Posted on 12/23/2003 8:18:05 AM PST by marshmallow
What is this, exactly?
In what non-absurd sense is that "one teaching authority"?
The obedience of the priests (or lack of it) does not diminish the truth of the teaching. That would be like saying that Jesus' teaching is 'absurd' because Christians are unable (or unwilling) to follow it well. I think Paul refuted a similar argument about the Law in Romans.
Look, I am not arguing the merits of Catholicism. It has stood the test of time. I am just saying that you can't look at a loopy nun or priest and say, "That is Catholicism". That is sloppy reasoning. Knock Catholic doctrine for what it is if you truly understand it. But look at the doctrine first and see if the followers are following. Not at the wayward followers and point to their shortfalls as doctrinal primers about the faith.
You will have a pretty vacant Christianity if you demand all Christ's followers must be perfect. Not to mention the fact that you have just negated the need for Grace.
Take care,
a_r
Is the marriage of two post-menopausal adults sinful in your mind? There's not a chance of producing children. Are they marrying for merely sexually recreational purposes?
Is a young woman whose sexual organs have been damaged due to disease not allowed to marry, due to the fact that that marriage has no chance of producing children?
Are you joking?
Head on over to Georgetown, Boston College, or Notre Dame. You'll get an eye-opening education you won't soon forget.
But wdoes God forgive the unrepentant?
but everything in Scripture shows us that what makes God the Father the angriest is when we humans judge others as if we were God.....
I don't know about that, but I do remember something about "Spewing thee out of my mouth" when referring to the "lukewarm."
The difference between all those hypothetical possibilities and a homosexual "marriage" is that there is no way such a union will ever have the possibility of producing offspring through a sexual relationship.
This Bishop does not have his own people here,neither I nor anyone else believes that anyone here knows him. I have never heard of a Bishop who brought clergy from his previous diocese and it would not be fair to the diocese that the Bishop left.The Bishop and priests are supposed to be connected (or a direct report)to Jesus Christ and the Triune God,not human beings other than the Pope,the Vicar of Christ.
It would be good if he had some trusted lay employes in the chancery in Wichita,that he could recruit to Phoenix.He needs a Director of Education,(all types),a Director of Liturgy and Worship and a new editor of the diocesan newspaper to begin to reCAtholicize the Church out here while he untangles the web of a couple of nefarious networks amidst the clergy.
Unless he replaces the incumbents with outsiders that he can trust,there is no way to know whether they are undermining him. The diocese is almost exclusively in the hands of members of the group who have haughtily and arrogantly held the reigns in this diocese,led by or leading a cadre of lavender priests. We now have at least 15 to 20 recently ordained priests who are orthodox and very good men. They join probably another 20 that have kept a low profile and moved slowly,keeping a lot of the teaching of the Church intact.There are probably 10 more who have been under orders that will be able to resume holy priesthoods.
So we probably have 50 good priests but the lay power structure joins with the greater number of goofy priests in a formidable blockade to prevent orthodoxy from penetrating the diocese.
You may not agree with me but I am interested in your take on this. The EXbishop showed up at the new Bishop's ordination and there was his moon face in two of the five pictures of the Bishop. His attendance also forced archbishop Sheehan to acknowledge him at the installation ceremony which gave rise to a standing ovation from his minions,it seemed to me to far outdo any applause that the new Bishop reeived. As I explained before the lay leaders are dangerous. I think it would have been so much nobler for the EX to have found he had to attend a baptism or wedding in a faraway town and graciously declined the invite.Anyway I can see the games beginning but this Bishop seems very holy,humble and intelligent. His homily was great and his smile makes my heart happy.
I don't know enough about protocol and canon law to answer your other question.Besides that it seems to be fluxing lately depending on who's calling the shots.One of the vicars said that they,according to protocol, had submitted their resignations. I don't trust any of the vicars to tell the truth so I don't know.
I like Murillo too.
Note also the use of the words "gay" and "lesbian." Those are ideological, political terms, which should not be found on the lips of Catholic pastors.
The dishonesty of this letter is blatant. The dissent from the Church's teaching is cleverly implied, and cleverly concealed just enough that the signatories leave themselves room to weasel out of the charge that they are dissenters.
One thing you will never find weasels like this doing is plainly and simply affirming or denying this proposition: Acts of sodomy are objectively grave matter.
That's the real issue. All the blather about inclusiveness, compassion, etc., is irrelevant. It is an attempt to portray themselves as compassionate, caring, inclusive, etc., and to slander the Church as though anything in Catholic teaching implied that people should be disrespected and insulted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.