executing 101 objectives flawlessly. One could succeed in executing 100 of the objectives flawlessly, but in the process totally screw up 1 objective. Now that 1 failure does not make the Cardinal or any man a horrible person much less take away from all of his previous triumph or greater leadership traits. One can screw up and still be a "good man" and a "good leader". But sometimes that one mistake can be of such proportions to warrant the resignation of a leader - even a great leader or "father" - it can be warranted for the greater good of the institution for which one serves.

As it is the Cardinal will not leave the ring as a Champion who has lost a fight because of the slowing of his wits. But he will leave as a "punch-drunk" fighter who didn't know when to call it quits.

Among Wisdom's treasures is the paragon of prudence,
but fear of the Lord is an abomination to the sinner.
If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments, and the Lord will bestow her upon you;
For fear of the Lord is wisdom and culture; loyal humility is his delight.
Be not faithless to the fear of the Lord
nor approach it with duplicity of heart.
Play not the hypocrite before men;
over your lips keep watch,
Exalt not yourself lest you fall
and bring upon you dishonor;
For then the Lord will reveal your secrets
and publicly cast you down,
Because you approached the fear of the Lord with your heart full of guile.
(Ecclesiasticus 1:22-29)

There are a couple of things that I have not seen discussed anywhere regarding this topic. First, I would like to point out that priests are, first and foremost, representatives of their communities. They, therefore, reflect the people of their communities as well. (Remember Moses' brother Aaron, Exodus chapter 32). Our priests are reflecting something ugly about us, that is, we actually have come to believe that our sexuality belongs to ourselves. It is our means of sexual "expression." We have lost the sense that our sexuality is our "sacrifice." Yet, our traditions are full of these little sacrificial reminders (circumcision in the OT, Baptism including the gift of the baptized's hair, Matrimony with the exchange of rings, even the crowns, the common cup,etc. Holy Orders with tonsure, the churching of women etc.). This is as true for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. One of the things that has always fascinated me about homosexuals is that they have had to confront the fact that they are sinners. Heterosexuals somehow delude themselves into thinking they are not.

I remember a story about a native American chief. He describes the inner struggle as a fight between two dogs residing within him. Someone asked him which dog usually wins and his answer was: "the one that I feed the most." I find that at this time in our history and society we have a propensity to feed our sexual prurience. By doing so, we wall this aspect of ourselves off, and away from our spirits. How can we offer ourselves completely if we do so? How can we achieve loyal humility?

With a heart full of guile;

Fr Dcn John

Mr. Thur,

You are right about our culture.Our ancestors came here and wanted to be Americans.Today in some circumstances they would be ashamed to make that claim. They brought with them very few posessions. The one they treasured the most was their faith,which is evident by the Churches they built as impoverished as they were. Maybe it's time the Church did an about face and not walk but run away from our contemporary culture.People who bash Christ,the Church know right from wrong but they do not want to exercise self control. They don't want to be made to feel guilty about their desires which they want to become the "norm" in society.The Church has always been the voice in the wilderness when it comes to the truth. Negative aspects of our culture have permeated our Church.Every Catholic needs to make an effort to push them back out out of our Church starting in our personal lives.From the top down the bar needs to be set higher.Cardinal Law has the opportunity to teach not only Catholics but our whole country the important lesson of personal responsibilty( which includes humilty,sacrifice and other virtues)by stepping down.How can the Church build up the kingdom of God here on earth if leaders like Cardinal Law refuse to submit to his role as a teacher by example?

Nicky's Baba