Ask Benny

[The NZA]

Hmm...again, dont get me wrong here, i think concrete evidence of spirits/demons and the like would say volumes of the possiblitliy of afterlife, not to mention i think it would make this world a pretty interestin place.

Its a sort of "majority of scientific community" thing, followed by "with the right equipment, could i prove it?" - if analysis under a miscroscope conclusively comes up somehow demonic - again, not quite sure of the criteria here - im not gonna deny that.

If Revelations rolls around & happened somehow, and there's demons runnin around eatin people, ladies of baphomet and dragons with multiple heads outside my window, its not like im gonna go call Hawking and wait on hold for empirical data.

...im grabbin my katana & runnin outside while things are still lively. But that's neither here nor there.

But then dont think that empirical data alone convinces people; even our president apparntely thinks "the verdict's still out on evolution"...

[Benz]

If Revelations rolls around & happened somehow, and there's demons runnin around eatin people, ladies of baphomet and dragons with multiple heads outside my window, its not like im gonna go call Hawking and wait on hold for empirical data.

...im grabbin my katana & runnin outside while things are still lively.  But that's neither here nor there.

But then dont think that empirical data alone convinces people; even our president apparntely thinks "the verdict's still out on evolution"...

Two issues here:

 

First, Revelation - Don't get confused by heresies that are running rampant. A majority of what is described in Revealation will not happen! Simply because it allready has, metaphorically speaking. For example: Chapter 12 of Revelations:

1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3

3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, 4 with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.

4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.

5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. 5 Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

 

This is not a description of things to come, but The description of the birth of Jesus Christ, and how Satan wishes to destroy Him.

 

Secondly, evolution is an acceptable possibility. In fact I do believe we are an evolution. I am not committing heresy by saying this. The creation story is for the most part not to be taken literally. 7 days, in the Hebrew used, means 7 periods of time. Creation and evolution can co-exist. God could still have created us, slowly evolving His creation until we became man. Also I believe God has given us all super-natural souls, each one individual and created, not evolved. So the two can co-exist.

[archangel]

I was looking through this thread and decided it would probably be a good idea to start this over again.

 

Now, I don't doubt that Benny was a good guy with good intentions, but some of his answers would probably make Tomás de Torquemada take a step back and whistle.

 

When I say 'some', I actually mean 'the vast majority of.'

 

The Catholic Church as a whole, especially after the Papacy of John Paul the Great, does not hold such a 'fire and brimstone' view on most things, and don't casualy call things 'heretical', either. Therefore, I will try my best not to take on a condemning tone on anything, since it is the realm of God to judge, not man.

 

Now, as some of you may know, at one point I was studying to become a priest. While my religious education wasn't intense (since I never entered the semenary proper), I did get privately tutored by many priests. I've also taken the time to read through the Vatican II documents (mind numbing), the Catechism, and Canon Law.

 

However, this does NOT mean that I, in any way, am an expert. Just want to throw that out there.

 

So, if anyone has any questions concerning the practices, doctrines, faith, make up, history, or politics of the Roman Catholic Church, feel free to ask me. If I do not have the answer off hand, I will hunt down an answer and post it here.

 

I do this because I believe it's very important for people to have an understanding of the Church, and not foment ideas that are either inaccurate or blatantly false.

 

Therefore, I bring to you: Ask Benny Archangel: Questions about the Catholic Church.

[Reverend Jax]

Do you believe the embarassing scandals of the past few years will reduce if not end the systematic cover-up of priest molestation? Naturally, you can't prevent every single member in a whole group of people (priests) from doing such things, but do you think the cover-ups and the moving of priests will stop, or will it just be more shrewfully covered up?

[archangel]

Do you believe the embarassing scandals of the past few years will reduce if not end the systematic cover-up of priest molestation? Naturally, you can't prevent every single member in a whole group of people (priests) from doing such things, but do you think the cover-ups and the moving of priests will stop, or will it just be more shrewfully covered up?

Good question.

 

I don't think the Church as a whole can take another scandal like the one that gripped the States recently. The Council of American Bishops really dropped the ball, and with Cardinals like Bernard Law to a greater extent, and Cardinals like Cardinal Eagan to a lesser degree, the damage that was dealt to the image of the Church will be one that will take a very long time to heal.

 

I think that Rome is going to start taking a much tougher stance on their Bishops who allowed these things to happen in their diocese. Bishops and Archbishops are under tremendous scrutiny, both from Rome and from the public, to ensure things like this don't happen again. What we probably wont see, much to my dismay, at least not from Benedict XVI (I think) is the defrocking of Bernard Cardinal Law. I think that's one of the first things that should have happened, and I still think it should happen, though I'm not sure what's going to happen there.

 

No, there is no way to ensure there will never be a depraved priest who will molest a child. Saddly, no organization, secular or religious, is immune to depraved individuals. Some will undoubtedly slip by undetected. But a situation like we saw? Chances are very, very likely they will not happen again. Next time (and God willing it will never happen) this happens, we'll see this handled quickly, quietly, and to everyone's satisfaction.

 

For now, the Church needs to begin healing. There was alot of hurt done, both to the flock and the shephard.

[Reverend Jax]

Women in the priesthood...ever gonna happen? The argument Benny made was that priest have to be like the apostles, so women can't be priest cause the apostles were men, but I would say things like "well the apostles were also from Judea, spoke Aramaic, and knew Jesus of Nazareth during the time when he lives as a man in the flesh, and priests today aren't like the apostle in that sense" and he would say "oh, those similarities are irrelevant, but the penises, that's definitely a common bond that the apostles and modern day priests need to have. As I believe that this is a weak argument (that the only real crucial thing people have to have in common with the apostles in order to be a priest are the sex organs), is it only a matter of time befoire women are allowed into the priesthood.

 

Also, what are your thoughts on the new rules about priest and homosexuality, distinguishing between deep-rooted homosexuality and latent homosexually tenedencies?

[archangel]

Women in the priesthood is an interesting one.

 

The reasons he cited are partially correct. The answer, however, is a little deeper than that.

 

During the Nicean Council, major tenents of the faith were implemented as Canon Law and Dogma, including the acceptance of the Trinity. Among these individuals was St. Augustine.

 

Now, Augustine was a brilliant man. He was the one who is directly responsible for the implementation of the Trinity. He also was one of the key players in the Nicean Council.

 

Now, he also was a sexist who believed women were the spawn of Satan and the downfall of mankind. During the Nicean Council, it was also decreed that Priests were to make promises of celebacy and chastity. Again, Augustinian Philosophy.

 

Is it possible for there to be female priests? I don't see why not. Christ did, after all, have a female follower who played a very important role, Mary Magdaline. There was also the central role Mary played in Christ's life. Christ had a very special spot for women, and also treated them as man's equal or superior. His last order was seeing his mother taken care of.

 

So there is definitely enough scripture to defend the argument for female clerics.

 

However, as I've stated before, the Church changes very, very slowly. Do I forsee an eventual allowance of female priests? I'm not sure. It is possible.

 

What I do see for certain is the removal of the promises of Chastity and Celebacy for diocesan priests in the very near future, though probably not under the Papacy of Benedict XVI.

 

Also, what are your thoughts on the new rules about priest and homosexuality, distinguishing between deep-rooted homosexuality and latent homosexually tenedencies?

Well, this is another part where people may not like the Church's position.

 

Homosexuality, or the state of being homosexual, is NOT in of itself a sin. In fact, the Church does agree that, biologically speaking, homosexuality does occur naturally.

 

The Church requires that it's seminarians begin to act as though they have already taken the promises of chastity and celebecy. They require the same of heterosexuals as they do homosexuals. Now, the problem is that the seminary has become associated with homosexuals, since there has been a large influx of homosexuals joining the clergy to escape what they see as a sinful existance. Because of this, there have been instances of seminarians caught in sinful acts.

 

They want to do away with those instances, and to be honest, require the same of their heterosexual seminarians.

 

Though, I must admit it is now more difficult for homosexuals to enter the seminary.

 

My thoughts? It wont matter. In the end, God will still call to those who serve, and in the end, it matters not whether they're homo or heterosexual. They all take the same vows.

[Reverend Jax]

Haha! I'm liking you take on Religion much better than either Benny's tane on it or your take on politics! This is the kind of reasonable interpretation I remember from my two years in Catholic School, the kind that Benny contrasted so much.

 

Next question: what do you think we can expect out of this new Pope (of course, this is pure speculation).

[The NZA]

is it true that if you dont receive the sacrement of confession, you burn in the special hell?

[archangel]

what do you think we can expect out of this new Pope (of course, this is pure speculation).

I'm not sure. He was considered to be one of the most conservative cardinals in the Vatican, but his actions thus far have been anything but.

 

So far, I really admire what he's done. He's working to end the 1000 year old schism between the Western and Eastern Church, working to improve relations with the Anglicans, working to continue the new relations with the Jews that John Paul the Great began, and has placed John Paul on the fast track to Sainthood. He's still working on continuing the cannonization process for Mother Teresa, and hasn't been the hermit everyone expected.

 

Usually, Popes elected at his age are considered Transitory Popes. However, transitory popes have had a knack, historically, of making sweeping changes (ie. Vatican II). So it's really up in the air with what the Holy Father will do. lol Predicting the actions of Popes is akin to predicting the weather: you an say what you will, but it's just talking into the wind.

 

is it true that if you dont receive the sacrement of confession, you burn in the special hell?

No.

 

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is one of healing. The purpose of it is to come to terms with oneself and admit your shortcomings, much like one does in an AA meeting. You speak to a priest, because while performing this sacrament, the Priest represents the entire Church. You speak your transgressions, and ask for forgiveness, for only then can one really begin healing.

 

We all know that all our sins are already forgiven, for Christ died on the cross for that very reason. He made redemption possible. What the sacrament does is help us realize that we are still human, and will make mistakes. This is a venue to ask God for forgiveness, and then ask the forgiveness of your fellow man.

 

The penances are almost always bible verses and/or prayers. This is done so a person can find the guidance in the Good Book, to help him in the future from committing these same transgressions.

 

Also, priests have been known to have you ask the person you have hurt for forgiveness as part of your penance. Again, what is penance but an act of reconciliation?

 

No, being condemned to Hell is, I believe, something reserved for the most heinous of crimes. The rejection of goodness is the only way (at least, in my oppinion) one can be condemned. Even then, it is only for God to do, and God alone. Be sure to ask him when you two meet

[Acalis]

I always had a question concerning the Catholic faith. What is the deal with the saints? Do you actually PRAY to them, or are they just like "middle men" for communicating with God?

[archangel]

I always had a question concerning the Catholic faith. What is the deal with the saints? Do you actually PRAY to them, or are they just like "middle men" for communicating with God?

Not really middle men. It's more of asking for intercession.

 

A Saint is a person who was particularly holy, or touched by God in a special way.

 

It's kinda like this: you have an older brother. You have a problem, and don't quite know how to ask Dad for help. Older Brother here knows how to talk to dad, and they have a really great relationship. You ask your older brother to intercede on your behalf, to also talk to your dad.

 

That's the analogy (poor, but you get the idea).

 

We don't idolize Saints, we honor them. Since the idea is that every soul goes somewhere, and the worthy make it to heaven, those in heaven look after you. They pray for you. So what we ask is for Saints to pray for us.

 

Get it?

[Reverend Jax]

Are "Pearly Gates" jokes still funny in heaven?

[archangel]

Are "Pearly Gates" jokes still funny in heaven?

They had to take away St. Peter's Gavel...he was getting annoyed.

 

But everyone swears it was all 'God's Divine Plan'

 

I mean, after all, he did invent the sense of humor.

 

Need proof?

 

Dear God Letters

[bunnyfoofoo]

1. so you confess for XYZ sins you've commited and what not, and father cotera gives your your penance, but:

1. you refuse to do it?
   
2. you forget about it?
   
3. you die before you get a chance to?
   
4. or you refuse to sit on father cotera's lap?
   

2. can priests get tattoos? i've never seen or heard of them getting one and i was kinda curious after watching american chopppers... lol

 

3. the Holy Grail.

1. what does the Church say?
   
2. what do you think?
   
3. how does one reconcile the fact that the concept of the 'Holy Grail' was first written only 700 years ago?
   

4. what strides are being taken by the Roman Catholics Church to promote unity among all Christians?

[archangel]

1. so you confess for XYZ sins you've commited and what not, and father cotera gives your your penance, but:

 

a. you refuse to do it?

Then it doesn't count. Remember, you have to be sorry and willing to make amends. That's the 'making amends' part.

 

b. you forget about it?

If you remember later, you can do it then. Again, what was the intent?

 

c. you die before you get a chance to?

The intent was there. You're O.K.

 

d. or you refuse to sit on father cotera's lap?

Automatic, one way ticket to hell.

 

Sorry, I don't make the rules.

 

2. can priests get tattoos? i've never seen or heard of them getting one and i was kinda curious after watching american chopppers... lol

Yes, they can.

 

3. the Holy Grail.

 

a. what does the Church say?

Not sure, give me a few...have to look this one up.

 

b. what do you think?

I thinkt he quest for the grail is the quest to find Faith. The Grail itself, it's existance or lack-there-of, is irrelevant: remember, it was only a cup. It's the learning you do in the process that's important.

 

c. how does one reconcile the fact that the concept of the 'Holy Grail' was first written only 700 years ago?

Depends on who you ask. Die hard Grail Hunters will probably not be very happy. Me, doesn't matter.

 

4. what strides are being taken by the Roman Catholics Church to promote unity among all Christians?

Good question.

 

The late John Paul the Great made massive strides to improve relations with not only Protestants, but with other religions as well.

 

Here are a few of the things the Church has/is currently doing towards this end:

 

-The pope convened leaders of all major religions to Assisi, Italy, to pray for world peace in 1986.

 

-The pope had also held numerous meetings with Jewish and Muslim religious leaders throughout his pontificate. He sponsored the "Colloquium on Holiness in Christianity and Islam" in Rome in 1984 and spoke to 80,000 Muslims in Morocco in 1985. February 2000 saw history's first meeting between a pope and Sunni Islam's highest religious authority, the Sheikh al-Azhar, at the sheikh's office in Cairo.

 

-Also significant for interreligious relations has been Pope John Paul's frequent apologies for past sins of Catholics and his encouragement of other Catholics to do the same. He himself has denounced and apologized for the past "brutalities and injustices of racism, violence, and prejudice-including those committed during the Crusades and against indigenous peoples, women, suspected heretics, non-Catholic Christians, Muslims, and Jews."

 

-John Paul met with Muslim leaders at the Al-Aqsa Mosque and then prayed alone at the Western Wall.

 

-A 1995 papal encyclical entitled Ut unum sint ("That They May Be One") reviews 30 years of ecumenical relations and invites non-Catholic churches to join the pope in rethinking the role of the papacy in world Christianity.

 

-He (JPII) has addressed the tension between religion and science directly, stating his approval of its search for truth and affirming that Catholicism must not deny the findings of science.

 

-Pope Benedict XVI said the search for unity between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christians was "irreversible," underlining his desire to improve relations and heal the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox Church.

 

-Pope Benedict XVI held a meeting with an international Jewish group, assuring them he will continue his predecessors' efforts to improve relations between Catholics and Jews.

 

And, most interesting of all

 

-The Vatican’s foreign minister is en route to Moscow on his first trip to meet Russian political leaders in an attempt to improve relations between the Holy See and the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

These are just to name a few.

[archangel]

3. the Holy Grail.

 

a. what does the Church say?

 

Not sure, give me a few...have to look this one up.

 

Ok, I still haven't found the official position the Chruch takes on this, but I did find this very interesting bit of information.

 

There's a chapel in Valencia, Spain called the Chapel of the Holy Chalice/Grail. In this Chapel there is a Relic, which many believe to be the actual Grail.

 

The Chalice was was entrusted to St. Laurence by Pope Sixtus II in 258 AD.

 

The Cup itself is made of Agate Stone, and is of a style historians believe can be linked to the time when Jesus was alive. Since the cup itself is made of stone, it cannot be carbon dated.

 

The tradition is that the Cenacle -- the room where the Last Supper took place -- and the Holy Cup were the property of the family of St. Mark the Evangelist, who served as interpreter for St. Peter in Rome

 

St. Mark and St. Peter were very close, a fact that leads people to believe that St. Mark would have given the Holy Cup to St. Peter, for the simple reasons that it was very important for the early Christians to use relics in the liturgy and that Peter was head of the Church.

 

Spanish tradition claims that St. Peter took the Holy Cup with him to Rome, where it was passed on to his successors until the Valerian persecution of 258.

 

Due to the extreme danger of the precious relic falling into the hands of the Romans, St. Sixtus II, knowing that he would soon be martyred, entrusted the cup to his treasurer and deacon, St. Laurence. St. Laurence in turn gave it to a Spanish soldier with the request to take it to Huesca, Spain, where he knew that his family would care for it.

In 1982 John Paul the Great became the very first Pope to say Mass with the relic since St. Sixtus II in the third century.

 

It is considered a Relic of the Catholic Church.

 

 

*alot of this information I found via Catholic.org, and I paraphrased this from an interview of Catholic Scholar Janice Bennett. I cross checked her information, and found it credible, so I'm using most of her words since they are simply stated.

[bunnyfoofoo]

Rummaging through some of the more interesting anti-catholic websites, i came across a few things that they all shared, so i figured this might be an appropriate venue for such discussion.

1. How does the RCC defend the inclusion of the apocrypha?
   
2. What precedent is there for the rosary?
   
3. Good Works vs. Faith: How does the RCC justify it's stance?
   
4. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Or did Jesus have actual siblings?
   
5. Were women created solely for the needs of men?
   
6. Are women supposed to be subservient and acquiescent to their husbands?
   
7. Was sex created only as a means of procreation, or was it also created for enjoyment between husband and wife?
   

Edited December 13, 2005 by bunnyfoofoo

[archangel]

Wow, bringing out the Big Guns, eh?

 

Fine, make it hard lol

 

1. How does the RCC defend the inclusion of the apocrypha?

The apocrypha is really funny. The apocrypha is basically books that it's contents are either contested or not considered to be divinely inspired.

 

The apocrypha is NOT considered, by and large, sacred text by the Church. They are kept around because they are early writings of the Church, and as such have, an historical significance which should be preserved. However, because alot of the writings in the apocrypha are questionable or downright inaccurate, they had to be set aside so as to not confuse the leity.

 

2. What precedent is there for the rosary?

The Rosary is a tool, no more, no less. It is a tool to help people pray, by reciting simple prayers, or a mantra, while contemplating specific themes, or Mysteries, in Christendom.

 

The Rosery has been pushed by the Church because it is a very good way for the average individual to concentrate in prayer.

 

3. Good Works vs. Faith: How does the RCC justify it's stance?

Elaborate. Not sure what you mean by this.

 

4. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Or did Jesus have actual siblings?

It is traditionally believed that Mary was ever virgin, and never knew man. It is also believed, because of this, Jesus had no siblings.

 

Is it a very important point? Some may argue one way or the other. I don't think it matters one way or the other. If she was a perpetual virgin: great. If not: great. Her importance is not whether or not she as a perpetual virgin, her importance is the fact that she was the mother of the Grace of Mankind, the Savior, the Messiah.

 

If it is proven in the future that Mary wasn't, in fact, a perpetual virgin, will it shake the Church? No. It changes nothing.

 

5. Were women created solely for the needs of men?

No. Women were created because man cannot be complete without woman.

 

My priest has a saying he likes to use at marriages:

 

'When God created woman, he did so because man was incomplete. He did not take a bone from Man's foot, so as to say woman will forever be less than man, doomed to be below him, for him to walk all over. Nor did he take a bone from Man's head, so woman will always be superior, for her to walk all over him.

 

He took a bone from his rib, a bone close to his heart, so as to point out that man can never be complete, nor can woman ever be complete, without one another. They are equals, and both children, Blessed in they eyes of God.'

 

6. Are women supposed to be subservient and acquiescent to their husbands?

No less than man is to be dutiful and protective of his wife.

 

Remember, alot of the writings were written in such a way as to be understood by the leity of the time. When the old testiment was written, the position of woman was one of subservant to her husband.

 

However, a man must always honor and cherish his wife. That was true then and is so today.

 

Though things may have changed somewhat, they haven't all that much. A woman is to honor her husband, and a man his Wife.

 

again, refer to Father Morales' homilee on marriage.

7. Was sex created only as a means of procreation, or was it also created for enjoyment between husband and wife?

Both. God's instruction to man was to procreate and be plentiful. He created sex, primarily, for procreation. He also made sex enjoyable.

 

And why shouldn't it be? Sex is the act of bringing to souls together for the purpose of creating one, both spiritually and physically.

 

Spiritually, because the two must love each other so much to join together in such bliss. And physically, because the beauty of such a union is only surpassed by the fruits of it's labour, mainly, a baby.

 

Ask any parent what was their most magical experience: their sexual experience, or the baby that followed.

[bunnyfoofoo]

Wow, bringing out the Big Guns, eh?

Fine, make it hard lol

::evil laugh::

 

 

 

Elaborate. Not sure what you mean by this.

salvation is attained through what means, by good works, faith, or both? And how does the RCC justify their belief.

 

its hard to ask the question without answering it, and i wanted you to answer it.... lol

Edited December 13, 2005 by bunnyfoofoo

[Reverend Jax]

I'm not sure this question is appropriate here, since this isn't a question about the Catholic Church, but about the nature of faith, but this thread is jumping right now, so here goes.

 

How can one choose what they believe? I understand free will and the ability to choose right from wrong, but we cannot chose whether or not we believe something. Free will of action is not teh same thign as free will of belief.

 

For example, if I asked you to believe you were an owl, you could pretend you were an owl, but could you believe. If you had to believe you were an owl in order to save you mother's life, could you believe such at thing? You could try, but you cannot chose what you believe. So how can a soul be judged based on his/her faith? Do you understand what I'm saying.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Jack's Meandering Thoughts

[archangel]

Salvation is attained through what means, by good works, faith, or both? And how does the RCC justify their belief.

Faith, without good works, is empty.

 

The justification is simple: if you truly have faith, then good works are apart of that faith.

 

The Church would rather you do good works and have no faith, than vice versa.

 

How can one choose what they believe?

Loaded question, I'll do my best.

 

You're talking about taking things on faith.

 

It's easy to disbelief you're not an owl, because that's something you can see and touch and feel. You know you're not an owl because you can see it, feel it.

 

Believing something is knowing it without a doubt, and when concerning faith, it's something that people have a hard time accepting.

 

The entire premise of faith is believing in something, the same way you would believe in something material, without concrete physical evidence.

 

That's why it's faith.

 

But again, that's why your soul isn't judged on faith alone. Faith is empty without good actions. You will not so much be judged on faith as you will be judged, at least I believe so, on what kind of person you were, what kind of life you led.

 

God isn't so petty as to follow the asinine strictures set up by humanity, who can only think in finite terms.

 

You can't put God in the perverbial box.

[bunnyfoofoo]

some more questions cause my brain is turning to mush... the last one is pretty loaded... but... w/e it's been bugging me for a few days.

1. Who is God and what kind of God is he?
   
2. Isn't disallowing priests to marry against the teachings of the Bible?
   
3. If a priest decides to leave the priesthood, what repercussions are there? What if it's to marry?
   
4. If one confesses murder to a priest, what would the priest do?
   
5. Do you think that priests should be required to testify against a person who confessed a crime or intent to commit a crime? Explain, if possible, through the RCCs stance.
   
6. The RCC is one of the many organizations sending missionary work into Africa to help people struggling with AIDS. Currently, the strategy is to teach these villages and towns about the importance of abstinence. Do you think they'll ever change that strategy into the "abstinence is the only 100% sure way of not acquiring AIDS, but if you chose not to you should wear condom" for the sake of saving potentially millions of lives? Or do you think that saving a few peoples soul but dooming millions of others to die of a horrible and incurable disease is a greater cause than saving millions first and then trying to explain the importance of living a Christian or a prosocial secular life?
   

[archangel]

1. Who is God and what kind of God is he?

God is the Creator, the supreme being responsible for the creation of everything you see around you (whether by blinking and making it so or setting into motion events that led to the Big Bang). He is One God manifest in three: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: One God, three forms.

 

He is a kind, merciful God, but he is also a wrathful God.

 

2. Isn't disallowing priests to marry against the teachings of the Bible?

No.

 

Christian clerics, in the Early Church all the way to and passed the Nicean Council allowed for Priests to marry. In fact, most priests were married with Children.

 

Now, after the fall of the Roman Empire and the onset of the Dark Ages, the Church, out of nessesity, changed this and implemented celebacy and chastity. (actually, this is one of the reasons, one of the main reasons)

 

Because there were no more Roman Legions protecting the roads and towns that littered the European country side, being a priest became a life threatining position.

 

The Church decided it would be easier to send a priest with no family to, say, war torn Brittania on his own than it would be to relocate him and his entire family.

 

There was also the position that began, mainly with St. Augustine, that women were the source of all evil. Because of this, priests should not marry so as to resist the temptation of women and tarnish themselves in the sinful act of sex.

 

It is important to note that Augustine was married with children.

 

But against the teachings in the Bible? Hardly.

 

3. If a priest decides to leave the priesthood, what repercussions are there? What if it's to marry?

Good question.

 

First, it's important to point out the once a priest, always a priest. A priest's hands become the hands of Christ through the rite of ordination.

 

Now, this is only true when the priest is doing Christ's work. Remember, a priest calls on Christ to make things blessed, it's nothing the Priest himself does or is even capable of doing. So if a priest abuses his authority or begins to do things ungainly, then it isn't with Christ's blessing, get it?

 

Now, there are many instances where a priest will leave the clergy to marry. You have to get permission from Rome, and basically the let you go. However, they prohibit you from celebrating mass, since you are still a priest.

 

Once a priest, only blatant, blasphemous actions can ever stop making you a priest, like desecrating an altar, or molesting children, or revealing what someone confessed.

 

4. If one confesses murder to a priest, what would the priest do?

Council that the individual turn himself in as his penance.

 

Because of what Confession is, a priest cannot reveal to anyone what it is someone confessed to him. If he were to do that, he immediately becomes excomunicate. The clergy is currently struggling with this, and trying to find a way to keep the sacrament of confession sacred while still protecting the public.

 

I really don't know the specifics on this. I'll have to get back to you.

 

The RCC is one of the many organizations sending missionary work into Africa to help people struggling with AIDS. Currently, the strategy is to teach these villages and towns about the importance of abstinence. Do you think they'll ever change that strategy into the "abstinence is the only 100% sure way of not acquiring AIDS, but if you chose not to you should wear condom" for the sake of saving potentially millions of lives? Or do you think that saving a few peoples soul but dooming millions of others to die of a horrible and incurable disease is a greater cause than saving millions first and then trying to explain the importance of living a Christian or a prosocial secular life?

The problem here is what the Church is, primarily:

 

The Church cannot, in good faith, tell people to use condoms to save themselves. And there are a few reasons for it.

 

But it's primary reason is that the Church must teach morality. A condom will not protect you, 100%, from AIDS. In fact, as studies show, in Africa particularly, the protection is somewhere in the 60 percentile, because people use them inappropriately.

 

They're not dooming anyone to die. They're teaching people the importance of self control so as to save themselves. If they disagree with the message, then that's a different matter entirely, but I don't think it's fair to have the Church teach something against their morals because it's more expedient to the populace, especially when said practice isn't gauranteed to help them.

 

The Church isn't condemning anyone to death. The actions taken by these individuals are dooming themselves. If I teach you that doing drugs is harmful, and has a damned good chance of killing you, and you shouldn't do it, but you do it anyway, it isn't my fault if you kill yourself.

 

Personal accountability does play a part in this.

 

Now, I know people may disagree with the Church here, and that's fine, but you need to understand that the Church cannot begin to allow, even passively, actions that are seriously detrimental to these people by saying "this is wrong, but should you ignore me, do this to help yourself.' In that case, not only will your primary method never get through, you're potentially giving someone false hope.

[operabari]

If you're looking for a Biblical defence of the RCC's stronger leaning on good works, look to the book of James. Archangel quoted it, but there it is.

 

I would point out that if you question the RCC's power to put books on the "scripture" list, you cut out the entire biblical canon we have today. They put all of them there. Cut off the branch and the apples all fall off. Luther cut out Maccabees simply because he found prayer for the dead an uncomfortable possibility. Easier to pretend a possible contradiction doesn't exist, I guess.

 

Another reason for celebate priests is the fact that the Church had so much more direct responsibility for the family of the priest, monetarily. What does the church do if the father dies, support his family till they die? $$$$ Many an early church bemoaned the lazy son of a dead priest that was simply leaching off the congregation. Family of priests in the early church also tended to claim church property for their own when their father died. Sticky leagal problems abounded. Much simpler and cleaner if that isn't there.

 

I'll try to find other threads, I promise. I just get drawn to these with my limited time.