I recall many long years ago reading The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis. What has always stuck in my mind was the introdution by the author on Humanand Inhuman love.

Human love was/is that of enveloping a person into your sphere of existence with the view of a nurturing leading to growth and freedom of that individual.

Inhuman love was that of drawing someone into your sphere using them for one's self gratification and walking away leaving just a husk.

With the current refusal of The Vatican re: The American Guidelines on Sexual Abuse I ask. Is the Vatican in this scenario presenting human or inhuman love? Is it a case of denial of responsibilty or the King's New Clothing as in the fairy tale?

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 20, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Jean you gave a description of what the Vatican has done when you supplied Lewis's definition of "human love":
"Human love was/is that of enveloping a person into your sphere of existence with the view of a nurturing leading to growth and freedom of that individual."

I am over 50, and I cannot recall a single act of the Vatican, in my lifetime, that exhibited "inhuman love." Every Vatican act of my lifetime seems to have been one of "human love" by Lewis's definition (or what some may call "divine love" -- agape). What we need to remember is that disciplinary acts of the Church, implemented justly, ARE acts of love. The Bible tells us that God disciplines us, and God IS love.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 20, 2002.

John - you have offered a conjecture to my question. Whereas I am focusing on the current event(s) of criminal behvaior by it's ordained priests. Question is presentd in the original posting on my part.

If yes or no - then elaborate and bring either to a conclusion. You present a form of rhetoric which not does apply here for this is a current not historical issue.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 21, 2002.

Jean,
Please go back and read your final paragraph (in the opening post) and my reply. You will see that I did respond, and not with "rhetoric."

You asked, "Is the Vatican, in this scenario, presenting human or inhuman love." I replied: "Human (even agape/divine) love." Clearly, Holy Mother Church is showing her solicitous care for all involved -- especially the victims and those falsely accused. People in North America (including many bishops) have been too forgetful of this second group in the midst of their understandable zeal to help the first group. But our Mother the Church remembers all her children, even those in clerical garb. She wants "due process," according to Canon Law, to be followed, so that only the guilty are penalized. I'm sad to realize that you missed this fact, which was reported in the major media.

God bless you.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 23, 2002.

John - I thank you for your added responce. As to due process I have as so many seen the obscene and vulgar length of time involved in these cases. By the time it has " resolved itself " the lives of the victims have been ruined and the " found " guilty have had a wonderful life.

Having attended a number of court cases has left me non-supportive of the due process system as it stands these days. The Vatican works in a bubble of it's own making not truly connected with the here and now scenarios. This " new ' Platform of understandng and resolution(s) will take several decades to become a perceived reality.

As to the concern for the victims please give me a break as the coffers of the Church are guarded at all costs. Surely it does not surprise you the lowered income of the Sunday collection plates.

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied plain and simple.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 23, 2002.

Jmj

Mr. Jean,
I suggest that you reread your message to see how ironically ridiculous it is.

You wrote: "As to due process I have as so many seen the obscene and vulgar length of time involved in these cases. By the time it has 'resolved itself' the lives of the victims have been ruined and [those] 'found' guilty have had a wonderful life."

First, I think that you are over-emotionally making a rule out of the exception. Almost all victims have been, and will be, treated justly by their bishops. Don't pretend that you can predict the time that their church-law cases will take by basing your prediction on the civil, secular court system (and its interminable appeals).
Moreover, do you see what you are advocating, Jean? Injustice in reverse!
Let me paraphrase your words now, to show you how wrong you are ... You would cause a vulgar and obscenely short length of time to resolve cases. When things have resolved themselves [by following your anti-due-process method], the lives of the unjustly accused will have been ruined, no one will be found innocent, and the false accusers will have had a "wonderful life" (spending the million$ awarded to them).

You stated: "As to the concern for the victims please give me a break as the coffers of the Church are guarded at all costs. Surely it does not surprise you the lowered income of the Sunday collection plates."

Are you nuts? You totally lack the "inside information" required to know whether or how "the coffers of the Church are guarded." And you totally lack knowledge of whether the collective people of the Catholic Church (a worldwide body) are donating noticeably less than they were a year ago. You are just making things up as you go along, Mr. Dishonesty.
You are one of those "nominal Catholics" who is a bigger anti-Catholic than most fundamentalist Protestants are. Jean, you are turning yourself into a sorry excuse for a human being. Please absent yourself from the forum until you get your faith back (if you ever really had some).

May God help you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 27, 2002.

John - you have driven me away once again after many months. You fraud of a Christian!! Drivel Drivel Drivel. God damn you slick tongue. Worse then Chavez of the past for you appear to be an educated man. If man is the ward here.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 28, 2002.

John this is a place for people to get their faith back if ever there was one. Jean I see you have just posted your message, I hope you will reconsider I didnt even get a chance to talk to you again!

Blessings Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 28, 2002.

"Almost all victims have been, and will be, treated justly by their bishops."

Eyes wide shut.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), October 28, 2002.

Hello, Mr. Bouchard

"John, you have driven me away once again after many months"

Mr. Bouchard, I thought your mind would be stronger that this! After all arn't you ther karate and Judo expert? I feel sorry for any student you ever taught.

"You fraud of a Christian!! Drivel, Drivel, Drivel. God damn you slick tongue....."

Mr. Bouchard please refrain from using the Lord's name in vane when you are making ad hominem attacks on John. Its ok to express your op, but please have respect for the Lord.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@exciter.com), October 28, 2002.

Dear Jean Bouchard,
You drag my name into this exchange without reason. I refrained from saying anything up to now. Since John confronted you very quickly and effectively, I was not needed.

You got feisty for the very obvious reason that John spoke truthfully. You don't have, never have had, any way of estimating the rise or fall of the Catholic Church's finances. John stated that very well, and you can't answer. So you bite him from behind, like a coward. He also stated another truth: You haven't the least "inside information" of how "the coffers of the Church are guarded." (A stupid remark for sure!) And you totally lack any true facts about how people of the Church (a worldwide body) are donating or not donating.

But you still talk! As if you were the authority on these things. If you had any class, you'd at least temper these statements with an ocassional IMHO-- or ''what if?''

But you never had the talent to disguise your animosity toward the Church and her hierarchy. You are always transparent, like a termite in the woodwork. Thank God; you fool no one.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 28, 2002.

Jean,

The earlier thread has dropped off the radar, and you must not have had a chance to respond. Did you really mean in your prior post that you didn't think pedophilia was a sickness?

Thanks for responding, I don't want to carry the notion around with me that you think their actions are acceptable in some way, as they are in fact, truly depraved.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 28, 2002.

[The following was sent to my private e-mail address by the inimitable Jean. He obscenely blasts me for allegedly writing to his e-mail address, when what really happened was that I posted my message here, and the Greenspun "robot" forwarded it to his e-mail (since you requested that option in starting the thread). By the way -- thanks, Gene, for helping Jean to know that he is about as twisted up as his "slashers" are. JFG]

You prick. Put this on the board for so many of you have done this private e:mailing to me in the past Gutless S.O.B..

This filth has has now hit our little town as a group have brought forward allegations of private school misadventures also.

Anti-Catholic not at all - sickened and disgusted yes. Speak your mind on the board from now on.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.met), October 29, 2002.

Righteous anger indeed! Jean I dont know whats going on here, but a group hug is needed ;). I dont know why John and Gene dont cut you a little slack, or even show a hint of charitable love in welcoming you back. I appeal to Mr Chavez not to encourage John anymore.. please?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2002.

Jmj

Kiwi, you just did the same thing that several other people have done. You have presumed to tell some of us what to do, without your having had the benefit of reading all the past messages left by the evildoer who is being criticized.

For three long years (at least) Eugene and I have been putting up with heaps of garbage (dissent, anti-Catholicism, anti-papacy, anti-Americanism, etc.) from Mr. Jean Bouchard, who pretends to be a pious Catholic. You, Kiwi, have little or no knowledge of the negative things J.B. has perpetrated here, dozens of times through the years. Instead of criticizing Gene and me, I request that you trust our judgment and experience in this matter. [Did you notice that another dissenter, Chris Coos, who had been completely silent for weeks (but was apparently lurking), couldn't stop himself from chirping a silly tune just now, in support of his fellow ne'er-do-well, Jean. How sad!]

Yes, Kiwi, I should not fully tell Jean to absent himself from the forum. Rather I should tell him what I have told other mixed-up folks: "Humbly lurk and learn -- but post nothing for now, because by repeatedly posting dissent and anti-Church insults, you are doing the devil's work."
If you wish to converse with Jean, Kiwi, his e-mail address works (as I had the misfortune of learning earlier today [explained above]).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 29, 2002.

Hi John it just makes me sad, Ive been posting since May this year and I have found Mr Bouchard to be a loving man with whom I strongly disagree with on many issues but accpet him as part of our Catholic family.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2002.

"[Did you notice that another dissenter, Chris Coos, who had been completely silent for weeks (but was apparently lurking), couldn't stop himself from chirping a silly tune just now, in support of his fellow ne'er-do-well, Jean. How sad!]" JFG

Support of his fellow ne'er - do - well? Such a strange perception of others you have John. It is clear that I was simply pointing out one of your gigantic miscomprehensions. I was inclined to come from out of the woodwork because of your flagrant folly, and for only that reason.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), October 30, 2002.

Friends,
I've been happy with some, unhappy with some, but I never went past an admonishing post or two about what they say. Everyone has a right to their private opinions, even Jean. I have no wish to see him disgraced, or chased out of here. But when he makes a mistake, he places himself directly in the current. He swims against the current; and complains of fraud, of ''cudgels'' and denial. These are his views; and I have never denied him his right to give them.

In a few instances, I've tried to expose a hypocritical vein running through his posts. When it is uncovered he becomes mean-spirited and foul- mouthed. Once in a while, he says something vile without a sugar- coating: ''The Vatican works in a bubble of it's own making not truly connected with the here and now scenarios. This " new ' Platform of understandng and resolution(s) will take several decades, etc.,''

I don't condone that type of argument. But I don't call him a prick. I don't say he is base and uneducated, as he's called me. I worry about the case in point. When he displays a lack of character, my words simply tell him so; for his own good. I think Jean has rarely met a person who will stand up to him. I suspect he's an imposing man in person. One who can intimidate a smaller or older man.

Thank God Jean hasn't been able (yet) to lay hands on me. Poor Chavez! Once he said he would ''slap me silly.'' Hahaha ! Cut him slack??? Why? He's a big boy now. If he goes against this current, let him sink or swim, just as I have to do. He chose this forum; I didn't choose it for him.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.

Jean,

Please watch your foul mouth at forum.

You have been posting here for five years on and off. You didn't understand the the "forum robot" mails you?? LOL

-- - (.@...), October 30, 2002.

Jean,

Why don't you answer the question asked to you about Pedophilia in this thread by Frank? Did you realy mean that? Are you hoping this thread will drop off the radar screen like the other one did?

Please don't run your vulgar mouth to me. Its a fair enough question. You work volunteer to, don't you?

-- - (.@.....), October 30, 2002.

Unanswered question for Jean.

-- - (.@.....), November 01, 2002.

A new commandment, I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you. By this shall all men know you are my disiciples.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Thank God Jean hasn't been able (yet) to lay hands on me. Poor Chavez!

Gene I dont know how you do it but Im hurting from laughing so much. Im sure Jean will be laughing as well.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 03, 2002.