November 16, 2005
Confessions of a Madonna/Whore
Tony on January 8, 2008 08:34 AM EST writes:
You really belived in his "loving girlfriend" and "un-intentional orgasm" theories and belived it to be loop holes of christianity?
Had it been a nun who didnt see outside world for 15 years, one can understand. Its really funny a married woman at 34 believed it.
Its like you want to murder someone. You have a pistal and cornered your victim in a room and offer him a knife to defend himself. The only way he can defend is by attacking you. Now you shoot him and thats not a murder because its self defence. Would you believe its a loop hole of law?
Tony on January 8, 2008 08:30 AM EST writes:
What an idiot you had been..
There is nothing wrong with falling in love with a priest or him falling in love with a woman. He will have to give up the girlfriend or his priesthood.
But our joe wanted both as long as he can. Its just that simple. If beth cant see it, its her fault.
When he used you for his sexual pleasures and refused to offer you any pleasure, thats the holy shit!.
How can it be love when it is flowing only one way?
You should have walked out from that moment onwards. What else do you expect from that crook?
Confessing that just doesn't make him any less sinner. He really knows you are his sexual companion all along. If he really regretted the relationship, he should have confessed the very moment he saw you passionately. There is no loop hole in heart. He just wanted you to stay as long as he wants, and thats why he concoits loop holes of christian law.
Thats what the bible says.
johnny on May 31, 2006 05:00 PM EST writes:
you want to have someone to pity you but you are not without blame you was a married woman so what does that make you you reap what you sow if not the priest it would have been someone else or someone's husband you was in heat
Kelsey on February 23, 2006 11:53 AM EST writes:
This article is truly amazing. I was hooked onto every sentence. Your sense of humor is absolutely the comic releif to this love story.
Mary Beth Crain on January 22, 2006 12:02 AM EST writes:
Lisa: I love it! I should e-mail this article to Pope Benny with your suggestion.
You echo my firm belief that the only true defense against religious tyranny is a sense of humor.
Mary Beth Crain
Lisa Rose on January 13, 2006 05:09 PM EST writes:
The way things are going, it wouldn't surprise me if they canonize him Saint Joseph Scanagatta, Patron of Unintentional Emissions.
Ms. on January 2, 2006 03:30 PM EST writes:
Wow, that was amazing, Mary Beth. You are very brave to share your story. I was glad to read it, because I am currently wondering about the intentions of an Anglican priest I know at the moment. Your story was really moving, and touching.
King James was Gay on December 19, 2005 02:59 PM EST writes:
And created in other different ways
Such as male and male, or female and female.
Gregory Zimmerman on December 19, 2005 02:44 PM EST writes:
Mary Beth's article
I am not Jewish and I am a married priest. Unfortunately, there have been not a few priests who weasel their way around the truth to deny that celibacy means "no sex" in any of its forms. And this is where the Church has failed - to understand and appreciate the beauty and marvel of our lives including sex. After all, this is how God created us, male and female!
Eugenia Renskoff on November 24, 2005 12:01 PM EST writes:
I, too, know something about this sugject. And that´s why I wrote a novel called Different Flags. I feel that it´s time to forget about what the Church says or doesn´t say, and just concentrate on people. If two people love each other and want to be together, what´s the harm? Why go on and on about things that have very little or no compassion for people´s feelings and suffering? Eugenia Renskoff
Eugenia Resnicoff on November 24, 2005 03:15 AM EST writes:
Fr. Joe and Mary Beth
I wrote the book on this: Different Flags. Check it out
Joe f on November 22, 2005 06:13 PM EST writes:
mary beth's cat
I'm always startled by
one making their intimate acts public, and it's usually a writer.E.g.,Sun magazine.The chance of being in print makes some loose any sense of embarrassment.
Yea,sometimes embarrassment is good. You notice above how I'm trying to be coy, and I have no intention of revealing all or part of all about me.Before I start on you,Marybeth I want to say that you are acurrate and more than fair in your description of numerous Vatican Catholic priests.And as one would say in a lilting italian accent,'and I kno what Iom talkinabout.' The notions of faith, morality,sex,and love exhibited by your gatto are just sick.The fact that these were compatible in his
'priestly' life,for him and numerous others,indicates how much of reality religions can hide. Now, Marybeth;you were 34, 34!!! Come on,how lonley were you? Your freinds told you to stop, and you kept going. When he said the 3 letter word(god)said it was ok for him to have orgasm,but not you,that was sick enuf, yes.
Rich_the_Lion on November 20, 2005 03:20 PM EST writes:
Jesus and the Church
>> Meaning the celibacy thing did not ever come as a mandate from Jesus.
Very LITTLE few traditions of the Catholic Church originated from anything that Jesus modeled.
Take communion for example -- did Jesus ever say, "oh, you people can, but not you people over there..." Though one of the fundamental tenets of the Church is communion of those confirmed Catholic and no one else. Is that Christ-like?
Jesus was decidedly a non-institutional if not an anti-institutional figure!
Sally DeFreitas on November 20, 2005 03:14 PM EST writes:
Thanks Mary Beth for directing me to this story. I think you laid it out with as much honesty and lack of self pity as you could muster. I read somewhere about support groups for (current or discarded) female lovers of priests -- so Joe is certainly not the only one. AS for priestly celibacy -- wasn't that whole thing instituted sometime in the middle ages so there would be no progeny to inherit the wealth that some of those guys were accumulating? Meaning the celibacy thing did not ever come as a mandate from Jesus.
Roger Cox on November 20, 2005 11:10 AM EST writes:
A straight priest story? Good to hear. And shouldn't we cast the churlish Harry Peterson as Dana Carvey's church lady?
Julia M. on November 19, 2005 05:31 PM EST writes:
It's telling that Harry wishes Mary Crain were a Titus woman. Paul's letter to Titus urges older women to be quiet little housekeepers who are subservient to their husbands, and who'll "so train the young women" to be the same way, "to love their husbands and children," etc. The letter also urges them to be "submissive to all rulers and authorities" and to "show perfect courtesy toward all men." These are the kinds of teachings the Church must wish all its victims of abuse would heed. Then they wouldn't speak out, as Mary Crain has, though she makes it clear she doesn't see herself as a victim here.
Greg R. on November 19, 2005 05:05 PM EST writes:
Harry--It's ridiculous to dismiss this article as Catholic bashing. Or as man-hating. Give us a break! Even you are critical of this Father Joe scoundrel, pretty harsh, too, and without any of the writer's warmth and humor. So why can't Mary Beth, of all people, be critical of him and the system he flourished in? Because she's not Catholic?
Using your logic, we can dismiss your nasty comments about Mary Beth as mere Jew bashing. Yeah, Harry, you're just an anti-Semitic woman-hater. Too bad you're not a "REAL MAN," whatever that means.
Harry Peterson on November 19, 2005 12:20 PM EST writes:
ok Betty, i read the whole thing
It did chnge my opinion. this is just another Catholic bashing story. Another person with NO concept of Christianity, but a spiritual seeker. Joe was NOT in any way a "spirtual leader" except to lead people away from God.
This was not "Ultimate passion", it was ultimate "carnal living" and then blaming someone else for a person's mistake and weakness. She was offended when she found out Joe "confessed" their relationship? It was the happiest time...so what? God is more concerned with our righteousness FAR more than our happiness. (nothing brings TRUE fulfilment like serving the Lord.)
She is upset with the churches idea of maleness?
This nonesense would not even be written had she been a REAL WOMAN! you know, the kind the Bible say's women should be. Read the book of Titus. (it's in the New Testament)
My original comment stands Betty. This is just her writing a "Romance Novel" for man-haters and catholic bashers. Put Fabio on the cover wearing a collar and she'll sell plenty.
Betty Raphael on November 18, 2005 09:48 PM EST writes:
To Mr. Peterson: Your mean-spirited comments on Mary Beth Crain's superb piece are as ignorant and thick-headed as she is intelligent, thoughtful and inspiring. The really hilarious thing is that you're the one who comes off looking stupid, not her. You said you didn't read it at all. Then how could you possibly know what she was really saying? Then you said you "couldn't" read it. That I don't doubt. I am sure you can't read, period. Kudos to Mary Beth for a courageous, wonderful piece!
Betty Raphael on November 18, 2005 09:43 PM EST writes:
Harry Peterson on November 18, 2005 12:42 PM EST writes:
No excuse for being that loose, stupid and still trying to say you had any belief in honoring God.
Give me a break and why the heck would you write about this...i did'nt read it all...I couldn't.
Richard on November 18, 2005 08:40 AM EST writes:
Calev: Just for clarification, please. Are you saying that if the writer had really been "Jewish," which she claims to be, then she wouldn't have found herself in such a human dilemma? Or that she wouldn't have been vulnerable to a Catholic?
Calev on November 18, 2005 05:10 AM EST writes:
Interesting article. What a pity you don't know more about being Jewish (I mean really being Jewish, not Jew-ish), then maybe you wouldn't have found yourself getting screwed by that priest.
R.D. on November 18, 2005 03:05 AM EST writes:
As the last poster noted, you wrote a very courageous piece, Mary Beth. After reading about all of the abuse against young boys, I found it interesting to read about a consensual relationship between a priest and a grown woman. The piece was written in a very nuanced manner, and I came away from it feeling more convinced than ever that the church is making a grave mistake by barring priests from getting married.
John Spalding on November 17, 2005 09:21 AM EST writes:
Good catch, Iris. RIght you are, of course. The quote comes from Pascal, not Montaigne. I've made the change. Thanks.
Iris on November 17, 2005 08:27 AM EST writes:
Brilliant article - very insightful. Only one minor editorial point - it was Blaise Pascal, not Montaigne, who said "The heart has reasons of which reason knows nothing."
But as I said, that's a minor thing. The story was wonderfully written: entertaining, informative, insightful, and provocative without being overbearing or over-political. It's always a fine balance to be able to make your point about the Church while keeping the story focused on the individuals involved, but you've done a tremendous job, Mary Beth. Publishers, take note - the SoMA people are right, and this definitely deserves to be a book.
Talmida on November 16, 2005 03:37 PM EST writes:
Great article! I love your comments about the Book of Loopholes - wow, is that true! If it's not intercourse, it can't be sex. On that simple idea rests so much harm!
J.M. on November 16, 2005 02:38 PM EST writes:
Holy smokes! What an account. I skipped lunch because I couldn't stop until I read this to the very end... At first, I wondered if it was going to be provocative just to be provocative, but it's not. It's a complete, thoughtful piece that's both very funny and heartbreaking. It's understandable how both the writer and the priest found themselves in this mess, though I must say he was a real piece of work.
Good job, Mary Beth. And thanks for having the courage to tell your story!
Copyright © 2017 SoMAreview, LLC. All Rights Reserved