Thanks Brick and Duck:
I was afraid that I might have to continually explain the quote I made about your suppositional reply (read that suppositional, not suppository, just for comic relief. Ha ha ha!)
Shall we proceed to the First Amendment?
Susma Rio Sep
To: Susma Rio Sep
You seem a learned person, you use proper punctuation and correct grammar. How could you then beg ignorance of the grammatical rules of quotation marks? In the course of learning about plagarism, that subject delves into the proper use of quotation marks. You debase your knowledge by sounding like Hillary Clinton by pleading ignorance of a basic grammatical rule, albeit she pleaded ignorance to her husband’s philandering.
Debating is fine but don’t compare oranges and apples. Chosen celibacy in the Catholic Church is far different than the traditional clitorectomy of women in some countries. It sounds as though you are throwing everything you can think of into your argument for volunteer celibacy in the priesthood.
I think Bricker stated, correctly, that the US Constitution does state a separation of church and state. Not that the US Constitutuion has sovereignty over the Vatican and how it rules its congregational level management. These priests have gone into the church as they feel a calling from God and upon entering the Church, they accept the rules and policies of same. It is up to them and the Pope to make changes.
However, what I don’t understand is why the Church will not accept divorcees (although I think this is changing, is it not?) and homosexuals for communion when they allow (in the past before the limelight of the media spotted them) pedophile priests to continue in their work. To me, that is despicable. How hypocritical and judgemental of them.
What about the First Amendment?
Nothing about the First Amendment. The First Amendment isn’t applicable. Bricker sez so.
Dear Juice:
About the ‘quote’ recrimination, please forgive me my mistakes. I will try my utmost best to avoid such errors in the future. Most profuse and distressed apologies from my confused and humbled self. May I say “I love you” for you are a sister to me. I consider every man a brother and every woman a sister. That’s why I take up any cause of men and women which I believe to be for the advancement of their full personhood.
About the lifting of celibacy, I think I might find some useful materials from the advocacies of women for ordination. They do have some very good insights into the matter of discrimination on the basis of sex. One day they should bring the matter to courts which have to decide two questions: first, whether civil courts can try the issue; and second, whether indeed excluding women from ordination in any church is discrimination on the basis of gender.
Here is the text of the First Amendment:
I focus my attention on the phrase: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Bishops and priests contemplating the lifting of celibacy do seem to have a grievance; so they can and should go to the government for redress. Now, they have to convince the government first that its taking up their issue is not an infringement of the Catholic Church’s right to “free exercise of religion”.
The way I understand the law, government will step in to maintain public policy whatever a religious group advances as their belief and practice. Thus, Muslim Americans cannot practice simultaneous polygyny and also with Mormons. There is some federal Supreme Court’s decisions covering the matter of multiple wives with Mormons; with Muslims, can anyone recall any government’s action against American Muslims taking up several wives? I know that Muslims according to their religious institutions can have up to four wives and unlimited concubines which are also legitimate bedmates for them, like some kind of secondary wives. With regard to the Mormons, the Supreme Court seems to have decided that if they want to practice polygyny they have to move out of the U.S.A. I remember having read that their leader, was it Joseph Smith? providentially receive a new revelation dispensing Mormon men from having many wives in the manner of having a sisterhood of wives in his household.
I am still doing readings and a lot of thinking on how to work out a grievance pleading to courts for the lifting of celibacy duty from the Catholic priesthood. I will report here as I come across useful materials.
You say:
I share your sentiment almost a 100 percent.
About divorcees, I have read about priests with the opinion that a divorcee in good faith (that phrase again) can approach Holy Communion, but to do it in a place where she is not known to fellow worshippers. As regards their anomalous situation vis a vis Church sacramental discipline, Catholic canonical annulment of the church marriage is almost a routine; after annulment they can remarry in the Church sacarmentally, then everything will be in order.
Homosexuals are not allowed Holy Communion if they are known to be living in with a partner of the same sex. But for being homosexual, that itself is no basis for exclusion from Holy Communion, I don’t think so.
If I were a priest – since Catholics have been conditioned to always get the priest’s approval for any matter of some moral doubt, I will tell him to go ahead; but so as not to get embarrassed, not to do it in a parish or church where you have a pastor antagonistic toward homosexuals.
You notice that pedophile priests continue in the ministry, and may I add, with bishops closing both eyes – which got me in trouble with Bricker when I mentioned closing eyes in regard to priests having relations with adult women, I don’t think bishops condone and certainly don’t connive; they must have very good reasons not to remove them. See my earlier posts here on why bishops do not remove priests having sex with adult women.
Thanks for you notice of my posts. I am taking up the cudgels for bishops and priests inclined toward the lifting of celibacy, because I believe they deserve a better deal in life whatever the choice they make taking up the Catholic priesthood.
Guinat, Bricker, and Duck, and Dion, and Guy, and everyone, I love you all also; we are all fellow humans, brothers and sisters, doing our small bit to improve the lot of mankind.
Susma Rio Sep
No…that part of the first amendment refers to people petitioning for redress against the government…people are allowed to assemble and request a change in government policies.
And this is a first amendment issue…the government can’t tell the Catholic Church, or any other church what its policies should be…the Catholics have the right to practice their religion free of government interference.
I notice Susma Rio Sep expressed agreement with this sentiment. Perhaps he or she was a bit distracted during the reply process and so forgot to offer a correction rather than a blanket approval.
In light of this rather surprising omission, given Susma Rio Sep’s historical unswerving dedication to accuracy, I will reluctantly step in to correct the record.
The Church does not ban divorcees or homosexuals from communion.
In the case of homosexuals, there are certain conditions under which Church teaching would lead a homosexual to the conclusion that he or she should refrain from the Eucharist. But it’s by no means a given.
With regard to divorcees, there is no bar whatsoever to a divorced person participating in the Eucharist. The problem arises when the divorced person remarries outside the Church. Observing the laws of the Church concerning marriage is one of the precepts of the Church; anyone obstinately refusing to obey the precepts of the Church is most likely not in a state of grace and should probably not approach communion.
So: refusal to marry in the Church: problem. Divorce: not a problem, at least as far as reception of the Eucharist is concerned.
Undoubtedly, this is what Susma would have said, had there not been that unfortunate moment of distraction.
So basically, Susma wants the government to force the Catholic church to change its policies?
I am doing this thing here to help bishops and priests and married men of the Catholic Church who are concerned with moving the Vatican to lift the celibacy obligation on the secular clergy. I mention secular clergy, because we are not talking here about celibacy in the vow or promise of chastity required of priest members in religious congregations. If bishops and priests of the secular clergy and married Catholic men find something useful here, well and good; and if they have the guts to work tough to get their objective granted, that should be happy for everyone who wants to see priests properly married and serving in their parishes as good pastors, at the same time being good family men. And I am glad for them.
The move seems so simple, how to get the Vatican to delist celibacy as a condition for the priesthood.
The U.S. government is bound by the Constitution to address the legitimate grievances of any subject. When is a grievance legitimate? In our present concern, it is legitimate when some are getting an advantage from an organization operating in the country, but denied to others who are at least equally qualified, on grounds which are patently arbitrary.
The Catholic Church is such an organization operating in the U.S. It accepts married priests converted from other churches to the priestly ministry without requiring them to give up their conjugal life. It also allows married men in recognized Oriental Churches to enter the priesthood there and continue with their conjugal life. But it does not allow married men originally Catholic to enter the priesthood, because that’s its discipline, a purely human though church prohibition, as it itself acknowledges. Now, isn’t that blatantly arbitrary, the discrimination against originally Catholic and qualified men who happen to be married?
First question: Does the U.S. Government have the duty and the right to rule on the discrimination complaint? No, because the First Amendment provides that an establishment of religion should have the free exercise of its religion. Yes, because the same amendment enables people to peaceably petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.*
Here we have an apparent conflict of purviews: the right of the Church to its own policies and operations, and the right of an individual to not be discriminated against in employment. The solution in favor of Government’s intervention can be found in the fact that the priesthood for all its spiritual dimensions is an employment just like any other employment. The Government does not have to rule on whether celibacy is superior to marriage, that’s a matter strictly within the Church’s purview. But it owes its subjects the removal of discrimination in employment from marriage. At the most the Government will allow celibacy to be imposed as an option, not binding on candidates indisposed to assume it; besides, there is the priesthood of priest members in religious congregations where definitely celibacy or the vow of chastity is a conditio sine qua non for adscription in the society.
Second question: What is the ideological ground for apparent interventions of the Government in all conflicts where the Government rules seemingly against religious liberty? From my stock knowledge acquired through acquaintance with cases of such conflicts, I am aware that the Government makes a distinction between matters of faith and matters where faith is put into action. The Government does not busy itself with purely faith matters of churches; but where the practice of a faith item is perceived by the Government to be contrary to public policy, then the Government will step in to curb that practice.
For example, Mormons can continue to believe if they prefer that polygyny is mandated by God; but once Mormon men start engaging in ceremonies of marriage and living in with multiple wives, the Government is going to put them behind bars for violations of all kinds of laws prohibiting so much as bigamous marriages.
Another example, I am sure that American Muslim men do not and cannot engage in the practice of four wives and innumerable concubines, all in the name of religious liberty; if they do the Government will put them behind bars also, for contravening all kinds of laws against so much as bigamous marriages.
So also the Catholic Church can continue to teach that celibacy is superior to marriage, and that it is good for original Catholic men to remain celibate in the priesthood; but so long as in point of employment originally Catholic men are discriminated thereby from the priesthood for not embracing celibacy, while converted married priests from outside are received into the priestly ministry and can continue in their conjugal life, and also with the married clergy in recognized Oriental Churches, then the Government can and should step in when appealed to, to impose that the Church at the most only recommend an optional celibacy for originally married Catholic men who aspire to the priesthood.
I had as friends and mentors some very keen and learned minds, religious priests in the Catholic university where I lived many years of my academic life. Sometimes when I got naughty with them I would tell one or another of them: “You know, father, for all your cerebral brilliance and extensive knowledge, I wished you had the guts to spring out from this kind of a life”.
So I am telling bishops and priests and married Catholic men, you have got to exercise guts to work tough to get this Vatican imposed celibacy lifted. Get some very good lawyers.
Susma Rio sep
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Why the United States government can’t bring any pressure to bear on the Vatican to delist celibacy for priests:
The U.S. government attempting to bring pressure to bear on the Vatican to try to force them to delist celibacy would count as “prohibiting the free exercise” of their religion, namely, Catholicism, which free exercise of their religion currently includes a prohibition against priests marrying.
And um, Susma-Mormons stopped practicing polygamy a long time ago. Those that do are fringe sects, not LDS proper.
Susma, if I were to seek a job with the American Family Association, and they asked me to give up my strong support of gay rights as a condition of employment, they have every right to do so.
The Catholic Church cannot compel its priests to remain celibate. But it can say, “We won’t employ you as parish priests if you marry,” which is what laicization means.
IMHO, with the crisis in vocations that the RCC is facing, and the large numbers of men who feel calls both to the married life and to the priesthood, they would be wise to revoke that ancient law. (I note with pleasure that you distinguish between secular and “regular” priests – the vows taken in joining an order are something quite different from those taken to join the priesthood, and I’m personally acquainted with two Episcopal priests under vows of celibacy, the Rev. Robert Hugh SSF and the Rt. Rev. John Charles SSF (a bishop as well as priest).)
However, U.S. law has no bearing on what job requirements a religious group – any religious group – may make of its professional employees, so long as they do not violate “public policy” – that being a nebulous concept but one that seemingly does not apply here.
Dear Poly:
Did you come across my mention of Carl Rove in some places hereabouts – if this should be impertinent, I take it back, though, what do you think? Can he and his experts pull off the lifting of celibacy for our bishops and priests and married Catholic men who are interested?
Thanks for all your enlightening information, views, and insights.
Susma Rio Sep
Just in case there are posters here curious to know whether there are also women sexually abused by priests – for some people deny that there are such abuses against women, read this cite:
chttp://www.thebostonglobe.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories4/122702_women.htm
Excerpt:
I will bring other pertinent materials here for those doing research on this issue, as I come across them.
Susma Rio Sep