Discussion:
Cafeteria Catholics and Cafeteria Goans
(too old to reply)
gilbertlaw
2005-04-23 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.

Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL


Gabe Menezes
CAFETERIA CATHOLICS

(Q): What is a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose what doctrines they
want to follow and what doctrines they want to ignore. They do not have any
respect for the authority of the Catholic church. The guidelines of the
church are meaningless. The sad part of the story is there are nuns and
priests included in this category.
The difference between a cafeteria Catholic and a lukewarm Catholic is that
the cafeteria Catholic is ruled by pride. They believe that they do not have
to follow the rules of anyone. They are in charge and they can believe what
they want.
(Q): What are signs of a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Here are some examples of a cafeteria Catholic:
They see no problem with artificial birth control
They see no problem with premarital sex
They see no problem with divorce and remarriage
They see no problem with abortion
They approve and promote the ordination of woman
They approve and promote the marriage of priests

Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have
changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they
wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book "The Cardinal Ratzinger
Report," that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II
and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church's
position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect
have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council.
Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not
adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions,
notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are
reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted
that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in
their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that
dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good
Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is
a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United
States and elsewhere."
Cheers, Gabe Menezes. London, England
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-23 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-23 14:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Alfred de Tavares
2005-04-23 15:26:54 UTC
Permalink
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Cafeteria Catholics and Cafeteria Goans
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.
Cheers,
Santosh
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.

The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo Rebello.


Sufferingly yours,
Alfred de T.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
George Pinto
2005-04-23 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Santosh

Catholic practice and teaching has changed over times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?

Some of his predecessors allowed married priests. Mass used to said in Latin, now Mass can be said
in other languages. Papal infallibility on certain doctrinal matters is only about 175 years old I
think. The Pope as head of state including being a religious leader is also fairly new.
Sainthood as an honor was also introduced much later after the Church's founding. There have been
many more changes in Church history over time. Popes have chosen to interpret Church teachings
over time and made changes.

The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to believe that Church history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and intimidate progressive reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory way.

So I ask again: isn't the present Pope a cafeteria Catholic too compared to some of his
predecessors who obviously had different ideas? Gabe, Merwyn don't be intimidated by the
name-calling, stand your ground and fight for justice and reform.

Regards,
George
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-24 14:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Santosh
Catholic practice and teaching has changed over times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?......................
The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to believe that Church
history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and intimidate progressive
reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory way............

RESPONSE:

My dear George,

Inspite of all the agnst and all the short comings the Catholic Church
has had - and there is nobody who can deny the decadence of some
'Popes'. I believe that it is truly remarkable that the Catholic
Insititution has survived all this and more......It would be very easy
to be dismissive; I also agree that 2,000 years is a relatively short
time when compared to some dynasties. With due respect that must be
given; the last 2,000 years has seen the most progress in the history
of mankind. In fact I would venture to say that the last 300 years has
seen mankind really take off!

Religions will be put up for ridicule, the true test of sustainability
will be the ones that do not, in this moden day and age, resort to
indimidation and coercion to stay afloat.

cheers,
Gabe Menezes
London England.
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-24 14:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Santosh
Catholic practice and teaching has changed over times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?......................
The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to believe that Church
history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and intimidate progressive
reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory way............

RESPONSE:

My dear George,

Inspite of all the agnst and all the short comings the Catholic Church
has had - and there is nobody who can deny the decadence of some
'Popes'. I believe that it is truly remarkable that the Catholic
Insititution has survived all this and more......It would be very easy
to be dismissive; I also agree that 2,000 years is a relatively short
time when compared to some dynasties. With due respect that must be
given; the last 2,000 years has seen the most progress in the history
of mankind. In fact I would venture to say that the last 300 years has
seen mankind really take off!

Religions will be put up for ridicule, the true test of sustainability
will be the ones that do not, in this moden day and age, resort to
indimidation and coercion to stay afloat.

cheers,
Gabe Menezes
London England.
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-24 14:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Santosh
Catholic practice and teaching has changed over times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?......................
The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to believe that Church
history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and intimidate progressive
reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory way............

RESPONSE:

My dear George,

Inspite of all the agnst and all the short comings the Catholic Church
has had - and there is nobody who can deny the decadence of some
'Popes'. I believe that it is truly remarkable that the Catholic
Insititution has survived all this and more......It would be very easy
to be dismissive; I also agree that 2,000 years is a relatively short
time when compared to some dynasties. With due respect that must be
given; the last 2,000 years has seen the most progress in the history
of mankind. In fact I would venture to say that the last 300 years has
seen mankind really take off!

Religions will be put up for ridicule, the true test of sustainability
will be the ones that do not, in this moden day and age, resort to
indimidation and coercion to stay afloat.

cheers,
Gabe Menezes
London England.
Mario Goveia
2005-04-23 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Is there anyone out there who is NOT a cafeteria
Catholic at some level? Just curious.
On 23/04/05, gilbertlaw at adelphia.net
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria
Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to,
but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the
cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Post by gilbertlaw
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you
write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Post by gilbertlaw
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely
apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-
http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Mario Goveia
2005-04-23 16:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Yes, George, the Pope is also a cafeteria Catholic, in
my never-humble opinion. As I asked in another post,
is there anyone out there WHO ISN'T, at some level?

And, NO, George, the Catholic Church has NOT been "one
unbroken chain of constant practices."

The way I see it one has three choices, 1) Take it, 2)
Pretend to take it, or 3) Leave it.

Life's too short for all that angst and hand-wringing.
Post by Santosh Helekar
Santosh
Catholic practice and teaching has changed over
times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?
Some of his predecessors allowed married priests.
Mass used to said in Latin, now Mass can be said
in other languages. Papal infallibility on certain
doctrinal matters is only about 175 years old I
think. The Pope as head of state including being a
religious leader is also fairly new.
Sainthood as an honor was also introduced much later
after the Church's founding. There have been
many more changes in Church history over time. Popes
have chosen to interpret Church teachings
over time and made changes.
The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to
believe that Church history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and
intimidate progressive reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory
way.
So I ask again: isn't the present Pope a cafeteria
Catholic too compared to some of his
predecessors who obviously had different ideas?
Gabe, Merwyn don't be intimidated by the
name-calling, stand your ground and fight for
justice and reform.
Regards,
George
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-24 14:35:40 UTC
Permalink
--- Alfred de Tavares <alfredtavares at hotmail.com>
Post by Alfred de Tavares
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.
The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo
Rebello.
Dear Alfredchacha,

I am assuming that you are bringing up leo rebello's
name in this thread because his cafetaria was bigger
than that of most people. We did not hound him out of
any forum, and certainly not for his cafetaria
approach. We merely proposed more realistic
alteratives to his various imaginary alternative
notions. We also expressed a smidgen of incredulity
towards his Nobel prize-worthy credentials. He fell
out of the three Goan forums that I know of simply
because, as time went on, his vocabulary became too
complex for any them to handle.

Cheers,

Santosh
gilbertlaw
2005-04-24 14:40:23 UTC
Permalink
GL responds
Thanks for the reference.
But it should not prevent you from authoring about cafeteria Goans.:=))
Regards

Gabe:
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

Gilbert:
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Post by gilbertlaw
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
gilbertlaw
2005-04-24 14:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Santosh,
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.

One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to put it fundamentalist is precisely what being cafeteria all about. Selecting just one aspect of life just to scream and fight over is what cafeteria is all about. Goans are good about this

Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under the guise of being progressive or changing the rules just to suit one's convenience or personal agenda. Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules. :=))
Regards
Edward Verdes
2005-04-25 11:56:28 UTC
Permalink
On the lighter side...Cafeteria Catholic Goans are the ones
who enter the 'Cafeteria Xannu' to have a cup of tea,
as the Padr Vigar starts his sermon for Sunday Mass :)

Regards
Eddie Verdes
Edward Verdes
2005-04-25 11:56:28 UTC
Permalink
On the lighter side...Cafeteria Catholic Goans are the ones
who enter the 'Cafeteria Xannu' to have a cup of tea,
as the Padr Vigar starts his sermon for Sunday Mass :)

Regards
Eddie Verdes
Edward Verdes
2005-04-25 11:56:28 UTC
Permalink
On the lighter side...Cafeteria Catholic Goans are the ones
who enter the 'Cafeteria Xannu' to have a cup of tea,
as the Padr Vigar starts his sermon for Sunday Mass :)

Regards
Eddie Verdes
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-24 19:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to
put it fundamentalist is precisely what being
cafeteria all about. Selecting just one aspect of
life just to scream and fight over is what cafeteria
is all about. Goans are good about this
Gilbert,

Please don't redefine the term Cafetaria Catholic
according to your own whim. It is quite clearly
defined on the webpage that Gabe forwarded to us.
Here's the link again:

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

The bare definition of Cafetaria Catholics, without
the pejorative qualifications, is as follows:

"Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose
what doctrines they want to follow and what doctrines
they want to ignore."

A True Catholic or Fundamentalist Catholic would be
someone who follows all the doctrines of the Church
without asking any questions about them.

It is very easy to find out if you are a Cafetaria
Catholic or a Fundamentalist one. Please ask yourself
the following pointed questions. Your answers would
settle the issue.

1. Do you see any problem with artificial birth
control?

2. Would you advise an AIDS patient not to use a
condom in his/her marital relationship?

3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?

4. Do you believe abortion should not be legal under
any circumstances, including medical contingencies
involving the life of the mother?

5. Would you advise a couple to remain married in the
face of an abusive and dysfunctional marital
relationship?

6. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell research is
immoral, and should be banned?

7. Do you believe a man and a woman were created by
special creation apart from animals?

8. Do you believe all human beings alive today are
sinners because their original male ancestor,
thousands of years ago, had sex with his solitary
female companion?

Cheers,

Santosh
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-26 13:33:11 UTC
Permalink
I am neither a "cafeteria Catholic", nor a fundamentalist, and try to answer
the following questions, which came up in the Goanet, with the light that I
have received from my study and experience. But the answers will be brief.
When opportunity offers, I shall elaborate the points.

1. Do you see any problem with artificial birth
control?
Married love should be open to life. No selfishness, nor hedonism. Family
planning through natural means is allowed. Artificial birth control is not
allowed. It is not healthy. Yet, the conscience of the parents should be
well formed and then
respected.
2. Would you advise an AIDS patient not to use a
condom in his/her marital relationship?
In the marital relationship, the AIDS patient may use the condom, if it is
necessary for the marital relationship, but s/he
has to inform the partner of his/her disease.
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal. Yet, the individuals should
be respected and taken care of. There can be different factors in the lives
of the homosexuals. They have to be investigated, the individuals should be
treated as human beings, but with concern and compassion. I am not going to
the details of the question. But we should not forget the good of the
family. There cannot be "gay mariages"...
4. Do you believe abortion should not be legal under
any circumstances, including medical contingencies
involving the life of the mother?
Procured abortion is a murder. It is a sin, if it is directly willed. It if
comes as a result to help the mother, it is not a sin.
5. Would you advise a couple to remain married in the
face of an abusive and dysfunctional marital
relationship?
Marriage is a partnership of love and of life. Preparation is necessary for
such a responsible state of life. When the relationship becomes
dysfunctional, all means are to be taken to help the couple.
6. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell research is
immoral, and should be banned?
Embryonic stem cell research is not immoral, if it is for therapeutic
means. It is to be supported. But it
has limits. It cannot treat human beings as objects. Cloning human beings
should not be allowed. Stem cell therapy is licit.
7. Do you believe a man and a woman were created by
special creation apart from animals?
Human race has been well planned by God. Evolution of human race from lower
species is accepted, provided that we accept that the Universe has origin
from God, and Man has evolved with freedom. God has given superior status to
Man and Woman. There is vast difference between human race and animals. Man
cannot live without God's Grace. It is the implicit or explicit experience
of Man and Woman. It is my daily experience--I know what is good and evil,
but quite often I am tempted to do evil. God is the strength for all of us.
Freedom is God's gift. We have to enjoy it by building up values.
8. Do you believe all human beings alive today are
sinners because their original male ancestor,
thousands of years ago, had sex with his solitary
female companion?
No, I do not believe it. It is a fanciful theory. Nor does the Catholic
Church teach it. Regarding the Garden of Eden and the Tree of life--it is
symbolical description of the happy life of Man and Woman in the presence of
God. Man through abuse of his/her freedom tried to be like God--setting what
is right and what is wrong... Man cannot live without God--this is the
experience of the biblical writer. Man needs the Redeemer.
Ivo da C.Souza
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-26 13:33:11 UTC
Permalink
I am neither a "cafeteria Catholic", nor a fundamentalist, and try to answer
the following questions, which came up in the Goanet, with the light that I
have received from my study and experience. But the answers will be brief.
When opportunity offers, I shall elaborate the points.

1. Do you see any problem with artificial birth
control?
Married love should be open to life. No selfishness, nor hedonism. Family
planning through natural means is allowed. Artificial birth control is not
allowed. It is not healthy. Yet, the conscience of the parents should be
well formed and then
respected.
2. Would you advise an AIDS patient not to use a
condom in his/her marital relationship?
In the marital relationship, the AIDS patient may use the condom, if it is
necessary for the marital relationship, but s/he
has to inform the partner of his/her disease.
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal. Yet, the individuals should
be respected and taken care of. There can be different factors in the lives
of the homosexuals. They have to be investigated, the individuals should be
treated as human beings, but with concern and compassion. I am not going to
the details of the question. But we should not forget the good of the
family. There cannot be "gay mariages"...
4. Do you believe abortion should not be legal under
any circumstances, including medical contingencies
involving the life of the mother?
Procured abortion is a murder. It is a sin, if it is directly willed. It if
comes as a result to help the mother, it is not a sin.
5. Would you advise a couple to remain married in the
face of an abusive and dysfunctional marital
relationship?
Marriage is a partnership of love and of life. Preparation is necessary for
such a responsible state of life. When the relationship becomes
dysfunctional, all means are to be taken to help the couple.
6. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell research is
immoral, and should be banned?
Embryonic stem cell research is not immoral, if it is for therapeutic
means. It is to be supported. But it
has limits. It cannot treat human beings as objects. Cloning human beings
should not be allowed. Stem cell therapy is licit.
7. Do you believe a man and a woman were created by
special creation apart from animals?
Human race has been well planned by God. Evolution of human race from lower
species is accepted, provided that we accept that the Universe has origin
from God, and Man has evolved with freedom. God has given superior status to
Man and Woman. There is vast difference between human race and animals. Man
cannot live without God's Grace. It is the implicit or explicit experience
of Man and Woman. It is my daily experience--I know what is good and evil,
but quite often I am tempted to do evil. God is the strength for all of us.
Freedom is God's gift. We have to enjoy it by building up values.
8. Do you believe all human beings alive today are
sinners because their original male ancestor,
thousands of years ago, had sex with his solitary
female companion?
No, I do not believe it. It is a fanciful theory. Nor does the Catholic
Church teach it. Regarding the Garden of Eden and the Tree of life--it is
symbolical description of the happy life of Man and Woman in the presence of
God. Man through abuse of his/her freedom tried to be like God--setting what
is right and what is wrong... Man cannot live without God--this is the
experience of the biblical writer. Man needs the Redeemer.
Ivo da C.Souza
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-26 13:33:11 UTC
Permalink
I am neither a "cafeteria Catholic", nor a fundamentalist, and try to answer
the following questions, which came up in the Goanet, with the light that I
have received from my study and experience. But the answers will be brief.
When opportunity offers, I shall elaborate the points.

1. Do you see any problem with artificial birth
control?
Married love should be open to life. No selfishness, nor hedonism. Family
planning through natural means is allowed. Artificial birth control is not
allowed. It is not healthy. Yet, the conscience of the parents should be
well formed and then
respected.
2. Would you advise an AIDS patient not to use a
condom in his/her marital relationship?
In the marital relationship, the AIDS patient may use the condom, if it is
necessary for the marital relationship, but s/he
has to inform the partner of his/her disease.
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal. Yet, the individuals should
be respected and taken care of. There can be different factors in the lives
of the homosexuals. They have to be investigated, the individuals should be
treated as human beings, but with concern and compassion. I am not going to
the details of the question. But we should not forget the good of the
family. There cannot be "gay mariages"...
4. Do you believe abortion should not be legal under
any circumstances, including medical contingencies
involving the life of the mother?
Procured abortion is a murder. It is a sin, if it is directly willed. It if
comes as a result to help the mother, it is not a sin.
5. Would you advise a couple to remain married in the
face of an abusive and dysfunctional marital
relationship?
Marriage is a partnership of love and of life. Preparation is necessary for
such a responsible state of life. When the relationship becomes
dysfunctional, all means are to be taken to help the couple.
6. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell research is
immoral, and should be banned?
Embryonic stem cell research is not immoral, if it is for therapeutic
means. It is to be supported. But it
has limits. It cannot treat human beings as objects. Cloning human beings
should not be allowed. Stem cell therapy is licit.
7. Do you believe a man and a woman were created by
special creation apart from animals?
Human race has been well planned by God. Evolution of human race from lower
species is accepted, provided that we accept that the Universe has origin
from God, and Man has evolved with freedom. God has given superior status to
Man and Woman. There is vast difference between human race and animals. Man
cannot live without God's Grace. It is the implicit or explicit experience
of Man and Woman. It is my daily experience--I know what is good and evil,
but quite often I am tempted to do evil. God is the strength for all of us.
Freedom is God's gift. We have to enjoy it by building up values.
8. Do you believe all human beings alive today are
sinners because their original male ancestor,
thousands of years ago, had sex with his solitary
female companion?
No, I do not believe it. It is a fanciful theory. Nor does the Catholic
Church teach it. Regarding the Garden of Eden and the Tree of life--it is
symbolical description of the happy life of Man and Woman in the presence of
God. Man through abuse of his/her freedom tried to be like God--setting what
is right and what is wrong... Man cannot live without God--this is the
experience of the biblical writer. Man needs the Redeemer.
Ivo da C.Souza
Bosco D'Mello
2005-04-24 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to put it fundamentalist is
precisely what being cafeteria all about.
+++ That's your view !! Others may see differently - those disregarding the
ideas of "Cafeteria Catholics" would be considered fundamentalist and/or fanatic.
Post by gilbertlaw
Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under the guise of being
progressive or changing the rules just to suit one's convenience or personal
agenda.
+++ Being non-cafeteria means losing the support of an intangible number of
Catholics. Being progressive is being cognisant of the evolving world.

Gilbert when you were a child, you probably attended Mass in Latin. I never did.
The only place I can recollect having attended Mass watching the priest's rear
was at St. Peter's in the Vatican. There have been loads of changes in the
church since....altar boys became altar servers - to include girls. Besides the
priest, we now also have Eucharistic Ministers - male and female! We have
Deacons presiding at Baptisms, FH Communions, Funerals and the odd wedding. The
church is evolving (forced or otherwise), and evolve it must if it is to remain
the universal church.

Since the Catholic Church changed the above rules and was progressive, does it
qualify as being Cafeteria ??
Post by gilbertlaw
Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules. :=))
+++ What are the cafeteria rules for soccer ?? Soccer has been a sport that has
always evolved and progressed.....that's why it's the most widely played/watched
sport in the world.

The same logic could apply to the Catholic Church - to appeal to a broader
spectrum of the masses it must be progressive.

Everytime you put that silly smily at the end of your posts takes away the
seriousness of the debate. It creates uncertainly whether you are really trying
to debate an issue or whether you just had some free time to wind-up a few
Goanetters. You always preach about intellectual debate vs hearsay and blah-blah
!!! You want Goanetters to debate issues intellectually, don't you ?? It's time
we practiced what we preached. Have a good week ahead!

Best wishes - Bosco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2005-04-25 00:35:04 UTC
Permalink
In a recent post I asked a simple question that NO ONE
ANSWERED. The question was, "Is there anyone out
there who is NOT a cafeteria Catholic at some level?
Just curious."

Does Gilbert's complex epistle defending
"non-cafeteria" Catholics mean that he would answer my
question above with a firm, "Yes, I am NOT a cafeteria
Catholic!" as he ran back into his glass house? Just
asking.

BTW, what does staying married or going to Sunday
school have to do with anything?

Bosco, the only statement of yours I would quibble
with is, "Being progressive is being cognisant of
the evolving world." I have a problem with where this
definition sometimes leads us, but that's a different
topic for another day.
Post by gilbertlaw
Post by gilbertlaw
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria
Goan does not make one a
Post by gilbertlaw
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and
staying married and going to
Post by gilbertlaw
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with
being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids"
but tell us what is "wrong"
with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral
pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself
has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like
to put it fundamentalist is
Post by gilbertlaw
precisely what being cafeteria all about.
+++ That's your view !! Others may see differently -
those disregarding the
ideas of "Cafeteria Catholics" would be considered
fundamentalist and/or fanatic.
Post by gilbertlaw
Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under
the guise of being
Post by gilbertlaw
progressive or changing the rules just to suit
one's convenience or personal
Post by gilbertlaw
agenda.
+++ Being non-cafeteria means losing the support of
an intangible number of
Catholics. Being progressive is being cognisant of
the evolving world.
Gilbert when you were a child, you probably attended
Mass in Latin. I never did.
The only place I can recollect having attended Mass
watching the priest's rear
was at St. Peter's in the Vatican. There have been
loads of changes in the
church since....altar boys became altar servers - to
include girls. Besides the
priest, we now also have Eucharistic Ministers -
male and female! We have
Deacons presiding at Baptisms, FH Communions,
Funerals and the odd wedding. The
church is evolving (forced or otherwise), and evolve
it must if it is to remain
the universal church.
Since the Catholic Church changed the above rules
and was progressive, does it
qualify as being Cafeteria ??
Post by gilbertlaw
Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules.
:=))
+++ What are the cafeteria rules for soccer ??
Soccer has been a sport that has
always evolved and progressed.....that's why it's
the most widely played/watched
sport in the world.
The same logic could apply to the Catholic Church -
to appeal to a broader
spectrum of the masses it must be progressive.
Everytime you put that silly smily at the end of
your posts takes away the
seriousness of the debate. It creates uncertainly
whether you are really trying
to debate an issue or whether you just had some free
time to wind-up a few
Goanetters. You always preach about intellectual
debate vs hearsay and blah-blah
!!! You want Goanetters to debate issues
intellectually, don't you ?? It's time
we practiced what we preached. Have a good week
ahead!
Best wishes - Bosco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by gilbertlaw
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier
mailing list is 10 years old
Marlon Menezes
2005-04-25 01:15:04 UTC
Permalink
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. What
fraction of the self proclaimed "true catholics"
actually practice or believe in all the tenants of
their religion. Heck, what fraction of the clergy do
the same? (I am assuming that child molestation is not
one of required tasks of the clergy!)

Marlon
Post by Mario Goveia
In a recent post I asked a simple question that NO
ONE
ANSWERED. The question was, "Is there anyone out
there who is NOT a cafeteria Catholic at some level?
Just curious."
Does Gilbert's complex epistle defending
"non-cafeteria" Catholics mean that he would answer
my
question above with a firm, "Yes, I am NOT a
cafeteria
Catholic!" as he ran back into his glass house?
Just
asking.
Mario Goveia
2005-04-25 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George that
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some level.

I believe practicing Catholics unconsciously use the
standards of "on balance" and "baby and bathwater",
and use the tenets of the Church and a belief in the
existence of a "higher being" as a concept that may
help keep them generally on the straight and narrow.
I'm sure this would apply to practitioners of other
religions as well.

I wish I could remember the name of a famous Brit
philosopher, a lifelong proactive atheist, who turned
80 recently, who was moved to publicly announce that
he had finally concluded that there was a "higher
being" because he could find no other explanation for
what existed before the "big bang".

Finally, I'll share a comment made by my exasperated
Catechism teacher in high school many moons ago when
he had had it with our questions on the existence of
God, etc. when he said, "If there is NO God then we
believers have just wasted a lot of time and money in
this world, gladly in most cases because it did give
some of us a sense of purpose and peace. However, if
there IS a God, you non-believers are in for a whole
lot of grief." Of course, this was before Vatican II
after which believers and non-believers alike are now
deemed to have a "Get into heaven pass".
Post by Marlon Menezes
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. What
fraction of the self proclaimed "true catholics"
actually practice or believe in all the tenants of
their religion. Heck, what fraction of the clergy do
the same? (I am assuming that child molestation is
not
one of required tasks of the clergy!)
Marlon
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-26 13:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George that
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some level.
RESPONSE: You took offence to people's postings denigrating George
Bush WRT to his name. Please stop calling Pope Benedict XVI, Papa
Ratzi; although you live in the USA you seem to read a lot our our Sun
News paper.

cheers.
Gabe Menezes.

London England.
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-26 13:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George that
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some level.
RESPONSE: You took offence to people's postings denigrating George
Bush WRT to his name. Please stop calling Pope Benedict XVI, Papa
Ratzi; although you live in the USA you seem to read a lot our our Sun
News paper.

cheers.
Gabe Menezes.

London England.
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-26 13:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George that
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some level.
RESPONSE: You took offence to people's postings denigrating George
Bush WRT to his name. Please stop calling Pope Benedict XVI, Papa
Ratzi; although you live in the USA you seem to read a lot our our Sun
News paper.

cheers.
Gabe Menezes.

London England.
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-25 20:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
I wish I could remember the name of a famous Brit
philosopher, a lifelong proactive atheist, who
turned 80 recently, who was moved to publicly
announce >that he had finally concluded that there was
a "higher
Post by Mario Goveia
being" because he could find no other explanation
for what existed before the "big bang".
If the above statement refers to the 82 year-old
Professor Antony Flew, then it is not an accurate
statement of his current position. To obtain the
correct information about the alleged conversion of
Antony Flew, please refer to the following articles on
the Secular Web:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Cheers,

Santosh
P D
2005-04-26 19:00:51 UTC
Permalink
"Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <icsouza at sancharnet.in> wrote:

I am neither a "cafeteria Catholic", nor a fundamentalist, and try to answer
the following questions, which came up in the Goanet, with the light that I
have received from my study and experience. But the answers will be brief.
When opportunity offers, I shall elaborate the points. >>

Thanks, Fr. Ivo Da Souza for your enlightened responses to subject questions
raised on Goanet.

They should reinforce the beliefs of practicing Catholics and hopefully
illuminate those with blinders. Of course, there will always be tricksters,
like in Biblical times. With the help of the Holy Spirit the Roman Catholic
Church shall triumph over the forces of darkness.

God Bless:

Pat de Sousa
http://www.catholic-goan-network.net
Mario Goveia
2005-04-26 20:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Gabe,
You need to relax and lighten up a little. Chill,
bro', as we say in the hood.

First of all, though I am a huge Bush-supporter and
worked to elect and re-elect him in my battleground
state of Ohio, I don't recall taking any offense at
postings ridiculing him, unless you are translating my
comments and reading between the lines of my
responses. Making fun of Bush is routine in the
left-wing media so it's like pouring water on a duck's
back any more. His success is the best revenge.
Besides, with our freedom of speech in America, we are
used to such things, mainly because we are required to
lump it, and we respond in kind when we can. It's a
two way street.

Secondly, Papa Ratzi, aka Benedict XVI, is my kind of
guy, so I was not denigrating him, just the opposite,
I used the term affectionately, Gabe Baby. He's just
the Pope, for God's sake. I think he can handle it,
even if you cannot. Regarding the Sun newspaper, I
think they copied the name from me, who copied it from
the Italian press. So, if you don't understand terms
of endearment, you may be in for some major heartburn.

Please don't become like some of our hyper-sensitive
Goanetters who were proven to have been imagining that
they were being abused when they were not even being
referred to, as shown by any objective reading of
their own carefully chosen examples.
On 25/04/05, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Mario Goveia
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George
that
Post by Mario Goveia
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some
level.
RESPONSE: You took offence to people's postings
denigrating George
Bush WRT to his name. Please stop calling Pope
Benedict XVI, Papa
Ratzi; although you live in the USA you seem to read
a lot our our Sun
News paper.
cheers.
Gabe Menezes.
London England.
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-26 20:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Of course, there will always be tricksters, like in
Biblical times. With the help of the Holy Spirit the
Roman Catholic Church shall triumph over the forces
of >darkness.
Are True Catholics supposed to demonize people who
disagree with them by calling them names such as
"tricksters" or "forces of darkness"?

If I have misunderstood the implication of the quoted
assertions, please tell us who these tricksters are,
and what these forces of darkness are.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mervyn Lobo
2005-04-26 20:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?

Mervyn3.0



______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
gilbertlaw
2005-04-28 18:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bosco:
Here are some responses to many points raised in several posts. I reply to one logic (train of thought) and the other zings me from a different direction. Usually your posts are pretty sensible and unlike other posts there is consistency i.e.. rarely do they talk from sides of the mouth.

However your comments baffle me right from the go. Here is your first statment.
Post by Bosco D'Mello
I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
And you go on to blame the church for annulling the divorced marriage. So I will save myself from trying to respond to the rest of your comments because I do not see a consistent perspective, but rather random thoughts which make it difficult to know whether you are for or against cafeteria (anything). Please you and others who are so inclined suggest to your own family that let's switch to cafeteria rules in your home from tomorrow. In two weeks perhaps you can end this sterile / theoretical debate by telling us your experience. Should I put a smiley face and give you that as an option / wriggle room?

To Santosh: A fanatic / fundamentalist in my view may be going against the second commandment of Jesus (the first commandment was from Moses) which is: Love your neighbor as thyself.

To Mario's question: If we all were pure /rigid Catholics we would be Saints. But we are not. But at least we should try. When we fail, we should be guilty of our failure. A cafeteria person thinks it is his/her right to go a la carte in the cafeteria with his/her own menu. He/She is on the pulpit saying look at me. And the rest of us say, "Smart Person or Great Chef.":=))

To George's and Bosco's questions about reforms. Nothing wrong with reform. But just practical experience in USA tells me that by most parameters, the practice of religion and Catholicism has declined post-reform. And some of the ones promoting reform IMHO appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and loyalty. George fits this category especially after making a great case during the election of the Pope. I pointed this about-face, so I will not repeat it again.

As far as women priests, the women have ample opportunities to serve Christ, which is the fundamental reason to be a priest or nun. In the past women have done a splendid job of serving Christ and like men, the Church has awarded them with Sainthood. Today, unfortunately not enough women or men have vocations. And that to me is the biggest issue which women-priest will not address. It is my understanding that there is a greater interest / calling to join Mother Theresa order in the USA than to join the priesthood or other nunneries, which are far ahead in comfort and everything else that is worldly.

IMHO changing the liturgy to native language has helped the average catholic and
the church. Beyond that very little in the reforms has helped religion including the church being lax in the garb that nuns and priests wear. There are the unintended consequences of reforms that none of the pro-reformers seen to understand or care. Change for the sake of change results in, "I concede divorce could be unfortunate for the kids but tell us what is wrong" attitude.
Regards


"Bosco D'Mello"
Post by Bosco D'Mello
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"

with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-29 23:46:29 UTC
Permalink
The points that I have tried to answer briefly do not contain the ordination
of women. This is a point that you me want to discuss. It requires an
elaborate answer. John Paul II has given it already. Let us be patient. There
is no need for such a turmoil...

Ivo da C.Souza

--------Original Message -------
Fr. Ivo,
Aaaaargh! You are a good man, and I read through your
entire epistle, but I did not find the answer to the
one burning question on the minds of this forum: Why
does the Catholic Church not permit women priests?
Please, oh please, give us your insider's view of why.
There are entire conversions and/or resignations
hanging in the balance.
Thanks.
carlos6143
2005-04-30 03:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Fr. Ivo wrote:The points that I have tried to answer briefly do not
contain the ordination
of women. This is a point that you me want to discuss

Fr. Ivo,

You may agree with me on this one.
The catechism of the catholic church states that the priest is one who
serves the people. This service could be put in the context of a
spousal relationship in which the bridegroom loves the bride so greatly
that he is willing to give up his life for her, just as Christ died for
the church. The priest stands in the person of Christ, who was a male.
As such the priest "alter Christus" (another Christ) represents Christ
the bridegroom and servant to the church, his bride.
In a world like ours, where men and women do so many of the same
things, it is difficult to understand why women cannot be priests. But
priesthood is not about the things he does, but about who he is.

Mog assundi (hope I spelt it right)
Carlos
carlos6143
2005-04-30 03:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Fr. Ivo wrote:The points that I have tried to answer briefly do not
contain the ordination
of women. This is a point that you me want to discuss

Fr. Ivo,

You may agree with me on this one.
The catechism of the catholic church states that the priest is one who
serves the people. This service could be put in the context of a
spousal relationship in which the bridegroom loves the bride so greatly
that he is willing to give up his life for her, just as Christ died for
the church. The priest stands in the person of Christ, who was a male.
As such the priest "alter Christus" (another Christ) represents Christ
the bridegroom and servant to the church, his bride.
In a world like ours, where men and women do so many of the same
things, it is difficult to understand why women cannot be priests. But
priesthood is not about the things he does, but about who he is.

Mog assundi (hope I spelt it right)
Carlos
carlos6143
2005-04-30 03:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Fr. Ivo wrote:The points that I have tried to answer briefly do not
contain the ordination
of women. This is a point that you me want to discuss

Fr. Ivo,

You may agree with me on this one.
The catechism of the catholic church states that the priest is one who
serves the people. This service could be put in the context of a
spousal relationship in which the bridegroom loves the bride so greatly
that he is willing to give up his life for her, just as Christ died for
the church. The priest stands in the person of Christ, who was a male.
As such the priest "alter Christus" (another Christ) represents Christ
the bridegroom and servant to the church, his bride.
In a world like ours, where men and women do so many of the same
things, it is difficult to understand why women cannot be priests. But
priesthood is not about the things he does, but about who he is.

Mog assundi (hope I spelt it right)
Carlos
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-30 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?

Mervyn3.0

Dear Merwyn,

I have a quick answer: there should not be "homosexual Catholic priests", but
if there are, as the media are publicizing, then homosexuality does not cease
to be "an aberration", "abnormal".

Let the competent people investigate the causes and help them, with love and
compassion. Let us also study why there is such a wild propaganda, which will
not help the sick priests nor the Church of God. What are the background
factors for such an aberration? Can we do something for them? It is important
to save them...as much as poor human efforts are concerned...

It is our task, yours and mine!

Ivo da C.Souza
Bosco D'Mello
2005-04-30 01:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

You have cleverly mangled my post and made "ghodshem" of it, just as you accuse
others of doing the same to your posts. You have put words in my mouth. Well
done!! And as usual, in your inimitable condescending tone, you have resorted
to grandstanding and patronizing discourse. I asked you to be practical....but
you chose to give us generalities without any substance. You have smartly
avoided the specific points that I raised. The only thing you have confirmed
is that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. Thank you!!

Please point out the following in my post:

Where did I BLAME the church for annulling marriages?

Please read your own writing......Can I assume, from what you wrote, that you
deduced that I blamed the church for annulling marriages?? If so, FYI, I did
not......Please read once again what I wrote:
http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/2005-April/027320.html

Please tell us "What do you think of people who are divorced and whose
marriages are annulled (or not) by the church?" Do you consider them to be
beneath you because you have managed to stay in your marriage? Are such people
less favorable in the eyes of God than those who have been blessed with not
having to go through the pain of separation? Are they immoral because their
marriages have failed due to circumstances that only they can comprehend?

Reforms: At the start of the paragraph you state - "Nothing wrong with
reform".......two sentences later you state "the ones promoting reform IMHO
appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and loyalty"......did you
say something about talking from both sides of one's mouth....tch-tch-tch!! How
can "reform promoters" also be "loyal?" Some kind of anomaly there...

I disagree with what you say about George......I certainly disagree with some
of the points George is propagating but I think George has consistently
clarified himself on this and other issues on Goanet.....I can also state he
has relentlessly been bold enough to stand-up and repeat what he has said
before. He has never resorted to circumventing from answering a question.....
something that comes to you easily.

The Catholic church is a well established religion. It has seen reform and has
also resisted a lot of it too. As members of the church, we learn from
reform-minded theologians who strive to keep this colossus marching with the
times. We also pay attention to rigid autocrats who claim they have the Holy
Spirit on their side to determine in cast-iron theologies what should be good
for us, the laity. Just because one asks questions and pushes for reform,
should his/her loyalty be questioned?

In case I have sidetracked... and just incase you have forgotten, I ask you
again... "What do you think of people who are divorced and whose marriages are
annulled (or not) by the church?"

Best wishes - Bosco


-----Original Message-----
From: gilbertlaw at adelphia.net
Sent: April 28, 2005 1:56 PM

Hi Bosco:
Here are some responses to many points raised in several posts. I reply to one
logic (train of thought) and the other zings me from a different direction.
Usually your posts are pretty sensible and unlike other posts there is
consistency i.e.. rarely do they talk from sides of the mouth.

However your comments baffle me right from the go. Here is your first statment.
Post by Bosco D'Mello
I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
And you go on to blame the church for annulling the divorced marriage. So I
will save myself from trying to respond to the rest of your comments because I
do not see a consistent perspective, but rather random thoughts which make it
difficult to know whether you are for or against cafeteria (anything). Please
you and others who are so inclined suggest to your own family that let's switch
to cafeteria rules in your home from tomorrow. In two weeks perhaps you can
end
this sterile / theoretical debate by telling us your experience. Should I put a
smiley face and give you that as an option / wriggle room?

To Santosh: A fanatic / fundamentalist in my view may be going against the
second commandment of Jesus (the first commandment was from Moses) which is:
Love your neighbor as thyself.

To Mario's question: If we all were pure /rigid Catholics we would be Saints.
But we are not. But at least we should try. When we fail, we should be guilty
of
our failure. A cafeteria person thinks it is his/her right to go a la carte in
the cafeteria with his/her own menu. He/She is on the pulpit saying look at
me.
And the rest of us say, "Smart Person or Great Chef.":=))

To George's and Bosco's questions about reforms. Nothing wrong with reform. But
just practical experience in USA tells me that by most parameters, the practice
of religion and Catholicism has declined post-reform. And some of the ones
promoting reform IMHO appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and
loyalty. George fits this category especially after making a great case during
the election of the Pope. I pointed this about-face, so I will not repeat it
again.

As far as women priests, the women have ample opportunities to serve Christ,
which is the fundamental reason to be a priest or nun. In the past women have
done a splendid job of serving Christ and like men, the Church has awarded them
with Sainthood. Today, unfortunately not enough women or men have vocations.
And
that to me is the biggest issue which women-priest will not address. It is my
understanding that there is a greater interest / calling to join Mother Theresa
order in the USA than to join the priesthood or other nunneries, which are far
ahead in comfort and everything else that is worldly.

IMHO changing the liturgy to native language has helped the average catholic
and
the church. Beyond that very little in the reforms has helped religion
including the church being lax in the garb that nuns and priests wear. There
are
the unintended consequences of reforms that none of the pro-reformers seen to
understand or care. Change for the sake of change results in, "I concede
divorce could be unfortunate for the kids but tell us what is wrong" attitude.
Regards


"Bosco D'Mello"
Post by Bosco D'Mello
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what
is "wrong"

with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
halur rasho
2005-04-30 02:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Homosexuality is certainly not abnormal to
homosexuals?
--- "Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <icsouza at sancharnet.in>
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?
Mervyn3.0
Dear Merwyn,
I have a quick answer: there should not be
"homosexual Catholic priests", but
if there are, as the media are publicizing, then
homosexuality does not cease
to be "an aberration", "abnormal".
Let the competent people investigate the causes and
help them, with love and
compassion. Let us also study why there is such a
wild propaganda, which will
not help the sick priests nor the Church of God.
What are the background
factors for such an aberration? Can we do something
for them? It is important
to save them...as much as poor human efforts are
concerned...
It is our task, yours and mine!
Ivo da C.Souza
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-30 04:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Let us also study why there is such a wild
propaganda, >which will not help the sick priests nor
the Church of >God. What are the background factors
for such an >aberration? Can we do something for them?
It is >important to save them...as much as poor human
efforts >are concerned...
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
It is our task, yours and mine!
I am sorry to say this. But this unyielding religious
notion that homosexuality is a sickness which requires
a cure, or that homosexuals somehow need to be saved,
can only be regarded as an utterly injurious prejudice
from a humanitarian standpoint, in this day and age.
There is absolutely no medical scientific or
sociological evidence that homosexuals are sick in any
way. Some of the world?s greatest men and women have
been and are homosexuals. They have contributed as
well as any heterosexual person, to the advancement of
our society and civilization.

There is enough real sickness in this world, which
needs to receive urgent attention. We do not need to
fabricate any new fictitious sicknesses based on
nothing, but pure, antiquated religious dogma.

Cheers,

Santosh
George Pinto
2005-04-30 05:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by carlos6143
You may agree with me on this one.
QUOTE
Post by carlos6143
The catechism of the catholic church states that the priest is one who
serves the people. This service could be put in the context of a
spousal relationship in which the bridegroom loves the bride so greatly
that he is willing to give up his life for her, just as Christ died for
the church. The priest stands in the person of Christ, who was a male.
As such the priest "alter Christus" (another Christ) represents Christ
the bridegroom and servant to the church, his bride.
In a world like ours, where men and women do so many of the same
things, it is difficult to understand why women cannot be priests. But
priesthood is not about the things he does, but about who he is.
UNQUOTE


Carlos,

The quote above is by Pia de Solenni who received her doctorate in sacred theology from the
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. Her article appeared today in the San Jose Mercury
News. She is not a reformer or progressive (she could not be to have received her degree from the
Pontifical Univ. in Rome in 2001 - i.e she has to echo JP II and Cardianl Ratzinger's views at
that time). She gives the same justifications I have already rejected on this forum so I will not
repeat them here. However, in a nutshell she has captured the "doctrinal & theological"
justification opposing women priests which Mario is seeking.

Regards,
George
gilbertlaw
2005-04-23 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.

Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL


Gabe Menezes
CAFETERIA CATHOLICS

(Q): What is a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose what doctrines they
want to follow and what doctrines they want to ignore. They do not have any
respect for the authority of the Catholic church. The guidelines of the
church are meaningless. The sad part of the story is there are nuns and
priests included in this category.
The difference between a cafeteria Catholic and a lukewarm Catholic is that
the cafeteria Catholic is ruled by pride. They believe that they do not have
to follow the rules of anyone. They are in charge and they can believe what
they want.
(Q): What are signs of a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Here are some examples of a cafeteria Catholic:
They see no problem with artificial birth control
They see no problem with premarital sex
They see no problem with divorce and remarriage
They see no problem with abortion
They approve and promote the ordination of woman
They approve and promote the marriage of priests

Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have
changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they
wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book "The Cardinal Ratzinger
Report," that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II
and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church's
position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect
have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council.
Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not
adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions,
notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are
reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted
that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in
their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that
dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good
Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is
a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United
States and elsewhere."
Cheers, Gabe Menezes. London, England
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-23 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-23 14:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Alfred de Tavares
2005-04-23 15:26:54 UTC
Permalink
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Cafeteria Catholics and Cafeteria Goans
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.
Cheers,
Santosh
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.

The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo Rebello.


Sufferingly yours,
Alfred de T.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
George Pinto
2005-04-23 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Santosh

Catholic practice and teaching has changed over times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?

Some of his predecessors allowed married priests. Mass used to said in Latin, now Mass can be said
in other languages. Papal infallibility on certain doctrinal matters is only about 175 years old I
think. The Pope as head of state including being a religious leader is also fairly new.
Sainthood as an honor was also introduced much later after the Church's founding. There have been
many more changes in Church history over time. Popes have chosen to interpret Church teachings
over time and made changes.

The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to believe that Church history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and intimidate progressive reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory way.

So I ask again: isn't the present Pope a cafeteria Catholic too compared to some of his
predecessors who obviously had different ideas? Gabe, Merwyn don't be intimidated by the
name-calling, stand your ground and fight for justice and reform.

Regards,
George
Mario Goveia
2005-04-23 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Is there anyone out there who is NOT a cafeteria
Catholic at some level? Just curious.
On 23/04/05, gilbertlaw at adelphia.net
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria
Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to,
but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the
cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Post by gilbertlaw
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you
write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Post by gilbertlaw
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely
apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-
http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Mario Goveia
2005-04-23 16:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Yes, George, the Pope is also a cafeteria Catholic, in
my never-humble opinion. As I asked in another post,
is there anyone out there WHO ISN'T, at some level?

And, NO, George, the Catholic Church has NOT been "one
unbroken chain of constant practices."

The way I see it one has three choices, 1) Take it, 2)
Pretend to take it, or 3) Leave it.

Life's too short for all that angst and hand-wringing.
Post by Santosh Helekar
Santosh
Catholic practice and teaching has changed over
times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?
Some of his predecessors allowed married priests.
Mass used to said in Latin, now Mass can be said
in other languages. Papal infallibility on certain
doctrinal matters is only about 175 years old I
think. The Pope as head of state including being a
religious leader is also fairly new.
Sainthood as an honor was also introduced much later
after the Church's founding. There have been
many more changes in Church history over time. Popes
have chosen to interpret Church teachings
over time and made changes.
The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to
believe that Church history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and
intimidate progressive reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory
way.
So I ask again: isn't the present Pope a cafeteria
Catholic too compared to some of his
predecessors who obviously had different ideas?
Gabe, Merwyn don't be intimidated by the
name-calling, stand your ground and fight for
justice and reform.
Regards,
George
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-24 14:35:40 UTC
Permalink
--- Alfred de Tavares <alfredtavares at hotmail.com>
Post by Alfred de Tavares
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.
The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo
Rebello.
Dear Alfredchacha,

I am assuming that you are bringing up leo rebello's
name in this thread because his cafetaria was bigger
than that of most people. We did not hound him out of
any forum, and certainly not for his cafetaria
approach. We merely proposed more realistic
alteratives to his various imaginary alternative
notions. We also expressed a smidgen of incredulity
towards his Nobel prize-worthy credentials. He fell
out of the three Goan forums that I know of simply
because, as time went on, his vocabulary became too
complex for any them to handle.

Cheers,

Santosh
gilbertlaw
2005-04-24 14:40:23 UTC
Permalink
GL responds
Thanks for the reference.
But it should not prevent you from authoring about cafeteria Goans.:=))
Regards

Gabe:
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

Gilbert:
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Post by gilbertlaw
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
gilbertlaw
2005-04-24 14:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Santosh,
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.

One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to put it fundamentalist is precisely what being cafeteria all about. Selecting just one aspect of life just to scream and fight over is what cafeteria is all about. Goans are good about this

Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under the guise of being progressive or changing the rules just to suit one's convenience or personal agenda. Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules. :=))
Regards
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-24 19:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to
put it fundamentalist is precisely what being
cafeteria all about. Selecting just one aspect of
life just to scream and fight over is what cafeteria
is all about. Goans are good about this
Gilbert,

Please don't redefine the term Cafetaria Catholic
according to your own whim. It is quite clearly
defined on the webpage that Gabe forwarded to us.
Here's the link again:

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

The bare definition of Cafetaria Catholics, without
the pejorative qualifications, is as follows:

"Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose
what doctrines they want to follow and what doctrines
they want to ignore."

A True Catholic or Fundamentalist Catholic would be
someone who follows all the doctrines of the Church
without asking any questions about them.

It is very easy to find out if you are a Cafetaria
Catholic or a Fundamentalist one. Please ask yourself
the following pointed questions. Your answers would
settle the issue.

1. Do you see any problem with artificial birth
control?

2. Would you advise an AIDS patient not to use a
condom in his/her marital relationship?

3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?

4. Do you believe abortion should not be legal under
any circumstances, including medical contingencies
involving the life of the mother?

5. Would you advise a couple to remain married in the
face of an abusive and dysfunctional marital
relationship?

6. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell research is
immoral, and should be banned?

7. Do you believe a man and a woman were created by
special creation apart from animals?

8. Do you believe all human beings alive today are
sinners because their original male ancestor,
thousands of years ago, had sex with his solitary
female companion?

Cheers,

Santosh
Bosco D'Mello
2005-04-24 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to put it fundamentalist is
precisely what being cafeteria all about.
+++ That's your view !! Others may see differently - those disregarding the
ideas of "Cafeteria Catholics" would be considered fundamentalist and/or fanatic.
Post by gilbertlaw
Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under the guise of being
progressive or changing the rules just to suit one's convenience or personal
agenda.
+++ Being non-cafeteria means losing the support of an intangible number of
Catholics. Being progressive is being cognisant of the evolving world.

Gilbert when you were a child, you probably attended Mass in Latin. I never did.
The only place I can recollect having attended Mass watching the priest's rear
was at St. Peter's in the Vatican. There have been loads of changes in the
church since....altar boys became altar servers - to include girls. Besides the
priest, we now also have Eucharistic Ministers - male and female! We have
Deacons presiding at Baptisms, FH Communions, Funerals and the odd wedding. The
church is evolving (forced or otherwise), and evolve it must if it is to remain
the universal church.

Since the Catholic Church changed the above rules and was progressive, does it
qualify as being Cafeteria ??
Post by gilbertlaw
Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules. :=))
+++ What are the cafeteria rules for soccer ?? Soccer has been a sport that has
always evolved and progressed.....that's why it's the most widely played/watched
sport in the world.

The same logic could apply to the Catholic Church - to appeal to a broader
spectrum of the masses it must be progressive.

Everytime you put that silly smily at the end of your posts takes away the
seriousness of the debate. It creates uncertainly whether you are really trying
to debate an issue or whether you just had some free time to wind-up a few
Goanetters. You always preach about intellectual debate vs hearsay and blah-blah
!!! You want Goanetters to debate issues intellectually, don't you ?? It's time
we practiced what we preached. Have a good week ahead!

Best wishes - Bosco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2005-04-25 00:35:04 UTC
Permalink
In a recent post I asked a simple question that NO ONE
ANSWERED. The question was, "Is there anyone out
there who is NOT a cafeteria Catholic at some level?
Just curious."

Does Gilbert's complex epistle defending
"non-cafeteria" Catholics mean that he would answer my
question above with a firm, "Yes, I am NOT a cafeteria
Catholic!" as he ran back into his glass house? Just
asking.

BTW, what does staying married or going to Sunday
school have to do with anything?

Bosco, the only statement of yours I would quibble
with is, "Being progressive is being cognisant of
the evolving world." I have a problem with where this
definition sometimes leads us, but that's a different
topic for another day.
Post by gilbertlaw
Post by gilbertlaw
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria
Goan does not make one a
Post by gilbertlaw
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and
staying married and going to
Post by gilbertlaw
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with
being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids"
but tell us what is "wrong"
with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral
pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself
has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like
to put it fundamentalist is
Post by gilbertlaw
precisely what being cafeteria all about.
+++ That's your view !! Others may see differently -
those disregarding the
ideas of "Cafeteria Catholics" would be considered
fundamentalist and/or fanatic.
Post by gilbertlaw
Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under
the guise of being
Post by gilbertlaw
progressive or changing the rules just to suit
one's convenience or personal
Post by gilbertlaw
agenda.
+++ Being non-cafeteria means losing the support of
an intangible number of
Catholics. Being progressive is being cognisant of
the evolving world.
Gilbert when you were a child, you probably attended
Mass in Latin. I never did.
The only place I can recollect having attended Mass
watching the priest's rear
was at St. Peter's in the Vatican. There have been
loads of changes in the
church since....altar boys became altar servers - to
include girls. Besides the
priest, we now also have Eucharistic Ministers -
male and female! We have
Deacons presiding at Baptisms, FH Communions,
Funerals and the odd wedding. The
church is evolving (forced or otherwise), and evolve
it must if it is to remain
the universal church.
Since the Catholic Church changed the above rules
and was progressive, does it
qualify as being Cafeteria ??
Post by gilbertlaw
Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules.
:=))
+++ What are the cafeteria rules for soccer ??
Soccer has been a sport that has
always evolved and progressed.....that's why it's
the most widely played/watched
sport in the world.
The same logic could apply to the Catholic Church -
to appeal to a broader
spectrum of the masses it must be progressive.
Everytime you put that silly smily at the end of
your posts takes away the
seriousness of the debate. It creates uncertainly
whether you are really trying
to debate an issue or whether you just had some free
time to wind-up a few
Goanetters. You always preach about intellectual
debate vs hearsay and blah-blah
!!! You want Goanetters to debate issues
intellectually, don't you ?? It's time
we practiced what we preached. Have a good week
ahead!
Best wishes - Bosco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by gilbertlaw
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier
mailing list is 10 years old
Marlon Menezes
2005-04-25 01:15:04 UTC
Permalink
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. What
fraction of the self proclaimed "true catholics"
actually practice or believe in all the tenants of
their religion. Heck, what fraction of the clergy do
the same? (I am assuming that child molestation is not
one of required tasks of the clergy!)

Marlon
Post by Mario Goveia
In a recent post I asked a simple question that NO
ONE
ANSWERED. The question was, "Is there anyone out
there who is NOT a cafeteria Catholic at some level?
Just curious."
Does Gilbert's complex epistle defending
"non-cafeteria" Catholics mean that he would answer
my
question above with a firm, "Yes, I am NOT a
cafeteria
Catholic!" as he ran back into his glass house?
Just
asking.
Mario Goveia
2005-04-25 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George that
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some level.

I believe practicing Catholics unconsciously use the
standards of "on balance" and "baby and bathwater",
and use the tenets of the Church and a belief in the
existence of a "higher being" as a concept that may
help keep them generally on the straight and narrow.
I'm sure this would apply to practitioners of other
religions as well.

I wish I could remember the name of a famous Brit
philosopher, a lifelong proactive atheist, who turned
80 recently, who was moved to publicly announce that
he had finally concluded that there was a "higher
being" because he could find no other explanation for
what existed before the "big bang".

Finally, I'll share a comment made by my exasperated
Catechism teacher in high school many moons ago when
he had had it with our questions on the existence of
God, etc. when he said, "If there is NO God then we
believers have just wasted a lot of time and money in
this world, gladly in most cases because it did give
some of us a sense of purpose and peace. However, if
there IS a God, you non-believers are in for a whole
lot of grief." Of course, this was before Vatican II
after which believers and non-believers alike are now
deemed to have a "Get into heaven pass".
Post by Marlon Menezes
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. What
fraction of the self proclaimed "true catholics"
actually practice or believe in all the tenants of
their religion. Heck, what fraction of the clergy do
the same? (I am assuming that child molestation is
not
one of required tasks of the clergy!)
Marlon
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-25 20:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
I wish I could remember the name of a famous Brit
philosopher, a lifelong proactive atheist, who
turned 80 recently, who was moved to publicly
announce >that he had finally concluded that there was
a "higher
Post by Mario Goveia
being" because he could find no other explanation
for what existed before the "big bang".
If the above statement refers to the 82 year-old
Professor Antony Flew, then it is not an accurate
statement of his current position. To obtain the
correct information about the alleged conversion of
Antony Flew, please refer to the following articles on
the Secular Web:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Cheers,

Santosh
P D
2005-04-26 19:00:51 UTC
Permalink
"Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <icsouza at sancharnet.in> wrote:

I am neither a "cafeteria Catholic", nor a fundamentalist, and try to answer
the following questions, which came up in the Goanet, with the light that I
have received from my study and experience. But the answers will be brief.
When opportunity offers, I shall elaborate the points. >>

Thanks, Fr. Ivo Da Souza for your enlightened responses to subject questions
raised on Goanet.

They should reinforce the beliefs of practicing Catholics and hopefully
illuminate those with blinders. Of course, there will always be tricksters,
like in Biblical times. With the help of the Holy Spirit the Roman Catholic
Church shall triumph over the forces of darkness.

God Bless:

Pat de Sousa
http://www.catholic-goan-network.net
Mario Goveia
2005-04-26 20:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Gabe,
You need to relax and lighten up a little. Chill,
bro', as we say in the hood.

First of all, though I am a huge Bush-supporter and
worked to elect and re-elect him in my battleground
state of Ohio, I don't recall taking any offense at
postings ridiculing him, unless you are translating my
comments and reading between the lines of my
responses. Making fun of Bush is routine in the
left-wing media so it's like pouring water on a duck's
back any more. His success is the best revenge.
Besides, with our freedom of speech in America, we are
used to such things, mainly because we are required to
lump it, and we respond in kind when we can. It's a
two way street.

Secondly, Papa Ratzi, aka Benedict XVI, is my kind of
guy, so I was not denigrating him, just the opposite,
I used the term affectionately, Gabe Baby. He's just
the Pope, for God's sake. I think he can handle it,
even if you cannot. Regarding the Sun newspaper, I
think they copied the name from me, who copied it from
the Italian press. So, if you don't understand terms
of endearment, you may be in for some major heartburn.

Please don't become like some of our hyper-sensitive
Goanetters who were proven to have been imagining that
they were being abused when they were not even being
referred to, as shown by any objective reading of
their own carefully chosen examples.
On 25/04/05, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Mario Goveia
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George
that
Post by Mario Goveia
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some
level.
RESPONSE: You took offence to people's postings
denigrating George
Bush WRT to his name. Please stop calling Pope
Benedict XVI, Papa
Ratzi; although you live in the USA you seem to read
a lot our our Sun
News paper.
cheers.
Gabe Menezes.
London England.
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-26 20:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Of course, there will always be tricksters, like in
Biblical times. With the help of the Holy Spirit the
Roman Catholic Church shall triumph over the forces
of >darkness.
Are True Catholics supposed to demonize people who
disagree with them by calling them names such as
"tricksters" or "forces of darkness"?

If I have misunderstood the implication of the quoted
assertions, please tell us who these tricksters are,
and what these forces of darkness are.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mervyn Lobo
2005-04-26 20:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?

Mervyn3.0



______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
gilbertlaw
2005-04-28 18:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bosco:
Here are some responses to many points raised in several posts. I reply to one logic (train of thought) and the other zings me from a different direction. Usually your posts are pretty sensible and unlike other posts there is consistency i.e.. rarely do they talk from sides of the mouth.

However your comments baffle me right from the go. Here is your first statment.
Post by Bosco D'Mello
I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
And you go on to blame the church for annulling the divorced marriage. So I will save myself from trying to respond to the rest of your comments because I do not see a consistent perspective, but rather random thoughts which make it difficult to know whether you are for or against cafeteria (anything). Please you and others who are so inclined suggest to your own family that let's switch to cafeteria rules in your home from tomorrow. In two weeks perhaps you can end this sterile / theoretical debate by telling us your experience. Should I put a smiley face and give you that as an option / wriggle room?

To Santosh: A fanatic / fundamentalist in my view may be going against the second commandment of Jesus (the first commandment was from Moses) which is: Love your neighbor as thyself.

To Mario's question: If we all were pure /rigid Catholics we would be Saints. But we are not. But at least we should try. When we fail, we should be guilty of our failure. A cafeteria person thinks it is his/her right to go a la carte in the cafeteria with his/her own menu. He/She is on the pulpit saying look at me. And the rest of us say, "Smart Person or Great Chef.":=))

To George's and Bosco's questions about reforms. Nothing wrong with reform. But just practical experience in USA tells me that by most parameters, the practice of religion and Catholicism has declined post-reform. And some of the ones promoting reform IMHO appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and loyalty. George fits this category especially after making a great case during the election of the Pope. I pointed this about-face, so I will not repeat it again.

As far as women priests, the women have ample opportunities to serve Christ, which is the fundamental reason to be a priest or nun. In the past women have done a splendid job of serving Christ and like men, the Church has awarded them with Sainthood. Today, unfortunately not enough women or men have vocations. And that to me is the biggest issue which women-priest will not address. It is my understanding that there is a greater interest / calling to join Mother Theresa order in the USA than to join the priesthood or other nunneries, which are far ahead in comfort and everything else that is worldly.

IMHO changing the liturgy to native language has helped the average catholic and
the church. Beyond that very little in the reforms has helped religion including the church being lax in the garb that nuns and priests wear. There are the unintended consequences of reforms that none of the pro-reformers seen to understand or care. Change for the sake of change results in, "I concede divorce could be unfortunate for the kids but tell us what is wrong" attitude.
Regards


"Bosco D'Mello"
Post by Bosco D'Mello
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"

with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-29 23:46:29 UTC
Permalink
The points that I have tried to answer briefly do not contain the ordination
of women. This is a point that you me want to discuss. It requires an
elaborate answer. John Paul II has given it already. Let us be patient. There
is no need for such a turmoil...

Ivo da C.Souza

--------Original Message -------
Fr. Ivo,
Aaaaargh! You are a good man, and I read through your
entire epistle, but I did not find the answer to the
one burning question on the minds of this forum: Why
does the Catholic Church not permit women priests?
Please, oh please, give us your insider's view of why.
There are entire conversions and/or resignations
hanging in the balance.
Thanks.
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-30 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?

Mervyn3.0

Dear Merwyn,

I have a quick answer: there should not be "homosexual Catholic priests", but
if there are, as the media are publicizing, then homosexuality does not cease
to be "an aberration", "abnormal".

Let the competent people investigate the causes and help them, with love and
compassion. Let us also study why there is such a wild propaganda, which will
not help the sick priests nor the Church of God. What are the background
factors for such an aberration? Can we do something for them? It is important
to save them...as much as poor human efforts are concerned...

It is our task, yours and mine!

Ivo da C.Souza
Bosco D'Mello
2005-04-30 01:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

You have cleverly mangled my post and made "ghodshem" of it, just as you accuse
others of doing the same to your posts. You have put words in my mouth. Well
done!! And as usual, in your inimitable condescending tone, you have resorted
to grandstanding and patronizing discourse. I asked you to be practical....but
you chose to give us generalities without any substance. You have smartly
avoided the specific points that I raised. The only thing you have confirmed
is that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. Thank you!!

Please point out the following in my post:

Where did I BLAME the church for annulling marriages?

Please read your own writing......Can I assume, from what you wrote, that you
deduced that I blamed the church for annulling marriages?? If so, FYI, I did
not......Please read once again what I wrote:
http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/2005-April/027320.html

Please tell us "What do you think of people who are divorced and whose
marriages are annulled (or not) by the church?" Do you consider them to be
beneath you because you have managed to stay in your marriage? Are such people
less favorable in the eyes of God than those who have been blessed with not
having to go through the pain of separation? Are they immoral because their
marriages have failed due to circumstances that only they can comprehend?

Reforms: At the start of the paragraph you state - "Nothing wrong with
reform".......two sentences later you state "the ones promoting reform IMHO
appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and loyalty"......did you
say something about talking from both sides of one's mouth....tch-tch-tch!! How
can "reform promoters" also be "loyal?" Some kind of anomaly there...

I disagree with what you say about George......I certainly disagree with some
of the points George is propagating but I think George has consistently
clarified himself on this and other issues on Goanet.....I can also state he
has relentlessly been bold enough to stand-up and repeat what he has said
before. He has never resorted to circumventing from answering a question.....
something that comes to you easily.

The Catholic church is a well established religion. It has seen reform and has
also resisted a lot of it too. As members of the church, we learn from
reform-minded theologians who strive to keep this colossus marching with the
times. We also pay attention to rigid autocrats who claim they have the Holy
Spirit on their side to determine in cast-iron theologies what should be good
for us, the laity. Just because one asks questions and pushes for reform,
should his/her loyalty be questioned?

In case I have sidetracked... and just incase you have forgotten, I ask you
again... "What do you think of people who are divorced and whose marriages are
annulled (or not) by the church?"

Best wishes - Bosco


-----Original Message-----
From: gilbertlaw at adelphia.net
Sent: April 28, 2005 1:56 PM

Hi Bosco:
Here are some responses to many points raised in several posts. I reply to one
logic (train of thought) and the other zings me from a different direction.
Usually your posts are pretty sensible and unlike other posts there is
consistency i.e.. rarely do they talk from sides of the mouth.

However your comments baffle me right from the go. Here is your first statment.
Post by Bosco D'Mello
I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
And you go on to blame the church for annulling the divorced marriage. So I
will save myself from trying to respond to the rest of your comments because I
do not see a consistent perspective, but rather random thoughts which make it
difficult to know whether you are for or against cafeteria (anything). Please
you and others who are so inclined suggest to your own family that let's switch
to cafeteria rules in your home from tomorrow. In two weeks perhaps you can
end
this sterile / theoretical debate by telling us your experience. Should I put a
smiley face and give you that as an option / wriggle room?

To Santosh: A fanatic / fundamentalist in my view may be going against the
second commandment of Jesus (the first commandment was from Moses) which is:
Love your neighbor as thyself.

To Mario's question: If we all were pure /rigid Catholics we would be Saints.
But we are not. But at least we should try. When we fail, we should be guilty
of
our failure. A cafeteria person thinks it is his/her right to go a la carte in
the cafeteria with his/her own menu. He/She is on the pulpit saying look at
me.
And the rest of us say, "Smart Person or Great Chef.":=))

To George's and Bosco's questions about reforms. Nothing wrong with reform. But
just practical experience in USA tells me that by most parameters, the practice
of religion and Catholicism has declined post-reform. And some of the ones
promoting reform IMHO appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and
loyalty. George fits this category especially after making a great case during
the election of the Pope. I pointed this about-face, so I will not repeat it
again.

As far as women priests, the women have ample opportunities to serve Christ,
which is the fundamental reason to be a priest or nun. In the past women have
done a splendid job of serving Christ and like men, the Church has awarded them
with Sainthood. Today, unfortunately not enough women or men have vocations.
And
that to me is the biggest issue which women-priest will not address. It is my
understanding that there is a greater interest / calling to join Mother Theresa
order in the USA than to join the priesthood or other nunneries, which are far
ahead in comfort and everything else that is worldly.

IMHO changing the liturgy to native language has helped the average catholic
and
the church. Beyond that very little in the reforms has helped religion
including the church being lax in the garb that nuns and priests wear. There
are
the unintended consequences of reforms that none of the pro-reformers seen to
understand or care. Change for the sake of change results in, "I concede
divorce could be unfortunate for the kids but tell us what is wrong" attitude.
Regards


"Bosco D'Mello"
Post by Bosco D'Mello
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what
is "wrong"

with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
halur rasho
2005-04-30 02:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Homosexuality is certainly not abnormal to
homosexuals?
--- "Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <icsouza at sancharnet.in>
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?
Mervyn3.0
Dear Merwyn,
I have a quick answer: there should not be
"homosexual Catholic priests", but
if there are, as the media are publicizing, then
homosexuality does not cease
to be "an aberration", "abnormal".
Let the competent people investigate the causes and
help them, with love and
compassion. Let us also study why there is such a
wild propaganda, which will
not help the sick priests nor the Church of God.
What are the background
factors for such an aberration? Can we do something
for them? It is important
to save them...as much as poor human efforts are
concerned...
It is our task, yours and mine!
Ivo da C.Souza
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-30 04:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Let us also study why there is such a wild
propaganda, >which will not help the sick priests nor
the Church of >God. What are the background factors
for such an >aberration? Can we do something for them?
It is >important to save them...as much as poor human
efforts >are concerned...
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
It is our task, yours and mine!
I am sorry to say this. But this unyielding religious
notion that homosexuality is a sickness which requires
a cure, or that homosexuals somehow need to be saved,
can only be regarded as an utterly injurious prejudice
from a humanitarian standpoint, in this day and age.
There is absolutely no medical scientific or
sociological evidence that homosexuals are sick in any
way. Some of the world?s greatest men and women have
been and are homosexuals. They have contributed as
well as any heterosexual person, to the advancement of
our society and civilization.

There is enough real sickness in this world, which
needs to receive urgent attention. We do not need to
fabricate any new fictitious sicknesses based on
nothing, but pure, antiquated religious dogma.

Cheers,

Santosh
George Pinto
2005-04-30 05:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by carlos6143
You may agree with me on this one.
QUOTE
Post by carlos6143
The catechism of the catholic church states that the priest is one who
serves the people. This service could be put in the context of a
spousal relationship in which the bridegroom loves the bride so greatly
that he is willing to give up his life for her, just as Christ died for
the church. The priest stands in the person of Christ, who was a male.
As such the priest "alter Christus" (another Christ) represents Christ
the bridegroom and servant to the church, his bride.
In a world like ours, where men and women do so many of the same
things, it is difficult to understand why women cannot be priests. But
priesthood is not about the things he does, but about who he is.
UNQUOTE


Carlos,

The quote above is by Pia de Solenni who received her doctorate in sacred theology from the
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. Her article appeared today in the San Jose Mercury
News. She is not a reformer or progressive (she could not be to have received her degree from the
Pontifical Univ. in Rome in 2001 - i.e she has to echo JP II and Cardianl Ratzinger's views at
that time). She gives the same justifications I have already rejected on this forum so I will not
repeat them here. However, in a nutshell she has captured the "doctrinal & theological"
justification opposing women priests which Mario is seeking.

Regards,
George
gilbertlaw
2005-04-23 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.

Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL


Gabe Menezes
CAFETERIA CATHOLICS

(Q): What is a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose what doctrines they
want to follow and what doctrines they want to ignore. They do not have any
respect for the authority of the Catholic church. The guidelines of the
church are meaningless. The sad part of the story is there are nuns and
priests included in this category.
The difference between a cafeteria Catholic and a lukewarm Catholic is that
the cafeteria Catholic is ruled by pride. They believe that they do not have
to follow the rules of anyone. They are in charge and they can believe what
they want.
(Q): What are signs of a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Here are some examples of a cafeteria Catholic:
They see no problem with artificial birth control
They see no problem with premarital sex
They see no problem with divorce and remarriage
They see no problem with abortion
They approve and promote the ordination of woman
They approve and promote the marriage of priests

Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have
changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they
wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book "The Cardinal Ratzinger
Report," that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II
and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church's
position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect
have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council.
Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not
adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions,
notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are
reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted
that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in
their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that
dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good
Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is
a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United
States and elsewhere."
Cheers, Gabe Menezes. London, England
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-23 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-23 14:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Alfred de Tavares
2005-04-23 15:26:54 UTC
Permalink
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Cafeteria Catholics and Cafeteria Goans
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.
Cheers,
Santosh
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.

The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo Rebello.


Sufferingly yours,
Alfred de T.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
George Pinto
2005-04-23 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Santosh

Catholic practice and teaching has changed over times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?

Some of his predecessors allowed married priests. Mass used to said in Latin, now Mass can be said
in other languages. Papal infallibility on certain doctrinal matters is only about 175 years old I
think. The Pope as head of state including being a religious leader is also fairly new.
Sainthood as an honor was also introduced much later after the Church's founding. There have been
many more changes in Church history over time. Popes have chosen to interpret Church teachings
over time and made changes.

The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to believe that Church history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and intimidate progressive reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory way.

So I ask again: isn't the present Pope a cafeteria Catholic too compared to some of his
predecessors who obviously had different ideas? Gabe, Merwyn don't be intimidated by the
name-calling, stand your ground and fight for justice and reform.

Regards,
George
Mario Goveia
2005-04-23 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Is there anyone out there who is NOT a cafeteria
Catholic at some level? Just curious.
On 23/04/05, gilbertlaw at adelphia.net
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria
Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to,
but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the
cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Post by gilbertlaw
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you
write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Post by gilbertlaw
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely
apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-
http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Mario Goveia
2005-04-23 16:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Yes, George, the Pope is also a cafeteria Catholic, in
my never-humble opinion. As I asked in another post,
is there anyone out there WHO ISN'T, at some level?

And, NO, George, the Catholic Church has NOT been "one
unbroken chain of constant practices."

The way I see it one has three choices, 1) Take it, 2)
Pretend to take it, or 3) Leave it.

Life's too short for all that angst and hand-wringing.
Post by Santosh Helekar
Santosh
Catholic practice and teaching has changed over
times at the Papacy level. Does it mean the
present Pope is a cafeteria Catholic too?
Some of his predecessors allowed married priests.
Mass used to said in Latin, now Mass can be said
in other languages. Papal infallibility on certain
doctrinal matters is only about 175 years old I
think. The Pope as head of state including being a
religious leader is also fairly new.
Sainthood as an honor was also introduced much later
after the Church's founding. There have been
many more changes in Church history over time. Popes
have chosen to interpret Church teachings
over time and made changes.
The right-wing fundamentalists would like us to
believe that Church history is one unbroken chain
of constant practices. Baloney. They try and
intimidate progressive reforms by using the word
'cafeteria Catholic' in a pejorative, derogatory
way.
So I ask again: isn't the present Pope a cafeteria
Catholic too compared to some of his
predecessors who obviously had different ideas?
Gabe, Merwyn don't be intimidated by the
name-calling, stand your ground and fight for
justice and reform.
Regards,
George
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-24 14:35:40 UTC
Permalink
--- Alfred de Tavares <alfredtavares at hotmail.com>
Post by Alfred de Tavares
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.
The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo
Rebello.
Dear Alfredchacha,

I am assuming that you are bringing up leo rebello's
name in this thread because his cafetaria was bigger
than that of most people. We did not hound him out of
any forum, and certainly not for his cafetaria
approach. We merely proposed more realistic
alteratives to his various imaginary alternative
notions. We also expressed a smidgen of incredulity
towards his Nobel prize-worthy credentials. He fell
out of the three Goan forums that I know of simply
because, as time went on, his vocabulary became too
complex for any them to handle.

Cheers,

Santosh
gilbertlaw
2005-04-24 14:40:23 UTC
Permalink
GL responds
Thanks for the reference.
But it should not prevent you from authoring about cafeteria Goans.:=))
Regards

Gabe:
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

Gilbert:
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Post by gilbertlaw
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
gilbertlaw
2005-04-24 14:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Santosh,
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.

One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to put it fundamentalist is precisely what being cafeteria all about. Selecting just one aspect of life just to scream and fight over is what cafeteria is all about. Goans are good about this

Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under the guise of being progressive or changing the rules just to suit one's convenience or personal agenda. Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules. :=))
Regards
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-24 19:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to
put it fundamentalist is precisely what being
cafeteria all about. Selecting just one aspect of
life just to scream and fight over is what cafeteria
is all about. Goans are good about this
Gilbert,

Please don't redefine the term Cafetaria Catholic
according to your own whim. It is quite clearly
defined on the webpage that Gabe forwarded to us.
Here's the link again:

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm

The bare definition of Cafetaria Catholics, without
the pejorative qualifications, is as follows:

"Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose
what doctrines they want to follow and what doctrines
they want to ignore."

A True Catholic or Fundamentalist Catholic would be
someone who follows all the doctrines of the Church
without asking any questions about them.

It is very easy to find out if you are a Cafetaria
Catholic or a Fundamentalist one. Please ask yourself
the following pointed questions. Your answers would
settle the issue.

1. Do you see any problem with artificial birth
control?

2. Would you advise an AIDS patient not to use a
condom in his/her marital relationship?

3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?

4. Do you believe abortion should not be legal under
any circumstances, including medical contingencies
involving the life of the mother?

5. Would you advise a couple to remain married in the
face of an abusive and dysfunctional marital
relationship?

6. Do you believe that embryonic stem cell research is
immoral, and should be banned?

7. Do you believe a man and a woman were created by
special creation apart from animals?

8. Do you believe all human beings alive today are
sinners because their original male ancestor,
thousands of years ago, had sex with his solitary
female companion?

Cheers,

Santosh
Bosco D'Mello
2005-04-24 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like to put it fundamentalist is
precisely what being cafeteria all about.
+++ That's your view !! Others may see differently - those disregarding the
ideas of "Cafeteria Catholics" would be considered fundamentalist and/or fanatic.
Post by gilbertlaw
Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under the guise of being
progressive or changing the rules just to suit one's convenience or personal
agenda.
+++ Being non-cafeteria means losing the support of an intangible number of
Catholics. Being progressive is being cognisant of the evolving world.

Gilbert when you were a child, you probably attended Mass in Latin. I never did.
The only place I can recollect having attended Mass watching the priest's rear
was at St. Peter's in the Vatican. There have been loads of changes in the
church since....altar boys became altar servers - to include girls. Besides the
priest, we now also have Eucharistic Ministers - male and female! We have
Deacons presiding at Baptisms, FH Communions, Funerals and the odd wedding. The
church is evolving (forced or otherwise), and evolve it must if it is to remain
the universal church.

Since the Catholic Church changed the above rules and was progressive, does it
qualify as being Cafeteria ??
Post by gilbertlaw
Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules. :=))
+++ What are the cafeteria rules for soccer ?? Soccer has been a sport that has
always evolved and progressed.....that's why it's the most widely played/watched
sport in the world.

The same logic could apply to the Catholic Church - to appeal to a broader
spectrum of the masses it must be progressive.

Everytime you put that silly smily at the end of your posts takes away the
seriousness of the debate. It creates uncertainly whether you are really trying
to debate an issue or whether you just had some free time to wind-up a few
Goanetters. You always preach about intellectual debate vs hearsay and blah-blah
!!! You want Goanetters to debate issues intellectually, don't you ?? It's time
we practiced what we preached. Have a good week ahead!

Best wishes - Bosco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2005-04-25 00:35:04 UTC
Permalink
In a recent post I asked a simple question that NO ONE
ANSWERED. The question was, "Is there anyone out
there who is NOT a cafeteria Catholic at some level?
Just curious."

Does Gilbert's complex epistle defending
"non-cafeteria" Catholics mean that he would answer my
question above with a firm, "Yes, I am NOT a cafeteria
Catholic!" as he ran back into his glass house? Just
asking.

BTW, what does staying married or going to Sunday
school have to do with anything?

Bosco, the only statement of yours I would quibble
with is, "Being progressive is being cognisant of
the evolving world." I have a problem with where this
definition sometimes leads us, but that's a different
topic for another day.
Post by gilbertlaw
Post by gilbertlaw
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria
Goan does not make one a
Post by gilbertlaw
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and
staying married and going to
Post by gilbertlaw
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with
being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids"
but tell us what is "wrong"
with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral
pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself
has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Post by gilbertlaw
One could say being a fanatic or as you may like
to put it fundamentalist is
Post by gilbertlaw
precisely what being cafeteria all about.
+++ That's your view !! Others may see differently -
those disregarding the
ideas of "Cafeteria Catholics" would be considered
fundamentalist and/or fanatic.
Post by gilbertlaw
Being cafeteria means losing one's identity under
the guise of being
Post by gilbertlaw
progressive or changing the rules just to suit
one's convenience or personal
Post by gilbertlaw
agenda.
+++ Being non-cafeteria means losing the support of
an intangible number of
Catholics. Being progressive is being cognisant of
the evolving world.
Gilbert when you were a child, you probably attended
Mass in Latin. I never did.
The only place I can recollect having attended Mass
watching the priest's rear
was at St. Peter's in the Vatican. There have been
loads of changes in the
church since....altar boys became altar servers - to
include girls. Besides the
priest, we now also have Eucharistic Ministers -
male and female! We have
Deacons presiding at Baptisms, FH Communions,
Funerals and the odd wedding. The
church is evolving (forced or otherwise), and evolve
it must if it is to remain
the universal church.
Since the Catholic Church changed the above rules
and was progressive, does it
qualify as being Cafeteria ??
Post by gilbertlaw
Imagine playing world soccer with cafeteria rules.
:=))
+++ What are the cafeteria rules for soccer ??
Soccer has been a sport that has
always evolved and progressed.....that's why it's
the most widely played/watched
sport in the world.
The same logic could apply to the Catholic Church -
to appeal to a broader
spectrum of the masses it must be progressive.
Everytime you put that silly smily at the end of
your posts takes away the
seriousness of the debate. It creates uncertainly
whether you are really trying
to debate an issue or whether you just had some free
time to wind-up a few
Goanetters. You always preach about intellectual
debate vs hearsay and blah-blah
!!! You want Goanetters to debate issues
intellectually, don't you ?? It's time
we practiced what we preached. Have a good week
ahead!
Best wishes - Bosco
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by gilbertlaw
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier
mailing list is 10 years old
Marlon Menezes
2005-04-25 01:15:04 UTC
Permalink
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. What
fraction of the self proclaimed "true catholics"
actually practice or believe in all the tenants of
their religion. Heck, what fraction of the clergy do
the same? (I am assuming that child molestation is not
one of required tasks of the clergy!)

Marlon
Post by Mario Goveia
In a recent post I asked a simple question that NO
ONE
ANSWERED. The question was, "Is there anyone out
there who is NOT a cafeteria Catholic at some level?
Just curious."
Does Gilbert's complex epistle defending
"non-cafeteria" Catholics mean that he would answer
my
question above with a firm, "Yes, I am NOT a
cafeteria
Catholic!" as he ran back into his glass house?
Just
asking.
Mario Goveia
2005-04-25 16:25:40 UTC
Permalink
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George that
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some level.

I believe practicing Catholics unconsciously use the
standards of "on balance" and "baby and bathwater",
and use the tenets of the Church and a belief in the
existence of a "higher being" as a concept that may
help keep them generally on the straight and narrow.
I'm sure this would apply to practitioners of other
religions as well.

I wish I could remember the name of a famous Brit
philosopher, a lifelong proactive atheist, who turned
80 recently, who was moved to publicly announce that
he had finally concluded that there was a "higher
being" because he could find no other explanation for
what existed before the "big bang".

Finally, I'll share a comment made by my exasperated
Catechism teacher in high school many moons ago when
he had had it with our questions on the existence of
God, etc. when he said, "If there is NO God then we
believers have just wasted a lot of time and money in
this world, gladly in most cases because it did give
some of us a sense of purpose and peace. However, if
there IS a God, you non-believers are in for a whole
lot of grief." Of course, this was before Vatican II
after which believers and non-believers alike are now
deemed to have a "Get into heaven pass".
Post by Marlon Menezes
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. What
fraction of the self proclaimed "true catholics"
actually practice or believe in all the tenants of
their religion. Heck, what fraction of the clergy do
the same? (I am assuming that child molestation is
not
one of required tasks of the clergy!)
Marlon
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-25 20:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
I wish I could remember the name of a famous Brit
philosopher, a lifelong proactive atheist, who
turned 80 recently, who was moved to publicly
announce >that he had finally concluded that there was
a "higher
Post by Mario Goveia
being" because he could find no other explanation
for what existed before the "big bang".
If the above statement refers to the 82 year-old
Professor Antony Flew, then it is not an accurate
statement of his current position. To obtain the
correct information about the alleged conversion of
Antony Flew, please refer to the following articles on
the Secular Web:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Cheers,

Santosh
P D
2005-04-26 19:00:51 UTC
Permalink
"Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <icsouza at sancharnet.in> wrote:

I am neither a "cafeteria Catholic", nor a fundamentalist, and try to answer
the following questions, which came up in the Goanet, with the light that I
have received from my study and experience. But the answers will be brief.
When opportunity offers, I shall elaborate the points. >>

Thanks, Fr. Ivo Da Souza for your enlightened responses to subject questions
raised on Goanet.

They should reinforce the beliefs of practicing Catholics and hopefully
illuminate those with blinders. Of course, there will always be tricksters,
like in Biblical times. With the help of the Holy Spirit the Roman Catholic
Church shall triumph over the forces of darkness.

God Bless:

Pat de Sousa
http://www.catholic-goan-network.net
Mario Goveia
2005-04-26 20:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Gabe,
You need to relax and lighten up a little. Chill,
bro', as we say in the hood.

First of all, though I am a huge Bush-supporter and
worked to elect and re-elect him in my battleground
state of Ohio, I don't recall taking any offense at
postings ridiculing him, unless you are translating my
comments and reading between the lines of my
responses. Making fun of Bush is routine in the
left-wing media so it's like pouring water on a duck's
back any more. His success is the best revenge.
Besides, with our freedom of speech in America, we are
used to such things, mainly because we are required to
lump it, and we respond in kind when we can. It's a
two way street.

Secondly, Papa Ratzi, aka Benedict XVI, is my kind of
guy, so I was not denigrating him, just the opposite,
I used the term affectionately, Gabe Baby. He's just
the Pope, for God's sake. I think he can handle it,
even if you cannot. Regarding the Sun newspaper, I
think they copied the name from me, who copied it from
the Italian press. So, if you don't understand terms
of endearment, you may be in for some major heartburn.

Please don't become like some of our hyper-sensitive
Goanetters who were proven to have been imagining that
they were being abused when they were not even being
referred to, as shown by any objective reading of
their own carefully chosen examples.
On 25/04/05, Mario Goveia <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Mario Goveia
I don't have the answer to your question about
fractions, Marlon. I recently agreed with George
that
Post by Mario Goveia
even Papa Ratzi is a cafeteria Catholic at some
level.
RESPONSE: You took offence to people's postings
denigrating George
Bush WRT to his name. Please stop calling Pope
Benedict XVI, Papa
Ratzi; although you live in the USA you seem to read
a lot our our Sun
News paper.
cheers.
Gabe Menezes.
London England.
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-26 20:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Of course, there will always be tricksters, like in
Biblical times. With the help of the Holy Spirit the
Roman Catholic Church shall triumph over the forces
of >darkness.
Are True Catholics supposed to demonize people who
disagree with them by calling them names such as
"tricksters" or "forces of darkness"?

If I have misunderstood the implication of the quoted
assertions, please tell us who these tricksters are,
and what these forces of darkness are.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mervyn Lobo
2005-04-26 20:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?

Mervyn3.0



______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
gilbertlaw
2005-04-28 18:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bosco:
Here are some responses to many points raised in several posts. I reply to one logic (train of thought) and the other zings me from a different direction. Usually your posts are pretty sensible and unlike other posts there is consistency i.e.. rarely do they talk from sides of the mouth.

However your comments baffle me right from the go. Here is your first statment.
Post by Bosco D'Mello
I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
And you go on to blame the church for annulling the divorced marriage. So I will save myself from trying to respond to the rest of your comments because I do not see a consistent perspective, but rather random thoughts which make it difficult to know whether you are for or against cafeteria (anything). Please you and others who are so inclined suggest to your own family that let's switch to cafeteria rules in your home from tomorrow. In two weeks perhaps you can end this sterile / theoretical debate by telling us your experience. Should I put a smiley face and give you that as an option / wriggle room?

To Santosh: A fanatic / fundamentalist in my view may be going against the second commandment of Jesus (the first commandment was from Moses) which is: Love your neighbor as thyself.

To Mario's question: If we all were pure /rigid Catholics we would be Saints. But we are not. But at least we should try. When we fail, we should be guilty of our failure. A cafeteria person thinks it is his/her right to go a la carte in the cafeteria with his/her own menu. He/She is on the pulpit saying look at me. And the rest of us say, "Smart Person or Great Chef.":=))

To George's and Bosco's questions about reforms. Nothing wrong with reform. But just practical experience in USA tells me that by most parameters, the practice of religion and Catholicism has declined post-reform. And some of the ones promoting reform IMHO appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and loyalty. George fits this category especially after making a great case during the election of the Pope. I pointed this about-face, so I will not repeat it again.

As far as women priests, the women have ample opportunities to serve Christ, which is the fundamental reason to be a priest or nun. In the past women have done a splendid job of serving Christ and like men, the Church has awarded them with Sainthood. Today, unfortunately not enough women or men have vocations. And that to me is the biggest issue which women-priest will not address. It is my understanding that there is a greater interest / calling to join Mother Theresa order in the USA than to join the priesthood or other nunneries, which are far ahead in comfort and everything else that is worldly.

IMHO changing the liturgy to native language has helped the average catholic and
the church. Beyond that very little in the reforms has helped religion including the church being lax in the garb that nuns and priests wear. There are the unintended consequences of reforms that none of the pro-reformers seen to understand or care. Change for the sake of change results in, "I concede divorce could be unfortunate for the kids but tell us what is wrong" attitude.
Regards


"Bosco D'Mello"
Post by Bosco D'Mello
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"

with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-29 23:46:29 UTC
Permalink
The points that I have tried to answer briefly do not contain the ordination
of women. This is a point that you me want to discuss. It requires an
elaborate answer. John Paul II has given it already. Let us be patient. There
is no need for such a turmoil...

Ivo da C.Souza

--------Original Message -------
Fr. Ivo,
Aaaaargh! You are a good man, and I read through your
entire epistle, but I did not find the answer to the
one burning question on the minds of this forum: Why
does the Catholic Church not permit women priests?
Please, oh please, give us your insider's view of why.
There are entire conversions and/or resignations
hanging in the balance.
Thanks.
Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
2005-04-30 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?

Mervyn3.0

Dear Merwyn,

I have a quick answer: there should not be "homosexual Catholic priests", but
if there are, as the media are publicizing, then homosexuality does not cease
to be "an aberration", "abnormal".

Let the competent people investigate the causes and help them, with love and
compassion. Let us also study why there is such a wild propaganda, which will
not help the sick priests nor the Church of God. What are the background
factors for such an aberration? Can we do something for them? It is important
to save them...as much as poor human efforts are concerned...

It is our task, yours and mine!

Ivo da C.Souza
Bosco D'Mello
2005-04-30 01:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

You have cleverly mangled my post and made "ghodshem" of it, just as you accuse
others of doing the same to your posts. You have put words in my mouth. Well
done!! And as usual, in your inimitable condescending tone, you have resorted
to grandstanding and patronizing discourse. I asked you to be practical....but
you chose to give us generalities without any substance. You have smartly
avoided the specific points that I raised. The only thing you have confirmed
is that you are a Cafeteria Catholic. Thank you!!

Please point out the following in my post:

Where did I BLAME the church for annulling marriages?

Please read your own writing......Can I assume, from what you wrote, that you
deduced that I blamed the church for annulling marriages?? If so, FYI, I did
not......Please read once again what I wrote:
http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/2005-April/027320.html

Please tell us "What do you think of people who are divorced and whose
marriages are annulled (or not) by the church?" Do you consider them to be
beneath you because you have managed to stay in your marriage? Are such people
less favorable in the eyes of God than those who have been blessed with not
having to go through the pain of separation? Are they immoral because their
marriages have failed due to circumstances that only they can comprehend?

Reforms: At the start of the paragraph you state - "Nothing wrong with
reform".......two sentences later you state "the ones promoting reform IMHO
appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and loyalty"......did you
say something about talking from both sides of one's mouth....tch-tch-tch!! How
can "reform promoters" also be "loyal?" Some kind of anomaly there...

I disagree with what you say about George......I certainly disagree with some
of the points George is propagating but I think George has consistently
clarified himself on this and other issues on Goanet.....I can also state he
has relentlessly been bold enough to stand-up and repeat what he has said
before. He has never resorted to circumventing from answering a question.....
something that comes to you easily.

The Catholic church is a well established religion. It has seen reform and has
also resisted a lot of it too. As members of the church, we learn from
reform-minded theologians who strive to keep this colossus marching with the
times. We also pay attention to rigid autocrats who claim they have the Holy
Spirit on their side to determine in cast-iron theologies what should be good
for us, the laity. Just because one asks questions and pushes for reform,
should his/her loyalty be questioned?

In case I have sidetracked... and just incase you have forgotten, I ask you
again... "What do you think of people who are divorced and whose marriages are
annulled (or not) by the church?"

Best wishes - Bosco


-----Original Message-----
From: gilbertlaw at adelphia.net
Sent: April 28, 2005 1:56 PM

Hi Bosco:
Here are some responses to many points raised in several posts. I reply to one
logic (train of thought) and the other zings me from a different direction.
Usually your posts are pretty sensible and unlike other posts there is
consistency i.e.. rarely do they talk from sides of the mouth.

However your comments baffle me right from the go. Here is your first statment.
Post by Bosco D'Mello
I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what is "wrong"
And you go on to blame the church for annulling the divorced marriage. So I
will save myself from trying to respond to the rest of your comments because I
do not see a consistent perspective, but rather random thoughts which make it
difficult to know whether you are for or against cafeteria (anything). Please
you and others who are so inclined suggest to your own family that let's switch
to cafeteria rules in your home from tomorrow. In two weeks perhaps you can
end
this sterile / theoretical debate by telling us your experience. Should I put a
smiley face and give you that as an option / wriggle room?

To Santosh: A fanatic / fundamentalist in my view may be going against the
second commandment of Jesus (the first commandment was from Moses) which is:
Love your neighbor as thyself.

To Mario's question: If we all were pure /rigid Catholics we would be Saints.
But we are not. But at least we should try. When we fail, we should be guilty
of
our failure. A cafeteria person thinks it is his/her right to go a la carte in
the cafeteria with his/her own menu. He/She is on the pulpit saying look at
me.
And the rest of us say, "Smart Person or Great Chef.":=))

To George's and Bosco's questions about reforms. Nothing wrong with reform. But
just practical experience in USA tells me that by most parameters, the practice
of religion and Catholicism has declined post-reform. And some of the ones
promoting reform IMHO appear to do so just to show their shallow interest and
loyalty. George fits this category especially after making a great case during
the election of the Pope. I pointed this about-face, so I will not repeat it
again.

As far as women priests, the women have ample opportunities to serve Christ,
which is the fundamental reason to be a priest or nun. In the past women have
done a splendid job of serving Christ and like men, the Church has awarded them
with Sainthood. Today, unfortunately not enough women or men have vocations.
And
that to me is the biggest issue which women-priest will not address. It is my
understanding that there is a greater interest / calling to join Mother Theresa
order in the USA than to join the priesthood or other nunneries, which are far
ahead in comfort and everything else that is worldly.

IMHO changing the liturgy to native language has helped the average catholic
and
the church. Beyond that very little in the reforms has helped religion
including the church being lax in the garb that nuns and priests wear. There
are
the unintended consequences of reforms that none of the pro-reformers seen to
understand or care. Change for the sake of change results in, "I concede
divorce could be unfortunate for the kids but tell us what is wrong" attitude.
Regards


"Bosco D'Mello"
Post by Bosco D'Mello
Being a non-cafeteria Catholic or a non-cafeteria Goan does not make one a
fanatic. There is nothing wrong with being and staying married and going to
Sunday Church. There is something wrong with being divorced. Ask the kids.
+++ I concede it could be unfortunate for "the kids" but tell us what
is "wrong"

with being divorced. And don't preach from a moral pulpit!! This is the 21st
century!! Be practical !! The Catholic Church itself has annulled thousands of
marriages.
halur rasho
2005-04-30 02:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Homosexuality is certainly not abnormal to
homosexuals?
--- "Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza" <icsouza at sancharnet.in>
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Post by Santosh Helekar
3. Do you believe homosexuality is evil?
Homosexuality is an aberration. It is abnormal.
Father Ivo,
I have a quick question.
Should there be homosexual Catholic priests?
Mervyn3.0
Dear Merwyn,
I have a quick answer: there should not be
"homosexual Catholic priests", but
if there are, as the media are publicizing, then
homosexuality does not cease
to be "an aberration", "abnormal".
Let the competent people investigate the causes and
help them, with love and
compassion. Let us also study why there is such a
wild propaganda, which will
not help the sick priests nor the Church of God.
What are the background
factors for such an aberration? Can we do something
for them? It is important
to save them...as much as poor human efforts are
concerned...
It is our task, yours and mine!
Ivo da C.Souza
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-30 04:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
Let us also study why there is such a wild
propaganda, >which will not help the sick priests nor
the Church of >God. What are the background factors
for such an >aberration? Can we do something for them?
It is >important to save them...as much as poor human
efforts >are concerned...
Post by Fr. Ivo Da C. Souza
It is our task, yours and mine!
I am sorry to say this. But this unyielding religious
notion that homosexuality is a sickness which requires
a cure, or that homosexuals somehow need to be saved,
can only be regarded as an utterly injurious prejudice
from a humanitarian standpoint, in this day and age.
There is absolutely no medical scientific or
sociological evidence that homosexuals are sick in any
way. Some of the world?s greatest men and women have
been and are homosexuals. They have contributed as
well as any heterosexual person, to the advancement of
our society and civilization.

There is enough real sickness in this world, which
needs to receive urgent attention. We do not need to
fabricate any new fictitious sicknesses based on
nothing, but pure, antiquated religious dogma.

Cheers,

Santosh
George Pinto
2005-04-30 05:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by carlos6143
You may agree with me on this one.
QUOTE
Post by carlos6143
The catechism of the catholic church states that the priest is one who
serves the people. This service could be put in the context of a
spousal relationship in which the bridegroom loves the bride so greatly
that he is willing to give up his life for her, just as Christ died for
the church. The priest stands in the person of Christ, who was a male.
As such the priest "alter Christus" (another Christ) represents Christ
the bridegroom and servant to the church, his bride.
In a world like ours, where men and women do so many of the same
things, it is difficult to understand why women cannot be priests. But
priesthood is not about the things he does, but about who he is.
UNQUOTE


Carlos,

The quote above is by Pia de Solenni who received her doctorate in sacred theology from the
Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. Her article appeared today in the San Jose Mercury
News. She is not a reformer or progressive (she could not be to have received her degree from the
Pontifical Univ. in Rome in 2001 - i.e she has to echo JP II and Cardianl Ratzinger's views at
that time). She gives the same justifications I have already rejected on this forum so I will not
repeat them here. However, in a nutshell she has captured the "doctrinal & theological"
justification opposing women priests which Mario is seeking.

Regards,
George
gilbertlaw
2005-04-23 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.

Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL


Gabe Menezes
CAFETERIA CATHOLICS

(Q): What is a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Cafeteria Catholics are those who pick and choose what doctrines they
want to follow and what doctrines they want to ignore. They do not have any
respect for the authority of the Catholic church. The guidelines of the
church are meaningless. The sad part of the story is there are nuns and
priests included in this category.
The difference between a cafeteria Catholic and a lukewarm Catholic is that
the cafeteria Catholic is ruled by pride. They believe that they do not have
to follow the rules of anyone. They are in charge and they can believe what
they want.
(Q): What are signs of a Cafeteria Catholic?
(A): Here are some examples of a cafeteria Catholic:
They see no problem with artificial birth control
They see no problem with premarital sex
They see no problem with divorce and remarriage
They see no problem with abortion
They approve and promote the ordination of woman
They approve and promote the marriage of priests

Cafeteria Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have
changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they
wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book "The Cardinal Ratzinger
Report," that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II
and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church's
position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect
have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council.
Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not
adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions,
notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are
reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted
that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in
their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that
dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good
Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is
a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United
States and elsewhere."
Cheers, Gabe Menezes. London, England
Santosh Helekar
2005-04-23 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gabe Menezes
2005-04-23 14:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gilbertlaw
Hi Gabe
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics. I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans to read it aniek time.
Atan upkar kor (please do us a favor) can you write a post on Cafeteria Goans? :=))
Regards, GL
RESPONSE: It is not my handiwork and I sincerely apologise for not
having given the URL, Here it is:-

http://www.concernedcatholics.org/cafeteria.htm
Alfred de Tavares
2005-04-23 15:26:54 UTC
Permalink
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Cafeteria Catholics and Cafeteria Goans
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Post by gilbertlaw
Thoroughly enjoyed your post on Cafeteria Catholics.
I normally shrink the post I respond to, but in this
excellent post, I kept it intact for the cyber Goans
to read it aniek time.
The implication of this thread, and presumably the
notion that Cafetaria Catholics are somehow bad or
impure, is thoroughly laughable from an objective
standpoint. It is self evident that the world would be
better off with less fundamentalists and more
cafeteria Catholics, more eclectic and ecumenical
Christians, more sarvadharmi and niradharmi Hindus,
more reformed and liberated Muslims, and more
secular-minded individuals of all creeds.
Fundamentalism and religious conservatism of any sort
are not consistent with the goals of a progressive,
enlightened and free society.
Cheers,
Santosh
My dear Santosh, Samir and other naughty boys
that hounded him out of our sublime intellectual
fora.

The multi-proferred Nobel-laureate, Dr. et al Leo Rebello.


Sufferingly yours,
Alfred de T.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...