Secular Sex Abuse

Great article in the New York Times about legislation which *finally* targets not only the Catholic Church, but any institution which has hidden abuse.

Should it be possible to sue the city of New York for sexual abuse by public school teachers that happened decades ago? How about doctors or hospital attendants? Police officers? Welfare workers? Playground attendants?

For nearly a year, the city has tiptoed around that question, but in the coming months, there may be no ducking it. Legislation in Albany would force public officials to answer for the crimes of earlier generations, just as Catholic bishops have.
What began as an effort by legislators to expand judicial accountability for sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has grown to cover people in every walk of life. One bill would temporarily suspend the statute of limitations, and allow people who say they were abused as children to file lawsuits up to age 58 — that is, 40 years after they turned 18.

In states which have debated changing the statue of limitations, is the object really to help the victims, or persecute the Catholic Church? If you are really concerned about victims, wouldn't you want to help all of them, and not just those who had abuse related to the Catholic Church?

Suddenly, lobbyists and advocates for school boards, counties and small towns spoke out.
“Statutes of limitation exist for a reason,” said Bob Lowry, the deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents. “How can anyone go back 40 years and ascertain what happened? Witnesses, responsible authorities, even the perpetrator himself or herself, may have passed away.”

Suddenly, indeed.  So you say that you were abused by Father O'Malley back 40 years ago.  Well, he's been dead for 10 years, and the parish housekeeper died even longer ago.  Maybe Bob who was also an altar boy could be a witness, but no one has heard from him in years.  When the Catholic Church says that lifting the statute of limitations poses problems as to how to get a fair trail for both victim AND accused, are they just making excuses, or is this a valid point?  We need to remember that in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty, and are entitled to a fair trial.

Currently in the state of New York, if you are a child who is abused by a teacher, you have only NINETY DAYS to file a report.  How fair is that?  Surely, we can come to a number which is fair for both public and religious institutions.  

And the New York State School Boards Association said the costs of old misdeeds would be borne by people who had nothing to do with them, and “provide no corresponding protection” to children. The bill ultimately was not voted on last year. It is back again, and no doubt will get fresh life from the continuing stream of revelations about high church officials who covered up abuse. 

No one denies that the victims deserve compensation.  But closing down schools and parishes hurts everyone, as well as denying the poor opportunities for aid which they might have otherwise received.

New York is certainly not the first state to consider such a bill.  Colorado debated this several years ago. 

But many opponents of the bill testified that because sovereign immunity protects public institutions, the bill unfairly targets Catholic and other nonpublic entities. L. Martin Nussbaum, an attorney with Rothberger, Johnson and Lyons Religious Institution Group, said many people believe "that Catholic institutions have a more severe [sexual abuse] problem than others. They do not."

Testifying on behalf of CCPAC, Mr. Nussbaum cited several well-documented cases involving public school teachers, juvenile detention facilities, foster care providers and correctional facilities employees.

"This data shows that there is a substantial, current problem of childhood sexual abuse in Connecticut governmental settings," he said. "It is a much larger, and much more current problem than the problem Catholic institutions largely resolved by 1992. The Catholic Conference can see no reason why the law of Connecticut should discriminate between childhood sexual abuse claimants based upon whether they were injured in a governmental setting or a Catholic setting," he said.

Catholic Sex Scandals, Part III

In part three of "Catholic Sex Scandals" I am addressing the "talk is cheap, when are they going to DO something about it" criticism.

Efforts To Combat Clergy Sexual Abuse Against Minors: A Chronology [USA]
U. S. Bishops Approve Charter to Protect Children and Young People
Restructured Committee on Sexual Abuse Announced
Sex Abuse Committee Releases Preliminary Survey Results
Mixed Commission Ends Work In Rome on Sexual Abuse Charter
Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons
Guidelines for Implementation of Safe Environment Programs
Training Held on 'Essential Norms'; Vatican Official Took Part
The John Jay Study results [comprehensive study commissioned by the USCCB]
Vatican Report on U.S. Seminaries
Pope blasts Irish bishops, orders Vatican probe
Vatican urges psychological tests on future priests
Guidelines for the use of psychology in the admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood
After an Accusation, Here is What Happens at the Vatican
A Papal Conversion [Article on changing procedures under Cardinal Benedict]
Vatican Publishes Procedures for Sex Abuse Cases
Vatican shows new transparency with online guide

Catholic Sex Scandals, Part II

My first entry on this topic concerned the common idea that the root cause of the Catholic sexual abuse problem is celibacy. This entry is to focus on "Why is it so hard for the church and church members to acknowledge the guilt of the priests and repudiate them?"

Pope apologizes to Irish abuse victims, orders Vatican investigation
Irish bishops apologize for 'depravity of abuse' described in Dublin
Catholic Order Apologizes to Abuse Victims
Catholic Bishops Apologize for Sex Abuse
German Bishops Apologize to Child Sex Abuse Victims
Chile's Catholic Church Apologizes for Child Abuse
Swiss bishops apologize, saying they underestimated abuse problem
Catholic bishops deliver full apology for child sex abuse [England and Wales]
U.S. Bishops Apologize for Scandal
Pope Meets Maltese Abuse Victims
Pope Meets With Victims of Sex Abuse By Clergy, Apologizes [USA]
Australia: Pope apologizes for church's sex crimes [bishops]
Pope says sorry to Australian victims of clerical sex abuse
Pope's brother apologizes to abuse victims at his former school
Paedophile priests must own up to their sins, says Vatican [Cardinal Bertone]
Papal preacher apologizes for anti-Semitic remarks

So, how much apologizing is enough? I know, the next remark is "Well, they aren't sincere. They're just apologizing because they got caught." Unfortunately, there is no way to prove sincerity. But to anyone asking the Catholic Church to acknowledge that there is a problem, you got it.

Catholic Sex Scandals

With the new deluge of news articles about the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, I thought it would be important for me to put forth some resources for putting this in perspective.

First, there are not new cases being reported every day. The news articles which are being written are about cases which happened several decades previously.

Second, it is easy to point the finger at the Catholic rule of celibacy for clergy. If this were the case, then there wouldn't be any cases in other churches. However, this is not true at all. Abusers often take positions of authority, and a clergy member has a lot of respect and trust.
You can find cases of abuse in almost all denominations.

Lutheran
Presbyterian
Baptist
Methodist
Pentecostal
Episcopalian

Some question when other churches are going to institute similar policies as the Catholic Church for handling abuse. How soon policies have been adopted vary by denomination.

Most of the abuse in the Catholic cases tended to be of teenage males, which is not actually pedophilia, although most people think of the abuse as being of small children. Most pedophiles are married, not single.

In fact, Catholic priests are no more likely to be abusers than those of other denominations. What about other professions? Several studies have found the rate of abuse by teachers are much higher than that of clergy.

This article from Psychology Today reaffirms the same points that I wanted to make.

Is Priestly Celibacy Biblical?

I first posted this article in 2007. In Candy's latest post on the role of women, she writes about marriage and singleness in the comments. I have interspersed her comments within the article.



Most people are well aware that in the Catholic Church, priests do not marry. (For the record, celibate means "unmarried" in Catholic terminology.)

However, many are unaware that this is not considered a matter of doctrine, but of tradition (with a little t). The Church finds this the best practice for now, but it could change. Although there were both married and celibate (unmarried) priests in the early centuries, the church adopted celibacy as the practice because it made certain things easier at the time, mostly due to inheritance issues. We keep it because we still find it convenient for other reasons.

Actually, there are already married priests within the church. In what is known as the Eastern Rites (think Orthodox, but in union with Rome) if men are married when they are ordained, they will be married priests. If they are unmarried when they are ordained, then they must remain so. Also, former Orthodox or Anglican priests who convert, can request to be priests in the Roman Rite. These men, such as Dwight Longenecker, pictured above with his family, will also be married Catholic priests.

Protestants often point to this practice and say that it isn't Biblical. Some might point out the importance of marriage in the Old Testament. The figures of the Old Testament were very much concerned with building the Israelites as God's Chosen People. The New Testament is concerned with building the Kingdom of God.

Who is the central figure who precedes Jesus in the New Testament? John the Baptist, who appears to have been the first monk in the desert. There are many verses in the New Testament which point favorably to remaining unmarried:

Matt 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matt 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

1 Cor 7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

And you might notice that Paul then goes on to say that everyone should marry, to avoid fornication.

Candy specifically points this out, saying "1 Corinthians 7:1 is referring to the unmarried state. When a man is single, he is not to touch a woman - not to have sexual relations. This is why the next verse begins talking about avoiding fornication. When a man marries, then not only is he to touch his woman - he is commanded to "render due benevolence."

But the line after that is:

1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself.

He is giving permission for verses 2 though 5. It is not a commandment, because it is better to be as he is, himself. Further down, he writes:

1 Cor 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

One of the advantages for a celibate priest, is that he can devote himself full time to prayer and ministry, without caring for things of the world, and pleasing his wife.

1 Cor 7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

Candy writes, "Paul cannot be saying that it's better for men to stay single, else he would be contradiction God, when God commanded us to "be fruitful and multiply." We cannot do that unless we marry.

If Paul meant that it is better for men to stay single, then he would also be contradicting himself, for Paul also said the following:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." -1 Timothy 4:1-3"

I think that the second paragraph is what is leading Candy's interpretation of Paul. She doesn't want to concede that Paul wrote favorably of celibacy, because it could be used to justify the Catholic celibate priesthood. However, the Catholic Church does not forbid anyone from marrying. Those who are ordained priests are usually (though not always, as I wrote above) chosen from single men, who choose to take a vow of celibacy. The Shakers forbade marriage; the Catholic Church does not.

Candy adds further verses to prove her point: Pastors/deacons/bishops (biblically, bishop and pastor are the same office, and deacons are likely elders in the church, BTW) are told to
marry, as well:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach" -1
Timothy 3:2

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
and their own houses well." -1 Timothy 3:12

These verses are not commanding bishops and deacons to marry. It is saying that they should not be polygamous. I wonder if Candy would infer that men who are married, but have not been able to have children should not be ordained deacons, since they cannot demonstrate "ruling their children" well.

I don't think that we need to stack the verses speaking favorably of marriage and those speaking favorably of celibacy and measure the two. I think that the New Testament makes it clear that there is now a new choice available. Now some will be called to give themselves entirely to God, and this is a valid choice.

If you look at the history of the Church, it is clear that from the very first years of the Church, people listened to the parable of the rich young man, and took it to apply to themselves. Young widows gathered together in a house and devoted themselves to prayer instead of marrying again. Young men sold all of their possessions and went to pray in the desert. This all happened immediately, not starting in the Middle Ages.

From my point of view, it is the protestant churches which do not allow a person to chose this as an option. If a young man who had graduated from seminary openly said that he had no intention of marrying because he wanted to devote himself to prayer and his work for the church, would he really be able to find a job? On the other hand, the Catholic church has a position of deacon, which is an ordained position available for married men.

Candy actually seems to agree with my position here, as she says "It is great if a person can devote their whole life to God, and not desire a spouse. However, if one desires a spouse, they should not forbid to marry, but should in fact start their own family unit. The unmarried life, devoted completely to God are for those who don't have the desire to marry, and is never biblically forced on anyone."

Candy, who likes to read testimonies about women being held prisoner in convents, clearly views priests as being forced to remain single. They are forbidden from marrying. However, we do not see it that way.

Our seminary process is long, and with ample opportunity for the men to discern if this is truly their calling. I know someone who got married recently, who spent two years in a Catholic seminary. He discerned that he was not called to the priesthood after all. That is not looked down upon at all in our church, but on the other hand, an indication that the process works.

Priests are certainly not unhappy with the state of affairs.

"Job satisfaction is not a problem for U.S. priests, nearly 100 percent of whom either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" with the statement: "Overall, I am satisfied with my life as a priest." That was among the findings of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, CARA, in a telephone poll of 1,212 priests released Sept. 9."

A 2007 University of Chicago job satisfaction survey found eighty-seven percent of clergy said they were "very satisfied" with their work. This was all clergy lumped together, which suggests that while protestant clergy are very satisfied with their jobs, that Catholic clergy might be a little happier.

So again, while this is a tradition of the church, there are verses that speak approvingly of celibacy, indicating that it is a Biblically based practice.

The Catholic church isn't the only church with this practice, either. The Orthodox churches ordain both married and unmarried men, but if they are unmarried when ordained, then they must remain so. Bishops are chosen only from the celibate priests.

Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic churches all have a monastic traditions, as well, where monks and nun devote themselves full time to prayer.

Apostolic Succession

Before we begin on the issue of apostolic succession, we first must discuss the nature of the priesthood. Some Christian churches do not believe in any sort of ordination. They feel that because of the priesthood of all believers, any member of the church may preach and lead their assembly. Others do practice a laying on of hands for ordination, seeing it as a symbolic act, similar to baptism.

For Catholics, ordination is a sacrament. Through ordination, a man becomes a priest, his priesthood indelibly imprinted on his soul, forever. Although many Christians feel that the priesthood ended with Christ, Catholics see the Levitical priesthood as a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant. As the Catholic Catechism explains:

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."

This is important to note in the face of the accusation that Catholic priests are usurping the place Christ, who is our only true priest.

The Catholic Church does recognize the priesthood of all believers, or baptismal priesthood. The role of the ordained priesthood is to serve the rest of us, through dispensing the sacraments.

1120 The ordained ministry or ministerial priesthood is at the service of the baptismal priesthood. The ordained priesthood guarantees that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments through the Holy Spirit for the Church. The saving mission entrusted by the Father to his incarnate Son was committed to the apostles and through them to their successors: they receive the Spirit of Jesus to act in his name and in his person. The ordained minister is the sacramental bond that ties the liturgical action to what the apostles said and did and, through them, to the words and actions of Christ, the source and foundation of the sacraments.

But how does the ordained priesthood have the authority to marry people, to forgive sins, etc? They were given this authority by Jesus, as it was passed down through the apostles.


And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. Num 16:28

God gives Moses the authority to perform works on his behalf.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30

In the same way, Jesus, as a man, acts under the authority of the Father.

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me Luke 22:29
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. Luke 9:1

Jesus gives this authority to his disciples.

And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22

God imparted life to Adam through breathing on him. Therefore, this breathing was not just a symbol, but a sacrament. An outward sign of an inward grace which they received. This is something which they knew would be passed on to those who would come after them.

Acts 1:20-26 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

As this article from This Rock explains, "Peter considers Judas’s betrayal as a fulfillment of Old Testament prediction. And he also quotes from the Greek Septuagint translation of Psalm 109:8 (Psalm 108:8 in the Septuagint numbering) to show that filling the office was foreseen in Scripture. Verse 20 reads, "His office let another take." The word translated "office" is episkope, which in New Testament language means "episcopal office" (see 1 Tim. 3:1)."

Acts 9:7 shows that even Paul was ordained before he begins his ministry. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Paul sees this ministry being passed down through the generations, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2).

So, the apostles received this authority from Jesus, which they passed down to their successors, which they passed down through the generations, and which we still recognize today, as do a few other churches. The Catechism explains it in this way:

1562 "Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world, has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, sharers in his consecration and mission; and these, in their turn, duly entrusted in varying degrees various members of the Church with the office of their ministry." "The function of the bishops' ministry was handed over in a subordinate degree to priests so that they might be appointed in the order of the priesthood and be co-workers of the episcopal order for the proper fulfillment of the apostolic mission that had been entrusted to it by Christ."

1563 "Because it is joined with the episcopal order the office of priests shares in the authority by which Christ himself builds up and sanctifies and rules his Body. Hence the priesthood of priests, while presupposing the sacraments of initiation, is nevertheless conferred by its own particular sacrament. Through that sacrament priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head."

1564 "Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that associated with them by reason of their sacerdotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest, they are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament."

1565 Through the sacrament of Holy Orders priests share in the universal dimensions of the mission that Christ entrusted to the apostles. The spiritual gift they have received in ordination prepares them, not for a limited and restricted mission, "but for the fullest, in fact the universal mission of salvation 'to the end of the earth," "prepared in spirit to preach the Gospel everywhere."

1566 "It is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred office; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father." From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength.

1567 "The priests, prudent cooperators of the episcopal college and its support and instrument, called to the service of the People of God, constitute, together with their bishop, a unique sacerdotal college (presbyterium) dedicated, it is, true to a variety of distinct duties. In each local assembly of the faithful they represent, in a certain sense, the bishop, with whom they are associated in all trust and generosity; in part they take upon themselves his duties and solicitude and in their daily toils discharge them." priests can exercise their ministry only in dependence on the bishop and in communion with him. The promise of obedience they make to the bishop at the moment of ordination and the kiss of peace from him at the end of the ordination liturgy mean that the bishop considers them his co-workers, his sons, his brothers and his friends, and that they in return owe him love and obedience.

1568 "All priests, who are constituted in the order of priesthood by the sacrament of Order, are bound together by an intimate sacramental brotherhood, but in a special way they form one priestly body in the diocese to which they are attached under their own bishop. . . ." The unity of the presbyterium finds liturgical expression in the custom of the presbyters' imposing hands, after the bishop, during the rite of ordination.

Our records of the early church attest to their belief in apostolic succession.

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:4). A.D. 189]

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:26:2).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200].

Secular clothing

I was sorry to hear that Candy was sick today. It's a shame to miss out on nice summer weather because you're sick.

Candy wrote: I am not dressed lady-like today. My legs are cold, so I'm wearing pants and a t-shirt. This is as secular looking as I get.

We have written here before about how the meaning of words change over time, and that it is especially important to define your terms when relating to Catholicism, because of a vocabulary which has been set for centuries.

I thought Candy's use of "secular" here was a bit humorous, given the root of the word.

I assume that Candy meant " not overtly or specifically religious."

I thought that her dresses were chosen mostly for modesty, but she has mentioned previously that she likes being immediately identifiable as a Christian. Which always makes me wonder why Christian men are allowed to go incognito. Couldn't they wear robes?

Anyway, the Catholic meaning of secular is not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation.

In the Middle Ages, churches were part of monasteries. However, at a certain point, priests began leaving the monasteries to tend to the "secular" people outside the monasteries. Today, there are priests who are part of a religious order, and secular priests, who are diocean priests.

Just a bit of trivia, for those interested.

With so much going on in the country and the world right now, Candy seems to be fretting a lot in her Oklahoma trailer about...the Catholics? She has a huge rambling post about the evils of Catholicism again.


I, on the other hand, have a life. So I don't have time to get into all of her points (again). This weekend. One of my son's is having a big 16th birthday bash tonight! On the other hand I'm sure Kelly and her little guy are just enjoying their babymoon! So in the spirit of having better things to do with our lives, I hope that those of you looking for rebuttals to Candy Brauer's post today at keepingthehome.com (Keeping The Home) will settle for a few reruns! I'll try to keep them going during the weekend.


There is no need for any religious Church "Masses:

Jesus said to keep the sabbath day holy and that if you love Him you will keep His commandments. Attending mass every week is the "Catholic way" of doing what Jesus said.

Catechism Catholic Church:
2042 The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the Mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.

Priests of any kind are now obsolete, and NOT needed:


Someone should have told Jesus and the apostles! Because not only did Jesus designate the apostles specifically to keep his ministry going, they also "ordained" others to help them!

Catechism Catholic Church:
1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.


We have one mediator, and one mediator only, and that is Jesus Christ:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; -1 Timothy 2:5

Catechism Catholic Church
The one priesthood of Christ
1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."¹⁵ The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek";¹⁶ "holy, blameless, unstained,"¹⁷ "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"¹⁸ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."¹⁹
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."²⁰ The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."²¹
1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.²² In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.




There is no canonization process or church you have to go to or through to become a saint of God.
On Canonization - we've been there, done that. But because of invincible ignorance our rebuttals have never been acknowledged or addressed.  Nonetheless, it's part of our Vatican Vs. God rebuttal and you can read it here. Kelly also takes on the topic here.


We don't have to eat any Eucharist wafer, and think that we are eating Jesus in the form of a wafer. Where is Jesus Christ

We, SO HIT THIS OUT OF THE BALL PARK here.

Yes, the ancient Babylonians believed in a woman who procalimed herself a virgin, in whose husband (Nimrod, from Genesis) died. The woman claimed to be a virgin, and delivered a baby, which she taught was Nimrod come back from the dead. 

Thus, to become a saint involves no works or rituals - AT ALL. This is why Jesus said - It Is Finished


Mary and pagan stuff is here.

And now a personal note to Candy. I know you read here Candy. I know you're ticked that we show up so well in Google for people looking for your blog!  But really, can you give us some new material?  Thanks a bunch!