Question for discussion - Is religion a perversion of faith?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002

Answers

Yes, all the way

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), May 10, 2002.

Jean

What are you trying to do now. Always the troubled one. Religion is the direct result of faith in GOD and his Triune self. Without faith there cannot be religion. One supports the other. Why must you try to distort things all of the time?

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Fred you are such an elemental thinker and I use that word thinker very very losely. Have you ever taken a course on ethics sociology and morals?

The point of my question is in areas of social/religious/faith/morals of a community of religious faithfull. Please stop this fundie knee jerk reaction it has become very boring.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

You Jean are the Knee Jerker. Always trying to cause controversy. Stop trying to talk above me. It is not appreceated at all.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Is religion a perversion of faith?

Is government a perversion of justice?

Are social services programs a perversion of charity?

Are schools a perversion of education?

Are markets a perversion of capitalism?

All answers--no. Humans are imperfect...human institutions, as a result, are imperfect.

My $0.02,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 10, 2002.

In the middle of the night, while we were sleeping, somebody snuck in a morphed the definitions of all our words...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 10, 2002.

Atta way to go boys------LOLOLOLOLOL

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Mateo, Your posts are always worth more than $0.02. :)

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), May 10, 2002.

What a wonderful question Jean. It is nice that some folks are not afraid to think.

Would you mind defining the terms religion and faith? Some times there is a variation in the way folks define them.It will help in answering the question. Thanks.

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), May 10, 2002.

Here we go with the "Satan Speaks" forum of the anti-catholics. The baby killer has awaken again.

Ain't diversity great. YUK. Another heretic showtime for us all good Christian Catholics. YUK.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Congratulations, Jean. You've given Bleed Baby Bleed a new lease on life. She could kiss you for that question.

Faith is given to us by God. Religion is our offering to God; through Christ. If ritual was what you meant by ''religion'', ritual worship is given God. We have models in the Old Testment that make our ritual compatible to Christianity. --However, without faith, ritual is empty; just as good works without faith are useless.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 10, 2002.

Can't one have faith in God without belonging to an organized religion? Faith is believing what we don't see.

Religion is a form of worship - how we choose to worship Our God.

That is how I see it. As children, we belong to the religion our parents introduced us to. As adults, some stay with that religion, others search and may find a religion that is more suitable to them. This is a fact, Fred, not an opinion. Don't go getting crazy.

Fred thinks I am 'twisted' anyway - that's okay. It's funny, when talking about religion Fred has one way of thinking only - but when criticizing others who think, Fred has lots of opinions and name- calling. God gave us a brain to think and question and analyze. I think He likes when we do that. Jesus Himself was a 'thinker." He encouraged others to think through his parables.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 10, 2002.

MaryLu

Jesus DID NOT TALK in parables to make people think. he taught in parables so that the enemy would not know what he really was teaching the people of the time he lived.

To believe in GOD all by yourself without the support of others of the same faith roots is very dangerous and can lead to heresy.

I DO have only one way of thinking, it is to do the very best I can to follow the will of GOD, NOT FRED. It is not easy at times, but the rewards are HUMONGOUS. Ask my newly Confirmed Catholic wife. She loves it and she radiates with the LOVE of GOD.

So MaryLu what is wrong with all that I have gained in the past 15 years of true faith? I happen to love it and the same goes for many of my fellow posters here too. To be obedient to GOD is also to be OBEDIENT to his church. It is not easy, but a heck of a lot better than the devils ways.

Blessings.

God has only one face, one body, one power and many other features. His features is shown in the makeup of ALL of his faithful in communion with themselves in worship in the Church and with him in prayer and devotion. To do this alone slits him up into many uncontrollable parts which we today call Protestanism.

The Catholic Church has struggled for 2,000 years to keep us focused on the true features of GOD will dilligent faith of her Apostles up to the present day Pope and His bishops and Cardinals.

To go alone is total ignorance of Christ and his commands that he gave to his First pope, Peter and his Apostles. I know i did that for 46 years and failed. Now I am at home with the Church of God that Christ created and Peter built.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Faith alone can work wonders, but with our love of God, we also need religion in order to understand our faith and to worship in a manner that is reflective of God's wishes.

-- ItsMe (itsme@whoisit.com), May 10, 2002.

MaryLu,

You must realise that although as a child you might belong to the religion your parents brought you up in, the true faith is not something originating in our parents.

The true faith, and religion, are only ours from the apostles of Christ. He never sent 22 or 28 thousand different sects of Christian faith out to the nations, and make them all good religionists. He made the twelve apostles carry His Holy Gospel to the nations, and establish One Church. Here in that same Church are found just the tenets and the faith He taught.

Some denominations do not preserve adequately the faith of the apostles. Some may come close. they preach faith in everything they teach. But everything they may teach is not necessarily what Christ taught. I give them an E for effort; because they aren't altogether fighting against the faith of the apostles

But most of them are in opposition today to the Church; and the Church is every bit as much Christ in the world as the Holy Bible. The Church gives us Jesus Christ! Effort isn't enough. TRUTH is what faith must be based on, or God has given it for nothing. God cannot support what isn't completely TRUE.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 10, 2002.

Fred, if I may, try not to be so quick to go on the defense. I can understand defending your faith but sometimes a little goes a long way, ya know? That said~

You said: Jesus DID NOT TALK in parables to make people think. he taught in parables so that the enemy would not know what he really was teaching the people of the time he lived.

I'm rather curious, Fred. Just where the heck did you come up with that?! Because I taught a whole course on parables in CCE class last year and don't remember anyone telling me to tell my kids what you said. These parables are so we can LEARN something. They DO make you stop and think.

God Bless~

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

Jesus Christ most certainly never rejected doctrine and ritual. He explicitly affirmed it when he was warning about the Pharisees. (Just a quick note: the Pharisees were Jewish priests particularly interested in restoring orthodoxy after the Baylonian captivity; they were primarily scholars and promoted a progressive interpretation of Scriptures, but also specialized in ritual and liturgy.)

In Matthew 23. Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (verse 2-3)

Here (and moreso later) Jesus condemns the hypocricy of the Pharisees- -BUT--makes a point of affirming their authority as priests of God. The passage about the Pharisees is proof positive that Jesus affirms and loves religion. Human beings are physical and spiritual, and what one does affects the other.

Again, Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others." (Verse 23)

What we see here is fascinating because what Christ is condemning is, explicitly, the character of the Pharisees, while at the same time affirming the office of the priest and the practice of ritual and sacrifice.

The other important lesson is that the truth of a doctrine may be divorced somewhat from the character of the person proclaiming it. Jesus' condemnation here is evidence that the evil of hypocrisy in clerics may very well have no bearing on the truths they tell.

This raises a question: wasn't it said that you will know false prophets from their fruits? A good tree cannot produce bad fruits, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruits.

A hypocrite--one who tells the truth but does not follow it--is most certainly a bad tree, therefore whatever good fruits that are spoken by him are not his own fruits, but those that were given to him by other good trees. Simple enough explanation, no? An example is the Pardoner in The Canterbury Tales--rotten to the core, and absolutely evil; perhaps the most villainous fictional character Chaucer ever conceived. Yet he had a talent for telling moral stories. Does that mean that the stories, by association, were necessarily false? No--all it means is that they did not come from the Pardoner at all, but he merely stole them and twisted them to his own ends.

A false prophet--one who tells lies whether he follows those lies or not--is a bad tree that is trying to generate its own fruit. Naturally, the fruit is bad.

This divorce of the truth of tradition from the character of the proclaimer is, I believe, very much a part of the Catholic Church, which teaches that all truth comes from God, who is truth. The Holy Spirit protects the Magisterium from teaching error, but will not protect them from sin, which has potentiality in all human beings (including the Pope).

Nonetheless, all clerics have double the obligation to holy living, and when one of them sins, it is twice as evil as anyone else. It is a "double-sin," a sin against God and humankind, but also against their vocation.

But nothing can invalidate the teachings of Christ our Lord, or the Church who is his bride; "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mat 16:18). Amen.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 10, 2002.

Fred, please don't talk down to MaryLu, like she is a animal. MaryLu is a Lady, and deserves to be treated as one.

Elrod

-- Elrod (Elrod@nospam.com), May 10, 2002.

Jackeia

That is what I was taught at the time of my RCIA. It was told to me that Christ did not want to reveal to the Devil and to the Romans what his mission was. So he talked inparables so that those who believed would understand fully what he was teaching and that the enemy who would not understand him would not be angered and attempt to attack him and try to silence him. In other words he spoke in parables to speak the truth to public and remained hidden from those who feared his Divinity until the appointed time was revealed to him by the Father (GOD) to reveal himself to the world. That is basically what I learned from the 'Word Among Us' and other sources. If I still had the books I would be able to prove it to you where this comes from. Did not Christ tell Peter that he learned who he was on his own. For GOD, his Father who is in heaven, is the only one who could have revealed this to Peter.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Jackiea

Look at the verses in Mark 4:11-12. This will give you a clue of how Christ spoke to the crowds and why he chosed parables. I got this from the book "Believing in Jesus, Leonid Foley, O.F.M., St Anthony Press 2nd ED. 1985, with all the imprimaturs and Nil Obstats too.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Feddie my boy - Your reply to May Lu confirms to this man your a paranoid. A simple meaning of the illness is - eat or be eaten -. It is obvious in your makeup of replies to many. Sad Sad.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

LMAO Freddie boy - Secrect codes and meanings in the parables. Get it fixed.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

Fred - I am be harsh with you may I ask one question - What is the color of your sky in the mornings?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

Jean

You are the odd ball out..

I have the Book right in my hands and you question me. Who are you sir GOD????

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

I think it sad when some folks must constantly depend on a source outside themselves to decide for them what is right, what is good, what is in the interest of all peoples.

Certainly a Church as large as the Catholic needs some structure. But too many people here have a tendency to think of the men in Rome as supernatural beings that can do no wrong, who are spiritually more in tune than other people. It is a dependency which gives away too much power and too heavy a burden on those it gives it to.

The imprimaturs and Nil obstats are ways of keeping the sheep from roaming the pasture, making sure they stay in line, keeping themselves as the all and only knowers of truth. It is a sure-fire way to promote self-propagation.

The Pope is fallible, the Cardinals are fallible, the Bishops are Fallible as we all are. It is a very rare occasion when infallibility is used. And even when it is, I think one must above all else run it through one's own conscience.

And...for another time...I wonder how many folks really are aware of how the 'devil" figure came to be? The only devil there is, is that part of each of us that creates disharmony within ourselves and our world. There is no evil super being. The clash of good and evil, of Godde and devil is but an event constant within those who have "fallen" (yes the garden of Eden) into Consciousness...all of us. But, Not wishing to cause heart attacks, I will save this for another time.

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), May 10, 2002.

Popess Joan has spoken, let it be so....

LOL,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 10, 2002.

AMEN

-- Carolyn (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Errrrr I thought it was Satanne.

I really liked that one. And rather appropriate, I think.

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

Jackiea,

I think it's also very fitting. Satanne Kind of fits, doesn't it???

-- Carolyn (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

Ive always thought my Dad was a very wise man. He would say "son their are two types of people in this world you should never trust" 1. Second hand car dealers 2. "Born again" Christians

Those who claim to have "seen the light" are normally blinded by it in my personal experience

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Jeffery - Great post as I had many wondered in the past knowing a priest was not the best of men if the giving of the Eucharist was still valid. Of course I was told for it comes from Christ.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

Elrod - I applaud you regarding the snipes at the lady by Fred. Perhaps the sheeps clothing is not so deep in the man as can be seen by many now.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

Fred - Oh yes the book in your hands. If it is not written it is false? Is that the fundie you again. Many a books are published for the old reason of income at times. These are the authors views of which one may or may not accept be he/she OFM or whatever.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

Your father's thought Courteny are very fine. Let us realize these post Vatican 11 days have brought with them a new awakening in mnay areas. Rather then born again I like the term refreshed.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 10, 2002.

Jean--

Yes, I believe the Church had a major problem with that belief a while back. I think it was condemned as a heresy called "donatism"-- the belief that priests in grave sin could not confect a valid Eucharist. In truth, a priest is always a priest, and Jesus Christ is always ready to be incarnated into our blessed species. Of course, if a priest consciously celebrates the Mass with much grave sin on his soul, he only piles upon judgement on himself for sacriledge. But it's still a valid Eucharist.

Also, Jean, I hope I don't come across as saying that the clergy is sinful or corrupt, or that they're expected to be, or that there's nothing wrong if they are--it is certainly a scandal that even a few are, even if it's only a few.

In fact, people say that the rate of pedophilia is the same among clergy as it is for married men--THIS is the scandal. It's a scandal that our seminaries haven't been able to form a priesthood that is virtually clean of this sickness.

Joan, I believe you misunderstand what infallibility means. It has nothing to do with the episcopate being "more in tune" to Christ-- although they are expected to be exceptionally prayerful. The protection from error that comes from the Holy Spirit is something specific to the office of Bishop and of the Chair of St. Peter, the Papacy. It involves not only Ex Cathedra teachings but also anything that falls under the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Beyond that, all the teachings of Scripture and in councils (as represented by the Catechism) definitively require the assent of the faithful.

Liberals are quick to point out, "But there are different levels of teaching!" This might be true, but even the most casually stated opinion of the Holy Father should be given due consideration. There is essentially no level of Church teaching that acknowledges dissent as a valid option. The main reason why we have levels is for convenience in ecumenical dialogue with people of other creeds.

Now I myself make a few errors, which Chris and John G are kind enough to point out with utmost charity and patience. But the most important doctrine that I assent to is assent itself--in Christ, Scripture, and his Church.

Now, Joan, I know what you're thinking--"so shallow." How can a reasonable person conform his/her precious judgement to dogma? I must not like to think!

Ah, but Joan, I assure you that I am a visciously critical thinker, as were other before me like G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis and Thomas Aquinas--heck, even Sarte, Nietzche, and Hegel, as irrational as some of their conclusions were. Nothing excites me more than breaking down problems and questions and dealing with them intimately and rankly--but also delicately.

If you believe that my orthdoxy is in error, I invite you to present a single premise (Just one, for simplicity's sake!) of mine that seems faulty, and I will consider your arguments, round up the evidence, and build a case.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 10, 2002.

"rankly" should be "frankly"--at least, I certainly hope my critical thinking isn't rank. :) Whew!

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 10, 2002.

Oof! If not for a few wise comments from orthodox Catholics, this would have been an absolute loser of a thread. It was painful to wallow through two posts from Sister Satanne, C.D., and nine -- count 'em -- nine posts from Jean. [No wonder Eugene pointed out that "Bouchard" comes from "bouche" = "mouth."]

It was incredible the way Madame Excomunicada popped in to put down the Church to which she no longer belongs -- "The Pope is fallible, the Cardinals are fallible, the Bishops are Fallible as we all are. It is a very rare occasion when infallibility is used. And even when it is, I think one must above all else run it through one's own conscience."

What? You own conscience? What conscience? You now have a dead conscience, having escorted who-knows-how-many expectant moms into abortion mills to have their babies murdered. And you have the nerve to claim that your putrefying conscience can judge something declared to be infallible. [Dear Moderator, do you let her continue here because it seems better for her to make a fool of herself than to be banned?]

Courtenay, it seems that you were mistaken. Your Dad must not have been a "very wise man" after all. He told you that "you should never trust ... 'Born again' Christians." What he (and apparently you) are unaware of is that every Christian is "born again." If you were baptized (even "Protestantly"), Kiwi, you were born again. So Jesus told us.

This is a Catholic forum, not a Fundamentalist one. It does not exist for the likes of you, Jean, Joan, and other assorted skeptics, heretics, dissenters, bigots, and excommunicants to trash Catholicism. Kiwi, please read the Moderator's Note at the top of this thread, so that you know how to treat the Catholic Church on this forum.

Those who refuse to be obedient to the Moderator's rules need to betake thy buttocks to another forum -- or start your own forum by going to this page. Maybe Mrs. Storey can call it the "Sister Satanne, C.H., meets Godde" forum. You can count on us orthodox Catholics not to stop in and harrass you there. We will not come and take revenge for the crimes you have committed here.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

John - how very sad to read you input. Courteny's dad not being wise and myself giving feeback on a thread I began. Your are of the old school and that will pass. Get ready for " new " Church which will roar with JOY and awareness.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 11, 2002.

Jean, there is no such thing as the "old school." There is only genuine Catholicism (which I follow) and some kind of unreasonable facsimile thereof (which you follow). There will be no "new Church." The one Jesus founded is indefectible (meaning will last forever), and there's not a darned thing that you or your weird friends can do about it.
I meant no personal insult to Kiwi or his father. I merely stated the fact that, when his father gave him bad advice, that certainly did not make his father "wise." Notice that the error passed to the son (Kiwi) has persisted to this day, and now it has polluted this Internet page. FACT: All baptized people are "born again," and one should not automatically distrust anyone.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

John,

After reviewing the thread, I think some things need to be clarified. It appears to me that, even though MaryLu is gravely in error in her assumptions about religion, Jean is genuinely open to new information, which I was trying to supply.

Fred might be perfectly orthodox, but (and forgive me for saying so, Fred) he has been particularly and unecessarily combative in this thread, which only makes it more difficult for me to try and answer questions and respond to false premises. Defending Mother Church is not an excuse for forgetting one's charity--even if it's towards someone perpetually scandalous like Joan (who, of course, can be ignored--that's always an option).

Invoking the moderator, using ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS, and returning the very same insults used on us do not constitute charitable evangelism.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 11, 2002.

Dear John,

"the meek shall inherit the earth" or something like that. I was just having a bit of fun, do you really think I believe all "second hand car dealers" cannot be trusted or "born agains"(talk about literal fundamentalsim at its very worst).

I was using the term "born again" very loosly and think I have been misinterpreted. In our part of the world the casual use of "born again" refers to weirdos (your term not mine John) who generally have made such a complete and utter disaster of their lives that they suddenly find "slavation" in Christ- they become major bores, real pains in the arse, the very worst type of "do gooders" as it often comes with an unfortunate superiority complex- they begin to see THEMSELVES AS THE TRUE LIGHT. These people are false prophets, misguided zealots who I openly dismiss. They do not speak for me or my beliefs. They are in need of real help, in fact they need more than God, they need expert mental health care. Their rantics and ravings should be taken for what they are- those of a lunatic. Judging from your reaction to my light hearted quip, it struck fairly close to home. There is all sorts of medication and treatment programmes that can help you John . I urge you to seek medical help. You and Fred are, I am sure well intentioned but you are also paranoid freaks. You believe you are protecting the Catholic Church when in reality you and your ilk are doing untold damage. You are constantly telling other people what they can and cannot say on this forum.

ARE YOU THE MODERATOR ON THIS FORUM? IF you are NOT then pull your head in and zip your mouth up.

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Your smug and self rightous assertions that I could not be Catholic because I reject a few aspects of the Church's teachings( I believe that Priests should be able to be married and sex before marriage) is just plain absurd. Faith is a journey, and just because I dont accept everything RIGHT NOW doesnt not mean I am not Catholic. Jesus came to save sinners, (remember St Peter???)The Jewish leaders of the Jesus's time have got nothing on some of you. You are the modern Pharisee. To put your orthodoxy before humanism is the greatest betrayal of Gods love. So I may be "young and unlearned" but your attitude is not an example for me and never will be- I will pray for you.

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Wow! I seen that I'm in double trouble -- Jeffrey and Courtenay both after my hide? I'll try to help you guys take it easier on me.

Jeffrey, you wrote:
"Jean is genuinely open to new information, which I was trying to supply."
Jeffrey, after having observed Jean for more than two years, I can assure you that he is not open to new information that would help him in the direction of orthodoxy. He is a great dissenter, if not an outright heretic, and he has not changed, except to get a good bit worse, in these two years. However, you have a right to find that out for yourself, rather than just believe me, so I will back off to give you the opportunity you need.

Jeffrey, you also wrote: "Fred ... has been particularly and unecessarily combative in this thread, which only makes it more difficult for me to try and answer questions and respond to false premises."
Jeffrey, I too dislike it when folks get "unnecessarily combative," but the trouble is that some of us have been observing the guilty parties breaking the Moderator's rules left and right, day after day, for many weeks now. I don't think that you have had a chance to follow the threads as thoroughly as some of us have, so you are probably not aware of how bad things have gotten. If I and others have gotten too hot under the collar, disrupting your dialog, then I apologize -- but the real people who should apologize are those who are breaking the rules, some of whom should be banned from the forum. They are provoking some of us who have low or normal boiling points. Some of us do not have the amazing tolerance level that you are displaying, Jeffrey; your boiling point is very high.

My impression is that you are not aware of the fact that the forum has rules. Or, if you are aware of the rules, you must think that troublesome people have to be allowed to break them without receiving any punishment for doing so. That would not be just, and it would be no way to help a decent forum to exist. I can assure you that, if rules had not been flagrantly broken many times by several people posting on this thread, there would have been no heated language from me. (Fred can speak for himself on this topic.)

Jeffrey, you concluded: "Defending Mother Church is not an excuse for forgetting one's charity -- even if it's towards someone perpetually scandalous like Joan (who, of course, can be ignored -- that's always an option). Invoking the moderator, using ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS, and returning the very same insults used on us do not constitute charitable evangelism."

It may be true that some things that orthodox Catholics said, above, were too strong, but what I hope that you will soon realize is that we rarely are "forgetting ... charity," but rather are acting out of righteous and justifiable anger -- and the resulting reprimands are themselves a form of charity and fraternal correction. An option you suggested -- ignoring evil people -- is not an acceptable one, because it encourages the proliferation of evil. The "soft touch" does not work with some people. Unfortunately, we have a new breed here on whom neither the "soft touch" nor the "big stick" has yet made an impression. They seem simply "evil to the bone" and irreformable. I hope that we can prove this concern to be wrong.

Courtenay, you have jumped to some wrong conclusions. I'll try to explain. You stated: "Judging from your reaction to my light hearted quip, it struck fairly close to home."
Sorry, friend, but there was no sign at all that your comment was a "light-hearted quip." You have made several posts in the past week or two that came across as critical of Catholicism, and I did not find out until just a little while ago that you are a Catholic. I thought that you were an agnostic and that you flippantly were insulting Catholics here as some kind of wacko, so-called "born-again" Fundamentalists. Under those circumstances, coupled with the fact that orthodox Catholics on this thread (and entire forum) have lately been persecuted mercilessly, I hope that you can be less critical of my outburst. I apologize for having offended you.
About the other thing you mentioned ... I don't tell other people what they cannot say on the forum except when they are breaking the Moderator's rules (or when they have been banned, but post anyway). In that situation, we each do have the right (and even the duty) to speak up. It is not only the Moderator [who is able to spend only limited time here] who has the right and duty to correct wrong-doers. I have been coming here for over 28 months and have posted over 3,500 messages. I doubt that even 5% of them have been uttered with any level of anger or irritation. I assure you that it is not "paranoia" that elicits an occasional angry post from me, but perhaps "protectiveness" of a good thing -- this forum dedicated to God.

May He bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Courtenay

We do not make the rules. Christ did 2000 years ago. Sex without marriage is sinful and the command of Christ and his ruling not ours. The priesthood celibacy is also an oath of the man as a priest to serve GOD fully. Is that so wrong? Christ served his father as a celibate man. So now why are you being so harsh to Christ? Christ and the Holy Spirit are whom ordained these things. NOT man.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 11, 2002.

John,

I figured I'd probably learn something from you about Jean's past behavior. I know you never irrationally invoke the moderator; I suppose I should just trust your judgement. It's true, sometimes when I deal with people I tend to be over-generous. In fact I think I got that on my evaluation--sometimes I can be optimistic to a fault.

But another thing is that I was evaluating the behavior of Jean, and MaryLu in this thread in isolation of their past actions, whatever they may have been. And, in this isolated thread, Jean began by asking a question that, while suspect, was not unanswerable or wholly scandalous. In fact, by phrasing it as a question instead of a statement, Jean opened the thread to becomming very edifying, considering that this forum is populated by many people very qualified to answer that question in a way fruitful for others to read.

Tony wrote an inane remark not really worth responding to. Fred's first response was, "What are you trying to do now. Always the troubled one. Religion is the direct result of faith in GOD and his Triune self. Without faith there cannot be religion. One supports the other. Why must you try to distort things all of the time?"

I understand that Fred, knowing Jean's past behavior, probably recognized the original question as a farce and a scandal, so his response might have seemed appropriate. For that matter, its content was also technically correct. But if Fred had been thinking in terms of desired results rather than immediate concerns, his response could have been more measured, polite, and resourceful. As it is, his tone seemed shrill, which is never conducive to good discussion.

Part of the Church's struggle is an image problem. If dissidents view orthodoxy as being a high-pitched, capital-letter, name-calling affair, then it's no wonder certain people take glee when Fred gets frazzled.

The first response generally sets the tone of the entire thread. If it is graceful, it should deprive the opponents of their need to retaliate; and if it is informative, it might force them to think. And thinking is exactly what we're aiming for, because genuine thought will often lead people to search for things outside of themselves, and plant the seeds of full and unreserved faith. (And I'm not just talking about the opponents, but also our beloved lurkers).

And Courtenay, the same goes for you, too. Is calling anyone a paranoid freak going to do you any good? John here can be one of your most valuable resources of Catholic information, if you're nice enough to ask him politely.

Of course, I'm not forgetting my "howl at the moon" where I called violent dissidents a "rash in our ---." I'm not a total softee. Nevertheless, in individual threads we should represent the Church well by being informative and courteous, and if we have to correct or chastize, try to do it in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the thread.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 12, 2002.

I meant to add,

"...it's no wonder certain people take glee when Fred gets frazzled.

It makes them look measured and reasonable by comparison. There's no sense in giving dissent unwarranted credibility."

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 12, 2002.

Thankyou Jeffrey I got a bit carried away there, should try and remember:

"Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence. . ." --St. Peter (I Peter 3:15-16) Fred thanks for the advice on sex before marriage, no Im not being sarcastic, I just dont know if Ill ever get married but Im sure not spending the rest of my life celibrate!

What happens if Ive met the perfect girl but she doesnt believe in God or marriage, I know youll say she is Satan tempting me or something like that, but at this stage of my life I can handle this type of sin.

As for your words of advice on celebrate priests...

"Did Jesus teach that His priests must be celibate? No, He did not. Which is why priestly celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church. It is a discipline practiced in much of the church. As I stated in my article, only priests in the western (Latin or Roman) Catholic Church are required to be celibate. Eastern Catholic rites, such as the Byzantine rite, do allow married clergy. In fact it is the norm. And even in the Roman rite, married clergy can be allowed under certain circumstances. There are about 100 married Roman Catholic priests serving in America today, mostly converts who were married Anglican or Lutheran priests, and who recieved a special dispensation to be ordained in the Catholic church. The Church has not always required a celibate priesthood, and it may not always in the future."

Matthew AC Newsome

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

celibrate! Please excuse my poor spelling and grammar- I put all the blame on the size of the keyboard on my laptop

-- learning to spell (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

kiwi,
Just a word of warning. Be careful how you disclose personal information here. It is interesting how it gets juggled about and tossed around.
Get anonymous or use another name, a favorite trick around this joint.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), May 12, 2002.

Matthew,

You're welcome, and thank you for your scripture reference.

You wrote, "What happens if Ive met the perfect girl but she doesnt believe in God or marriage,"

Isn't that kind of like the most delicious cup of gourmet coffee with a dash of cyanide for flavor? So long as we're quoting Scripture: "'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea'" (Mk 9:42). She can't be perfect if she causes you to sin, my friend.

3 billion women in the world, 450,000,000 of whom are Catholic, and you think you have to pick an atheist? Forgive me for saying so, but "Ms. Right" is merely one of many; there's no need to feel constricted to the first pretty girl who has a lot in common with you.

And suppose you did fall in love with an atheist--think of the unimaginable gift you have to offer, man! Another atheist would just give her a diamond ring that would end up just buried with her body-- such a waste of good carbon. But you, you could offer her "living water," "a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (John 4:14). Knowing your destiny as a Christian, how could you justify withholding from someone you loved a gift so invaluable?

You wrote, "I know youll say she is Satan tempting me or something like that,"

Hardly. Why does Satan need to possess a harmless young woman when young confused men do perfectly well enough on their own? I assure you, if you enter a cohabiting relationship, he will be sitting back in his La-Z-Boy and eating popcorn, enjoying a movie which he knows will have a happy ending (for him, anyway).

You wrote, but at this stage of my life I can handle this type of sin.

I don't really know how to respond to that. I suppose it's kind of like the guy who, believing he could move things with his mind, stood in front of a charging train. Sin cannot be handled--it is always, always something that handles you. I say this only as someone interested in your own happiness and well-being: don't presume to step into the world as a master of good and evil, because it's precisely those people who are beholden to the sensual forces around them, most of which have high stakes on their bodies and their souls.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, as I've mentioned, our real purpose here is to get you really thinking--which in some cases implies reading a lot, too. The Catechism, far from being a mere book of rules, offers valuable insights based not only in Catholic theology but also widely accepted psychology as well.

I've quoted these passages before, but I'll put them here again:

First, on marriage:

"1603: 'The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married states has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws ... God himself is the author of marriage.' The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this insitution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. 'The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.'

1604: God who created man [humankind] out of love also call him to love--the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: 'And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it''."

Now, on cohabitation:

2390: "In a so-called 'free union,' a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.

The expression "free union" is fallacious: what can "union" mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?

The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments. All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion."

It sounds sort of like the Church has thrown her hat into the ring and offered you a challenge: Are you man enough to marry? Our doctrine on moral sexuality is about upholding the dignity of each person, a task that becomes really quite futile when no commitments are made.

The other difficulty is that you seem now to consider the idea of "family" as arbitrary, which is an opinion I find to be, shall we say, lacking in foundations.

If I've whet your appetite for philosophy, you might examine this essay, John Paul II and the Family, which delves deeply into classical philosophy on the matter--real meat and potatoes kind of stuff.

Check it out. I'll wait.

...

...

...

By now, you've glanced at the article, seen its length, and decided it's not worth your time at the moment. See what I mean by fear of commitment? You can't even read an article by yourself. You see, love cannot tolerate cohabitation; this makes it impoverished and starved for the kind of eternal union only God can fashion.

Or would you plan to have several casual partners? Such a lifestyle could only lead to ruin--physically and mentally. Your conscience would be warped like that Hershey bar your forgot was in your back pocket in the movie theatre. Such viscious utilitarianism--using people! I suspect you're nowhere near this extreme, so I don't need to emphasize too much that it is only a quick road to desolation and emptiness.

Anyway, would you believe this poor seminarian is up at 3:22 on a Sunday morning? What am I thinking! Good night.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 12, 2002.

Chris, thanks for the advice Ive got no problems being honest and open, however I look back at some of my posts and go "oh no" I didnt write that did I, tend to get a bit silly. I was talking to my local priest tonight who believes that this type of forum is not a good place for 'young'people looking for answers and has given me the email address of the Catholic Communications Centre in NZ for more, ah how can I say, 'appropriate' advice and guidance. Unfortunately there are no courses offered at the local parish on theology doctrine etc. Still I like this place and will try and not get booted off!

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

Chris the above post was written while was writing a reply- I think you were right.

Jeffrey,thanks for all the advice especially at that time of the morning! I think it would be for the best if I didnt discuss my relationships, my mistake, thanks again. By the way Im not that young- mid 20's, probably older than you? Hope your exam went well, how much longer before you become Father Jeffrey?

ps if you know of any of those 450,000,000 catholic ladies who are young, SANE and single, youve got my email- (only joking!)

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

So many avenues touched upon but not the one I had asked for. My thoughts:

It is said by some Religion is a perversion of faith. It is very important for us to distiguish between the two. In American society there is a " wall of seperation " between religion and politics.

Faith or it's synonym spirituality is accepted as good thing while religion is somehow a dangerous perversion. This for many is a common distinction. To what purpose it serves I do not know.

Faith I feel is a quality of being both private and subjective which are highly prized qualities in American society. Religion has the quality of of somehow expressing convictions outside the the believer's head.

Shall continue with this after replies.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 12, 2002.

Jean writes:

"In American society there is a "wall of seperation" between religion and politics."

This is a false statement. Neither the Constitution nor our current reality would suggest a "wall of separation." Some atheists would like to create a wall, but none exists. A better metaphor would be a freshwater bay that feeds into a saltwater sea. There is a gradual transition between the freshwater and the saltwater.

I know of a lot of people who say, "I'm not religious, but I'm very spiritual." This is wishy-washy theology at its best. Looking at some definitions:

Faith - 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Religion - A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Spiritual - Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.

Based on definitions, faith is a confident belief in something. Religion is a faith that is based on a faith in a set of beliefs that has already been enumerated by someone else.

Faith is also defined as a belief without "logical proof or material evidence." Based on the definition of "spiritual," spirituality is a belief in something not tangible (without material evidence). So to be spiritual, we simply apply "faith" to a belief that a reality exists outside of our material world. In spirituality, morality is an open question. I could be "spiritual" and invent a faith (religion) in which the "spirits" reward me for how much money I have when I die. Taken alone, spirituality is (IMHO) just agnosticism.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 12, 2002.

Jean,

Unfortunately, you're correct about your assessment of many people in the United States. Anyone remember "Keeping the Faith"? That horrendous burp of a movie was such a miserable representation. When the priest-guy said in a "homily," "Religion and faith are two different things!" I had to cough a little.

Recently, I just did a wrote a paper about elements of gnosticism in John Keat's romantics odes. One of my sources was Harold Bloom's, "The American Religion." Understanding of course that Bloom is a self-proclem gnostic Jew, a "gnostic sect of one," the insights he has about religious attitudes in the U.S. are impeccable.

His thesis is that the American Religion, encompassing mostly Mormonism and the Baptists (but also some strains of Roman Catholicism) are marked by extreme individualism, faith/religion duality, the search for inner divinity, and an elitists model of salvation theology.

I short, Bloom says that those under the American Religion more closely resembles some ancient forms of Gnosticism than any Christian religion.

Bloom doesn't like the Catholic Church, which in our case is a good thing, because it means that our religion and our faith together have the power to transcend culture and whim. Many Catholics I know continue continue to make the sign of the cross a public sign of our unchanging faith. But, as is evindenced by movies like "Keeping the Faith," some of those gnostic elements have creeped into the minds of certain Catholics... otherwise, the original question wouldn't have been posted.

Let's speak in terms of matter and form. Thomas Aquinas taught that the human person is a soul and a body, but that these two were not seperate, independent entitites. Descartes dualism is not the same as Aquinas's study of the soul.

In fact, the soul is the form of the body, it's first principle of movement, its rationality, and its nature. Now, the soul, because it fas functions independentof the body may subsist outside of the body and is incorruptible. But a disembodied soul is not a complete whole but an incomplete part--an conclusion that affirms the doctrine of the resurrection.

Religion and faith? I posit, tentatively, that faith is the form of religion, much the same way that the soul is the form of a human person, the body. Religion can not subsist without faith, and a faith without religion is necessarily incomplete and impoverished. It denies community (becaus that's part of what religion is) and those who claim to maintain a religion-less faith are often simply wandering gnostics, trying in vain to find their inner god through human constructs like poetry and art.

John Keats was one of these people--as were many romantics (although Wordsworth and Coleridge both embraced their Christianity in their late-life).

It's truly a tragedy; would you trade your soul for a piece of cake? Would you trade the world for your ideology? Would you cut yourself from the community of faith that is Catholic Christianity, to chase after shadows and impulses? I'm reminded of Plato's allegory of the cave--my friends, Jesus Christ has opened you to true light, and yet you want nothing more than run back into your holes and watch the shadows play upon the stone.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 12, 2002.

Friends,
There's a skeptic deep inside every one of us. All a good Catholic does is ''cope'' with him; or subject him to the higher power that is faith. If we never doubted, how would faith in God differ from blind fanaticism? But if we believe despite all we call ''reason'' we show God our faith.

No one can command my faith except God. This life is passing away. I may not even place complete faith in my life, which might be over tomorrow; yet God commands that I have absolute faith in HIM.

I know that He commands it, I listen to His Holy Word. If I'd never heard the Gospel, you could call me an agnostic. But I heard it, then I learned: He commands our faith.

His Son Jesus Christ reiterated to the world all His Father commanded in the Old Testament, and made for us a New Covenant with God. He ratified the New Covenant not only with His great works, His holy words, and His example on earth. He ratified it with His own Body and Blood; and being raised from the dead. Who will deny this?

Once this is established, faith becomes an imperative, not an option. If we fail then to believe, we separate ourselves as souls from the One who is commanding it. Jesus clearly told us this: ''But he who does not believe will be condemned.'' (Mark 16, :16)

We have no excuse for denying our faith. In faith we remember, we celebrate, we believe! Religion is far from perversion of the faith; religion for the Catholic is quite simply taking our places with Jesus, and keeping the New Covenant.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 12, 2002.

Eugene,

You wrote, But if we believe despite all we call ''reason'' we show God our faith.

I'm still in Aquinas mode, so I'm going to say that, since reason comes from God and is ultimately good, that often we believe because of reason, rather than despite it. But not reason alone, but revelation in the form of Scripture and Tradition are our guides.

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 12, 2002.

Thank you Mateo for the insight. Very good indeed.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 12, 2002.

Jeffery - your first answer made me think forsome reason of Satan attempting to seduce Chrst during His days in the desert. Had Christ accepted the solace offered to him by Satan then Christ was have made Himself devoid of union with the Father.

Were we to say one followed a religion of Satan as some do I at times wonder what the reaction of an all loving Father is. At this point Job comes to mind when God said " you may do anything to him but do not kill him. " Was it the soul of Job being referred to?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 12, 2002.

Eugene - lots of good thoughts there for sure. One aspect though is I wonder if faith as you perhaps see it is obligatory or as I see a true Gift as in the gift of faith so often stated. I saythis for the longest raod travelled in our journey is from the head to the heart.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 12, 2002.

The words of Jesus are plain: ''But he who does not believe shall be condemned.'' I have a choice; to believe, or not to believe. The gift of faith is free; my choice is my own.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 12, 2002.

Very good answer Eugene. I think here of Chesterton who wrote re: The gift and giver -in which when one receives a gift he/she is obligated to the giver.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 13, 2002.

He has created all. Faith and religions exist by His desire. Suggesting that any belief is perverted is an affront to His creation.

-- thomas kolak (tomuban@netscape.net), December 02, 2003.

"He has created all. Faith and religions exist by His desire. Suggesting that any belief is perverted is an affront to His creation."

A: Certainly He has not created all religions, or He would be in contradiction of Himself. Also, God, who is Truth, would thereby be teaching untruth to men, even as He tells us that the truth will set us free. God created ONE religion, ONE faith, wherein men can find the fullness of truth. All others are products of men, not of God, and represent mosaics composed of bits of truth intermixed with untruths, distorsions of truth, and manmade traditions. Belief in that which is objectively false is indeed a perversion of faith. Faith does indeed exist by God's desire, and as God's gift. But faith in untruth can be worse than no faith at all.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 02, 2003.