I'm not Catholic, but my best friend is a Priest. With his struggle, and with the current news feeding frenzy I have to remind people of the differnce between the religous and accountant side of the church.

Celibate priests was an invention of the church because the bishops of the time were willing property to their children rather than to the church. No children, no property going outside the church. Had nothing to do with Jesus being celibate. Just as eating fish on friday was a response to fishermen in Italy needing to make a living, the church is swayed.

Just a thought, and a few facts.

-- Dennis (westwoodcaprine@yahoo.com), April 08, 2002

Answers

Please cite your sources for said "facts."

--

jake

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), April 08, 2002.

Dennis--
You may call that thought, I don't. Facts are only facts when they are true. You state an opinion, not a fact.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 08, 2002.

Dennis, You are correct. But they don't really want the facts or back- up quotes from Church History or theologians. For when you do produce them they will just ignore them and attack you instead. :-) Joan

-- Joan Storey (godessss@mindspring.com), April 08, 2002.

So--
You are then a theologian, Sister Joan? And a Church historian in the bargain? Oh, well-- I see where you might feel badly nobody cares what you think. But what facts have you ''produced'' for this forum? About as many as this person, --Dennis (westwoodcaprine) has?

Yes, that's what I thought.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 08, 2002.

Eugene- there you go again once more pouncing on historical facts of the Cburch. " Official " celibacy was brought into " law" during the 1100's and the wird bastard took on a whole new meaning for the children as they did not have a father.

As to source(s) try reading indepth medieval history as some of us do to focus. It is thought with the new Pope in the offing this may reversed.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 09, 2002.

Dear Jean--Yes; I now recall that you were the one who stated as a ''historical fact'' how priestly celibacy had been imposed as a device that would enable the Catholic Church to keep the clergy's property from being inherited.

No wonder you object then; as the initial post here seems to agree with your view. (Which is false from the word GO,) Then you probably say it's a historical ''fact'' as well that fish on Fridays was a device to help the Italian fishing industry!

Haha!!! The FACTS of the Catholic Church as promoted by her sworn enemies! Jean, if you believe this is HISTORY, I gave you too much credit for brains. --Now, Joan Storey claims this forum can't face the real facts:

-- ''or back- up quotes from Church History or theologians. For when you do produce them they will just ignore them and attack you.''

Yet, all we've ever said to her, and to the author of the first post, was back up your ''facts'' with some credible source. Why should we have to rely on anti-clerical and protestant publications as ''proof'' of these stabs at the Catholic Church? And I pointedly asked her was she qualified as a theologian; as a Catholic Church historian and scholar? She still hasn't answered.

You bring up the word bastard as if that gave you a better grasp of Church history than mine? What does that have to do with a false claim about Church property; or how the clergy didn't have heirs? That's false and only anti-Catholics ever proposed that.

Celibacy is a discipline which priests accept for the love of God. No one says that it's not imposed historically through Church authority. But NOT for opportunistic motives, to keep an inheritance! That's a calumny; and God will punish any who have defamed the Popes this way, imputing evil motives where none existed.

We may not appreciate celibacy as an estate for the priesthood. Or we may. It's not our decision, it's the Holy Father's and the Magisterium's. Do you have any objection, Jean? Do you have any reason to criticize Jesus Christ, since He apparently thought celibacy was OK for Himself? Are you smarter and better focused than Christ, too?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 09, 2002.

This "property inside" argument is of course ridiculous.

Just think: if this were true, the Church today should encourage the mariage of priests. It is well known that today the Church is very short of money. With most women working, priest´s wives could increase the Church´s revenue. Their salary could perhaps be sufficient for mantaining the family, feeing the Church of having to support their priests out of the Sunday Mass contributions. :-)

-- Atila (atila@choose.com.br), April 10, 2002.

Ummmmmmm, Gene, I don't mean to sound like a smart aleck or anything but you said "Do you have any reason to criticize Jesus Christ, since He apparently thought celibacy was OK for Himself?".......is that in the Bible? Something I've often wondered about during discussions such as this.

Just curious. Where do we get that idea from?

And while I'm at it :) ~ I've heard lots of talk lately (not here) about James. It says in the Bible that he's Jesus's brother. And I've heard many say that, that means Mary wasn't a virgin then. And I've heard others still that say it only means that spiritually. But I saw a program recently that was showing what life was like for people back then. The customs, food, lodging, etc. And it said, as if EVERYBODY knows this, dontcha know? that Jesus had something like four brothers and a half sister. HUH?! Where's that in the Bible?

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 10, 2002.

Dear Jackie
Why would you think your questions weren't deserving of answers?

No, it isn't specifically explained in the gospels whether ''brethren'' and ''brother'' of the Lord actually meant siblings or not, Jackie. We know that He didn't have even ONE, from sources not included in the Holy Bible. In which circumstance, the proper understanding of the words brethren and sisters of Jesus must necessarily corroborate the weight of all Sacred Tradition. The true meanings are in fact inferrable, when we consider many other messages in the Bible.

Keeping in mind that nowhere at all in the scriptures is any person except John the Apostle once called a son of Mary's.

That is when Jesus says to her from the Cross, ''Woman, behold thy son.'' Was James ever mentioned as Mary's son? No. Or any other person? If they were her sons and daughters, we would have seen in the gospels, indications of those ''sons'' or ''daughters'' belonging to Mary. No-- these relationships are always from the perspective of Jesus, not another soul. Why?

Because they were related!

But not from the same mother. They had family ties to Jesus; through aunts and/or other children who were Joseph's, from a previous marriage. These two optional relationship possibilities were discussed 2,000 years ago; by the Early Fathers. It came down on the side of Mary's kinsmen an women; and their sons and daughters. In other words, cousins and aunts/uncles of Jesus. It's quite feasible, since the word ''brother'' in the ancient Aramaic meant any close relation.

Read even today, the recent accusations of Osama bin Laden against the American an Israeli forces in the middle east: He said, ''We fight them because they have killed our brothers.'' A very close parallel.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 11, 2002.

Nice to see the server working again. That was very frustrating! LOL

Aaaaahhhhhh I see, Gene. Thanks for the help on that.

I don't know. It isn't that I think my questions aren't deserving of answers, per se but sometimes I'm afraid I ask the wrong questions, you know? I would never want to blaspheme our Lord so, sometimes, I'm hesitant to question. But I'm afraid I'm terribly curious by nature so, good intentions or not, it usually pops out eventually. :)

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 11, 2002.

Hello, Jackiea.

The reference to Jesus' brothers ( Mk 3,31 p;6,3 p; Jn 7,3; Ac 1,14; 1 Co 9,5; G 1, 19 ) has led several critics to think that Mary did not preserve her virginity after the birth of Jesus. This is NOT true Jackiea. This opinion is not met anywhere in the ancient tradition when mention is made of Jesus' brothers, and it clashes with several Gospel texts, James and Joseph, brithers of Jesus' Mt 13,55 p, seems to be the sons of another Mary (Mt 27,56 p). And when Jesus is dying He entrusts His mother to the care of His disciple (Jn 19,26f), which seem to suggest that she has no other son. Apart from this it is known that in the semitic world the name brother is applied in close relations by marriage.

Jackiea, the fact of Mary's virginity in the conception of Jesus is stated by Mt1,18-23 and Lk 1 26-38( There is a hint of it some ancient versions of Jn 1, 13 ;" He whom neither blood nor flesh but God begot") The obvious independance of the accounts of Mt and Lk leads us to the conclusion that this information goes back to a more ancient tradition, on which both depend.

I hope you are feeling better this week!

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), April 11, 2002.

David~thank you for your answer. :)

And yes, I'm feeling fine. Albeit a little tired. I can not seem to make rosary bracelets fast enough! LOL It's the one thing I can say with great pride~of all the jewelry I sell, there are never any rosary bracelets left. :)

Take care, David and God Bless

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 11, 2002.