as a concerned catholic I would like to know why the Vatican or more specific His Holiness is not making any statements about these so called priest who are molesting these children why must I a christian be ashamed to say I am a catholic & make excuses for his Holiness for not takeing a stand against what is going on in my church. as I understand it,according to news reports it cost the catholic church over 2 billom dollars for the cover ups and you expect me to donate money to the church I think not. some sort of statement must come from the Vatican and it must come soon.

-- sib gee (sib_g@hotmail.com), February 15, 2002

Answers

Well, the Church isn't exactly silent on it. This news article reports a new document to be released on just that issue. Here is an article detailing some of the new policies to be enforced in that document.

If you're not satisfied with that, this Q&A-style report is an excellent summary of the facts about the issue. The answerer's credentials are prominently displayed at the top.

Furthermore, Fr. Andrew Greely, a Catholic priest and sociologist (but certainly no friend to orthodox Catholicism), himself explains in his book Furthermore! that preist pedophilia has nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero, to do with the vow of celibacy. And, like any sociologist worth his salt, Fr. Greely backs up his statements with scads of numbers. (Now if only I had the book with me so I could quote it.)

Another thing to note is that nearly all currently reported priest- abuse cases happened between the 1950's and the 1980's, by priests who were in training probably in the 1920's through the 1960's, under a formation program that knew nothing about the psychology of pedophilia. I am a seminarian, and I can tell you, the Program for Priestly Formation that they have today has a such a stringent filter as was totally unheard of back then. Trust me, I actually went through the darn thing. Background checks, psychological evaluation, police reports, physicals, interviews and interviews upon interviews, not to mention 8 years of living under a microscope. If I had even the slightest inclination towards pedophilia, the guys in charge would find out.

The knowledge we have now simply didn't exist when our current priest- abuse cases were just a twinkle in the eye of a malformed seminarian in a 1950's seminary.

I think the Church is aware of the problem and is acting on it. Beyond that, releasing 10-page documents about it and making a holiday of it would only serve to draw resources from the Church's other problems, which are inconceivable in number.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 16, 2002.

HTML fixed

Well, the Church isn't exactly silent on it. This news article reports a new document to be released on just that issue. Here is an article detailing some of the new policies to be enforced in that document.

If you're not satisfied with that, this Q&A-style report is an excellent summary of the facts about the issue. The answerer's credentials are prominently displayed at the top.

Furthermore, Fr. Andrew Greely, a Catholic priest and sociologist (but certainly no friend to orthodox Catholicism), himself explains in his book Furthermore! that preist pedophilia has nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero, to do with the vow of celibacy. And, like any sociologist worth his salt, Fr. Greely backs up his statements with scads of numbers. (Now if only I had the book with me so I could quote it.)

Another thing to note is that nearly all currently reported priest- abuse cases happened between the 1950's and the 1980's, by priests who were in training probably in the 1920's through the 1960's, under a formation program that knew nothing about the psychology of pedophilia. I am a seminarian, and I can tell you, the Program for Priestly Formation that they have today has a such a stringent filter as was totally unheard of back then. Trust me, I actually went through the darn thing. Background checks, psychological evaluation, police reports, physicals, interviews and interviews upon interviews, not to mention 8 years of living under a microscope. If I had even the slightest inclination towards pedophilia, the guys in charge would find out.

The knowledge we have now simply didn't exist when our current priest- abuse cases were just a twinkle in the eye of a malformed seminarian in a 1950's seminary.

I think the Church is aware of the problem and is acting on it. Beyond that, releasing 10-page documents about it and making a holiday of it would only serve to draw resources from the Church's other problems, which are inconceivable in number.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 16, 2002.

P.S.- Never be ashamed to say you are a Catholic. There are hoardes, legions even, of people on this earth that would smile with demented glee at the thought of making you ashamed.

One of my favorite books of all time is The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. In it, a devil named Screwtape writes letters to a novice tempter. Keep in mind, the "Our Father Below" refers to Satan, and "the Enemy" refers to God. Here's a quote you may like:

One of our great allies at present is the Church itself. Do not misunderstand me. I do not mean the Church as we see her spread but through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle which makes I our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quite invisible to these humans. All your patient sees is the half-finished, sham Gothic erection on the new building estate. When he goes inside, he sees the local grocer with rather in oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book containing a liturgy which neither of them understands, and one shabby little book containing corrupt texts of a number of religious lyrics, mostly bad, and in very small print. When he gets to his pew and looks round him he sees just that selection of his neighbours whom he has hitherto avoided. You want to lean pretty heavily on those neighbours. Make his mind flit to and fro between an expression like "the body of Christ" and the actual faces in the next pew. It matters very little, of course, what kind of people that next pew really contains. You may know one of them to be a great warrior on the Enemy's side. No matter. Your patient, thanks to Our Father below, is a fool. Provided that any of those neighbours sing out of tune, or have boots that squeak, or double chins, or odd clothes, the patient will quite easily believe that their religion must therefore be somehow ridiculous.

...

I have been writing hitherto on the assumption that the people in the next pew afford no rational ground for disappointment. Of course if they do—if the patient knows that the woman with the absurd hat is a fanatical bridge-player or the man with squeaky boots a miser and an extortioner—then your task is so much the easier. All you then have to do is to keep out of his mind the question "If I, being what I am, can consider that I am in some sense a Christian, why should the different vices of those people in the next pew prove that their religion is mere hypocrisy and convention?" You may ask whether it is possible to keep such an obvious thought from occurring even to a human mind. It is, Wormwood, it is! Handle him properly and it simply won't come into his head. He has not been anything like long enough with the Enemy to have any real humility yet. What he says, even on his knees, about his own sinfulness is all parrot talk. At bottom, he still believes he has run up a very favourable credit-balance in the Enemy's ledger by allowing himself to be converted, and thinks that he is showing great humility and condescension in going to church with these "smug", commonplace neighbours at all. Keep him in that state of mind as long as you can.

Your affectionate uncle SCREWTAPE"

So you see, the Church is full of sinners, grievious sinners, even among some priests! Never let that touch your genuine faith in God and the Church, or else Wormwood has so tragically won.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 16, 2002.

Admit the wrongs, clean house, pay the consequences, protect against further sin, get along with the wisdom that comes from learning from mistakes.
The Boston and Portland diosese are likely to finally make this problem right because they are taking an approach that is no longer 1/2 measured. I hope the rest shine the full light on this problem after which all can move on.
What has happened to you when you admit only a part of your problem in confession?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), February 16, 2002.

It seems to me that bishops like Law who knowingly relocated pedophile priests to other parishes should resign.

"In a broader sense, though, the defrocked Geoghan is not on trial; Bernard Cardinal Law, the Archbishop of Boston, who admits he knew about Geoghan's pedophile past as far back as 1984 and reassigned him to parish work anyway, is. And so is the American hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, whose tepid response to the priestly pedophilia scandals has cost the Church untold tens of millions of dollars in legal settlements, to say nothing of the ruined lives and shattered faith of victims and their families." (National Review)

Everyone talks about accountability, but no one pays the price for wrongdoing nowadays.

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher011502.shtml

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 17, 2002.

Who says pedophile cases are linked only to Catholicism? Like many other newspapers, Boston's Globe (city newspaper) has taken a rabid anti-Catholic stance. (The Wanderer, 2/7/02) Reports and quotes are given from "recovering Catholics" often. I sure don't trust the opinion of the mainstream pro-gay pro-abortion media anymore... and who knows how many other pastors or rabbis have been implicated in pedophilia?? How often does it occur in public schools?? It's a terrible thing that needs serious realignment, conversion, and rebuilding to counter, but Catholics are NOT necessarily on the bad end of the stick. While the world's morals erode, I can also testify to the increased scrutiny & surveillance of Catholic seminaries ( I just applied). Two psychological examinations, four days worth of interviews, and about seven years of preparation... any homosexual or pedophiliac tendencies in me would definitely be highlighted after this! Though this Church may be laced with scandal, I understand that every man and woman is tempted. It just seems extremely over-highlighted when it's a Catholic. And I've offered my life to this Church; I'll fight or correct every pedophiliac tendency I see. Someone's got to do it. I may just be one man, but I'll still try. Long live Christ!!

-- Scott Schwemin (schwemin@excite.com), February 18, 2002.

Bravo, Scott Schwemin --
It's significant that Mr. Jackson only appears in this forum occasionally in the role of devil's advocate, Scott. He has a nice way of pouring scorn on our Church, with a specious manner; you know, he's a ''good'' Christian.

What was that cliche from Casablanca? ''SHOCKED! SHOCKED!!!''

That's Steve Jackson. In fact, he's hit on a major weakness. We have to face it, some Church leaders in the past stupidly hoped they could ''pick up the pieces'' after the wrong was done; and swept them under the rug. To ''avoid'' scandal. But once it is a fact, scandal can't be avoided. It happens. You are correct, it happens in other places and professions; and it's shameful for all of them.

Many psychiatrists were exposed in recent years; analysts who were abusing their patients. They paid huge settlements, and the world just laughed. Boys will be boys. Just let a Catholic priest place himself in this jeopardy.

The feeding frenzy streams with dead bodies! The Church!!! But the Catholic Church is exposed like a beacon; the shame is magnified. And why not? It should be; we are human, and we must accept the human estate. Humility is called for now; and repentence and MORAL FIBRE.

In that event, we can count on our Holy Saviour for His grace. We aren't alone; and we know He loves us. Jesus Christ clearly prophesied that scandals would come. It had no ''chilling effect'' on Him. It didn't stop His holy Apostles from carrying the Gospel to all nations! Let the world have its supercilious fun.

The Steve Jackson who is ''SHOCKED! SHOCKED!!!'' Yes, he says, ''Everyone talks about accountability, but no one pays the price for wrongdoing nowadays.'' -- He TALKS about accountability. He means for OTHER people. Not for himself. The Church isn't expecting HIM to pay for her priests' sins. You would think he's been paying for them himself.

He can talk, but anybody can talk. He won't pay a cent, --He'll point the finger.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 18, 2002.

Hi Scott, good to see an almost-seminarian on board. I'm a new one; I've been here for a semester and a half, and so far things couldn't be better.

To comment on your post, there is evidence that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. Nonetheless, at least in western seminaries, dioceses and schools are unwilling to punish a student for admitting to having homosexual or bisexual feelings as long as said student is serious about the commitment to chaste celibacy, does not exhibit signs of promiscuity, and is not using the priesthood as an "escape" from dealing with hard realities.

For better or for worse, that seems to be the policy in practice. I've read a couple of corroborating statistics that would indicate that nearly half of ordained priests have experienced homosexual thoughts or feelings; in seminaries, that number can be as high as 3/4ths.

I found a document that explores a correlation between homosexual orientation and pedophilia: http:// www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html

Lots of numbers, so it would seem to solidly contradict those who claim that child molestation and pedophilia are unrelated.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), February 19, 2002.

Eugene --

I don't get your point. I quoted from National Review, which is something of a Catholic publication.

I'm sure the news media is exagerating these stories out of hostility to the Catholic Church. That doesn't mean that Law's conduct was correct, however.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 19, 2002.

What you quote is more indicative of your motive than where it's quoted from. You are simply gloating over this scandal. You act as if the accountability weren't even of concern to Catholics. Naturally it is.

I just take offense at your cheap shots. The Church will survive very well, thank you, Steve.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.

Jmj

(1) The "National Review" is not a Catholic publication.

(2) Those who allow men with a same-sex attraction to enter seminaries are making a serious error. There is no doubt in my mind that the pope disapproves of this, but I cannot lay a hand on a written statement to that effect. I also do not doubt that those who are permissive to such men are overly restrictive in a different direction. You'll see what I mean by reading these excerpts from an 1995 editorial by Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha -- a former seminary rector and vocations director:

"It seems to me that the vocation 'crisis' is precipitated and continued by people who want to change the Church's agenda, by people who do not support orthodox candidates loyal to the magisterial teaching of the pope and bishops, and by people who actually discourage viable candidates from seeking priesthood and vowed religious life as the Church defines these ministries. ...

"I am personally aware of certain vocations directors, vocations teams, and evaluation boards who turn away candidates who do not support the possibility of ordaining women or who defend the Church's teaching about artificial birth control, or who exhibit a strong piety toward certain devotions, such as the rosary."

God bless you.
John

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

The promise to be CELIBATE to become a priest is what is acceptable to the Church. Heterosexuality to become a Priest, Deacon or any of the religious positions was as far as I know, has never been a standard. If we make the standard any tighter we will certainly see many more empty Churches without Priests and other Religious.

-- FB (nvnvn@jgjg.com), February 20, 2002.

"The 'National Review' is not a Catholic publication."

Notice that I said "something" of a Catholic publication. WFB is a Catholic and -- I think -- the editor, Lowry. Rev. Neuhaus [sic] & Novak write for the publication and they are Catholic as well.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 20, 2002.

Steve,
I read the William F. Buckley column in which he gave the opinion Cardinal Law should have resigned. Though I'm a very avid fan of his, I disagree. But, like any American Buckley has a right to his own honest opinion. That doesn't make it carved in stone. You and others make it seem the Church is desperately running away and hiding from this. But, as I've tried to say above, the Cardinal is doing what any good clergyman would do. He's facing the music; he's taking the heat of the media and anti-Catholics, and he's remaining faithful to his flock. His mistakes --or gross negligence, if you will are behind us. Nothing would be served by beating up on him now. It's not our place to judge; and God will certainly preserve Cardinal Law, the Church, and our priests. I say that from FAITH.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 20, 2002.

But sometimes "facing the music" means resigning. I don't know the details, but if Law knowingly transferred pedophile priests to other parishes where they could continue their deeds, then this would be a reason for him to quit. As far as the anti-catholics go, Law has given them a lot of ammunition.

The sociologist Max Weber wrote about how as an institution progresses, preservation of the institution becomes more important than what the institution's original goal was. I'm sure all churches have this problem.

Here is an article from National Review on ecumenism that I found interesting --

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher022102.shtml

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

Why do we call priests, "Father?" ML

-- marylu (mlc327@aol.com), May 12, 2002.

Larry writes:

"I am a staunch Roman Catholic and an economist by profession and can state without hestitation that the wealth in treasures owned by the Church is almost beyond estimate."

OK, Larry, so what do you think we should do? Most of this "wealth" is in the local church and school buildings. Should we sell off our local parish properties because we can't "estimate" church wealth?

You make it sound like there's some hidden room in the bottom of the Vatican where there's a bunch of treasure chests filled with gold and gems. Actually, using Bugs Bunny as a guide, he found a big treasure, but it was in an Arab country (something about a wrong turn at Albuquerque). Based on that historical information, maybe Islam should be giving its treasure to feed the poor.

Open Sesame!!!!! Hey, look at all this Vatican gold bullion! LOL

Larry writes:

"However, there is one point with which I do agree, and which is in terms of the scripture he quotes, where Christ declared: "Do not store up for yourself treasures on earth."

No one can dispute that Christ did say that - noone can dispute that the Church does store up treasures on earth - and noone can dispute that this is in total disregard of what He, in His perfection commanded us NOT to do."

Jesus' condemnation was directed at individuals!!! The Church is not an individual. No Catholic is "storing up treasures."

Take the money changers in the Bible. Jesus condemned them directly; but what did he say to the priests? Did he say, "Hey priests, sell the Temple and give the money to the poor, because God doesn't want you to build a place to worship him"? No!

I have some questions for our American readers:

1) Should we sell the Smithsonian's holdings?

2) Should we sell the Statue of Liberty so that we can more directly help immigrants?

3) Should we sell off the holdings of the Library of Congress so we can support literacy programs?

4) Should we sell off the National monuments so that we can support history education programs?

Total federal, state, and local taxes are probably more than 50% of earnings. It's ironic that temporal governments that take the money of its citizens aren't able to solve the problems of poverty--where's the outrage? After all of the charitable work that Catholics provide, we're supposed to sell off Sacred Art and church buildings? This is a silly expectation.

Also, considering that you (Larry) are an economist, your own profession is considered evil by those who hold the literalist point of view regarding Matthew 6:34. Of course, just as the "sell all Church valuables" interpretation of the Bible is ridiculous, so is the "don't prepare for tomorrow" interpretation of the Bible.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 13, 2002.

Please don't use multiple aliases in a single thread to make it look like more than one person shares your point of view. This is deceitful, and therefore unethical.

Moderator

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), May 13, 2002.

Dear Moderator,
What you have just mentioned is a new rule, which I would appreciate your adding to your opening message on your Moderator's Note thread.
I urge caution, though, because this is a rule that has to be enforced very delicately. It is not always true that a person posting under more than one "handle" (on the same thread) is attempting to deceive. On several occasions, I have seen this done for legitimate reasons (i.e., other than to make it seem that more than one person holds the same opinion).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

John,

I've given up saving the whole threads, but in this particular case, the poster named Larry Sing Lee said (in part),

"I am a staunch Roman Catholic and an economist by profession and can state without hestitation that the wealth in treasures owned by the Church is almost beyond estimate.

The individual who claims to be a priest, certainly seem to have some problems, no question about that. He may actually be a priest - if so many serial pedophiles can be priests, he may also be a priest.

However, there is one point with which I do agree, and which is in terms of the scripture he quotes, where Christ declared: "Do not store up for yourself treasures on earth."

By IP address, this poster is the same one who was posting as "Fr. Anonymous", and quite clearly had the intent of making people believe he was two different people agreeing with each other. I agree that deleting things should be done cautiously. In fact, I'd rather not delete ANYthing at all! Perhaps you could pray for this recent bunch of jokers to quit plaguing the forum so we could get back to some civility?

I will add this clarification into the "Moderator's note" however.

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), May 14, 2002.

Moderator,

Wouldn't it have been effective if you had simply appended this poster's messages with something like "[Same poster as FR]"?

Either way, I am glad that you can identify these posters when they post using multiple aliases.

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 14, 2002.

Mateo,

Yes, but my intent isn't to point it out, but to discourage the behavior, which I think is better done by deleting their posts. And unless something worries me, like the posts from the "father", I don't usually *look* at someone's IP numbers (because of time), so a lot of these may go unnoticed.

I am always open to hear better ways of doing things, looking at some of the posts here, I'm sure you'll agree I haven't found the best yet!

-- moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), May 14, 2002.

Thank you, Moderator.
You mentioned the details of a recent occurrence of the problem (Larry Sing Lee and Fr. Anonymous). You are doing a great job of "clean-up." I don't think that I even had a chance to see that thread!
I certainly have prayed for the forum to be free of trouble-makers.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2002.

They say that confession is good for the soul, thusly I will confess that Larry Sing Lee is a psuedonym. I am a former priest who married - there are many such, and I will not speak of the many others who marry secretly or maintain secret relationships.

It was never my intention to offend anyone, and I regret if I have done so. When I said as "Larry" that "Fr.A" is much troubled, that was the truth. I am. I was molested by a priest as a child, have never spoken of this and never shall out of respect and love for the Church. The name of the priest will go with me to the grave. The trouble that this has caused and still causes, will also.

The Holy Scripture that I quoted was not in any wish to cause trouble, but in a (failed, it seems) effort to clearly point out and understand what appeared - and still does - to me - to be the turning of a blind eye to the edicts of Christ.

I regret as well, that a quoting of Scripture can be seen as an attempt to cause trouble. I thank you for your responses, even though they have not clarified - at least for me - the meaning of the words of Christ that I cited.

Yours in Christ - most sincerely.

-- Larry Sing Lee (larrysinglee@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

The name of the priest will go with me to the grave. The trouble that this has caused and still causes, will also.

If this priest is still alive and actively employed in the church, you may be putting children in harm's way. You don't have to sue the church, like so many others are doing, but I think it should be reported.

Do you feel comfortable keeping this a secret and putting other's in harms way? Perhaps you should think about this further. MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 15, 2002.

Larry writes:

"I regret as well, that a quoting of Scripture can be seen as an attempt to cause trouble."

Larry, it was not quoting Scripture that is a problem, it is you excessive use of deceit! Rid yourself of deceit, and you will better understand the Scriptures. Based on your previous deception, it's hard for me to believe any of your personal story. You have taught us all that you are not above deceiving others to make a point.

With regard to your scripture quotes, I did post a lengthy responses with Bible quotes that the moderator deleted. Because you posted as "Larry" after I posted, it's clear to me that you don't want to hear any response. If you did, you would not have pretended to be someone else.

You, my friend, are terribly lost. I pray that you find your way to Jesus.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 15, 2002.

Larry writes:

"I am a former priest who married - there are many such, and I will not speak of the many others who marry secretly..."

I doubt the "facts" in this sentence. For practical purposes, if "many" priests marry in secret, I have some questions:

1) Who marries them, the Church or the state?

2) Why bother getting "married" if one is maintaining a secret affair? Who would possibly care about a formality of marriage, as if it would "validate" the union?

3) If they are hidden relationships, then how can you know about them all? Are you their hairdresser?

I'll repeat, your accusations are as weak as any lame anti-Catholic website. It's always "priest-hypocrites" and "Vatican Gold Bullion." It's a big conspiracy, and Larry is going to save us all!

Well, at least you're entertaining us...

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 15, 2002.

Well, Mateo, perhaps entertainment is better than nothing. It too serves a purpose even though that was never my intention.

I'll try and answer your questions as specifically as possible, even though you have not answered my own. Specifically, that is. Firstly, to a previous questioner: the priest that I speak of passed away some time ago. His family is well respected and I have no wish to cause them distress, nor is anything to be gained by it.

To be frank Mateo, I had a "secret" affair and having broken the vow of celibacy, thus decided to marry.There are many others who have done so - whether you approve of it or not. Celibacy was not demanded for the first 1000 years of the Church. Peter himself was married. Is he not the Rock on which the Church stands?

Further, I live in Mexico and can speak only for my first-hand knowledge of the clergy here. There are many who have what might be referred to as "secret relationships" and have children. Do some research, and you will ascertain the facts.

Harking back to a previous comment - at no time did I suggest that the Church sell the edifice, the temple, if you will. Christ did not advocate this. He spoke against "treasure" e.i. posessions. He did not specify that they need belong to one or belong to several or more individuals.

As mentioned, I live in Mexico and have been to places where this is grinding poverty.Where the infant mortality is several or many times that in the United States. And in some of the Churches, there is gold objects worth a fortune. Is it possible that some lives - not all, but some - could be rescued if those valuables were sold - as Jesus Christ commanded. Even if ONE life were to saved - would it not be worth the effort? Is gold to be more valued than life itself?

I will ask a question - you may mock me if you wish - that changes nothing - but I ask with sincerity - do you honestly, in your heart and soul believe that Christ would himself adorn His Church with gold? And to repeat - while children go hungry and die of malnourishment and lack of medical care.

The matter of the exact amount of the Church's "treasures" and other holdings is not common knowledge, but there is no doubt that it is in the many, many millions. Very few doubt that it is in fact, billions and not just a few. By the Church's own admission, close to one billion dollars have been paid to compensate abuse victims. All of this while children perish, who might otherwise be saved.

Does that trouble you? It does trouble me.

I ask your pardon once more for the use of two "aliases". Although I meant no harm,it was a mistake and one which I regret.

-- Larry Lee Sing (larryleesing@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

One more comment. I do not suggest a conspiracy from which I might save you or anyone. My own salvation is possibly in question.

However, the established practice of shuffling known serial peodophile priests - (not one or two, mind you - we are speaking of scores) from parish to parish - despite their repeated offences, might appear to some to be in the nature of a conspiracy. What is your opinion? An accident?

-- Larry Lee Sing (larryleesing@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

Larry Sing, --If you are a married priest in Mexico (do we have to believe you>?) and you saw --

gold objects worth a fortune, why aren't they in public view? I'm familiar with Mexico. If you call gold leaf-adorned altarpieces ''fortunes'' you are remarkably naive. Gold paint is more often the case. When we see on the altar a gold ciborium or patten, we see the love and reverence which every Catholic offers Our Lord, not an object to be sold for any reason. God deserves this tribute. The priest himself eats in a modest kitchen, mostly from plastic dinnerware. You are simply lying about the ''treasures'' in Mexican churches. Please add to this information the plain fact that Catholic churches help more poor people in Mexico than the government of that country. Priests themselves live in grinding poverty. They do so without complaining; and when they give charity to the poor, the word doesn't go out to the news media. It's not boasted in any public place.

Which clearly tells me, at least, that your testimony is slanted and false. You don't know anything about the Catholic Church. Nothing!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 15, 2002.

Larry,

You write:

"I'll try and answer your questions as specifically as possible, even though you have not answered my own."

That's right I didn't answer "Larry's" questions...I was too busy answering FR's questions! And when I answered many of them, you pretended that you were someone new... Why don't you admit that I answered your questions.

Regarding the "priest/parish shuffle" question, at the time this occurred, all of society was following the "wisdom" of psychologists who told them that sexual abusers could be "cured." After being "rehabilitated," these priests were transferred. The pschologists, whose expertise the Catholic Church, other churches, and even public schools all relied on, were proven to be wrong. Plenty of school systems are being sued right now, too.

A second point about priests-shuffling. In my diocese, ALL priests move from parish to parish every few years. Not some...not many...ALL! They move around just like the military moves around its soldiers and officers. The diocese doesn't move them around to "hide" them. They move around because, among other things, we Catholics should only be attached to one priest--Jesus Christ. Go to a Protestant church, and often people attend because they like the preacher. This helps keep us from being focussed on the priest.

At my parish, we've had ~eight priests in the past 5 years. They are ALL still priests, and they are ALL great priests. That's just the way things work.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 15, 2002.

Eugene,

You are soooo right. If these baroque altars were really made out of pure gold, how long would it take before they "disappeared"?

Also, for those who question the decorations in a Church, check out this from Catholic.com:

"People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).

David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

I also doubt that any Mexican priest wouldst speakist like thisith. Dost thou jest? LOL!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 15, 2002.

Larry wants an answer:

,i>''Do you honestly, in your heart and soul believe that Christ would himself adorn His Church with gold? And to repeat - while children go hungry and die of malnourishment and lack of medical care?

No, Larry-- Our Lord would want us to feed the poor.

When our beloved Mother Theresa opened her convent mission in San Francisco, she ordered her little sisters to pull the carpets off the wooden floors and take them away to Goodwill. She had nothing but contempt for money, giving her Nobel Peace Prize monies to the poorest of the poor. In Calcutta her charity is still remembered by the poor derelicts she sheltered and nursed and fed. A great Catholic; and not the only one. Jesus worked through her, and works through thousands of other charities in the Catholic Church, to help the needy.

You may begrudge God Almighty the offerings of precious vessels and reliquaries, but Catholics spare no expense for the praise and glory of God. Just as Jesus Himself must have gloried in the riches and slendor of the holy Temple of Jerusalem. He never condemned it at all!

He Himself chose poverty, but the worship of His Father in heaven is clearly worthy of our offerings. Jesus received gold offerings as an infant in Bethlehem. Gold, frankincence and myrrh, in case you've forgotten, Larry. Nothing all that shabby; He accepted them at the hands of the Magi. It doesn't tell us in the gospel of Luke whether Jesus commanded these rich offerings be sold, to feed poor children. Somehow, I think if He had, it would be written.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 15, 2002.

This, you may be pleased to know, is my last comment. If it pleases you to mock me, then by all means do so.

Mexicans are deeply devoted to the Church precisely because of their efforts on behalf of the poor. I say not a word against the Mexican clergy - they are an example to all. I also know the difference between gold leaf and solid gold, but that is quite beside the point.

Yes, the Old Testament did command, as Mateo correctly pointed out. He is obviously something of a biblical scholar. Somehow the point is missed, ignored or evaded.

The Church places the sanctity of life above all else. The absolute prohibition of birth control is evidence of that. I will repeat - the sanctity of life above all else. Nontheless the Church possesses immense wealth, while children starve and perish. Starve and perish. Perhaps that doesn't trouble your conscience - perhaps you have none. Close your eyes to the facts if you wish.

Laugh, mock, scorn - it changes nothing. The facts remain. I won't be reading your reply if any. I hope that I may, just may - have caused you to think. May all blessings be yours.

-- Larry Sing Lee (larrysinglee@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

I'd like to say as well to Larry:

Your admonitions are ironically judgmental, when considering you broke the vows you took before God (and the Church, if you're not lying--) and were at some time having illicit relations with a woman. You boast that afterward you were married. What makes your marriage vows any more sacred in the eyes of God, than the broken vow of chastity? You have condemned yourself.

''Celibacy was not demanded for the first 1000 years of the Church,'' you say. But keeping the VOW taken before God WAS demanded.

No one had any obligation to celibacy, if he wouldn't accept it. It's voluntary, for those taking holy orders. You misunderstand the Church's rule of celibacy. It applies only to those who take these vows; vows required for the holy priesthood. If you can't keep the vows, you shouldn't take holy orders. Seems very fair to me.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 15, 2002.