Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: A.A. Cunningham
First, Peter's wife remained with him and is mentioned several times. There is a big difference in the kind of duty Peter preformed, being crusified, than an ordinary preacher performs today. If a married preacher felt the calling to leave his family and go teach in the Spice Islands, risking his life, then he should go, sure. But today, as yet, no one faces a cross for preaching the word as in Peter's time.

If a man can remain single and serve as a preacher fine, if he can accept it. But it is beyond rediculous and against God's will, for a church, in failing to allow married priests, to replace that shortage with homosexuals who bogger little boys, all in order to have enough priests to cover the shortage created by their own, not God's, demand that all priests be single.

The homosexual abomination and influence allowed to go on for decades by the Church is really inexcusable and a far worse situation than allowing normal men, married men, to serve in a priestly capacity.
79 posted on 05/02/2004 10:09:32 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: MissAmericanPie
The homosexual abomination and influence allowed to go on for decades by the Church is really inexcusable and a far worse situation than allowing normal men, married men, to serve in a priestly capacity.

Yep.

81 posted on 05/02/2004 10:17:40 PM PDT by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from an animal shelter! It will save one life, and may save two.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: MissAmericanPie
First, Peter's wife remained with him and is mentioned several times.

Please provide passages from Scripture which support your mistaken claim. Here's a clue: Peter's mother in law is mentioned in Scripture, his wife is not. Additionally,, you might want to enlighten yourself by reading St.Clement of Alexandria's(~150-220 Anno Domini) The Stromata, book VII Chapter XI, which reads in part:

'They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not," and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.'

But it is beyond rediculous and against God's will, for a church, in failing to allow married priests, to replace that shortage with homosexuals who bogger little boys, all in order to have enough priests to cover the shortage created by their own, not God's, demand that all priests be single.

Once again you are incorrect. There are 22 Churches sui juris within the Catholic Church: 21 in Eastern Rites which ordain married men and one, the Latin Rite, aka Western Church, in which the norm is to ordain single men who willingly and freely accept the discipline of celibacy. Men who desire both marriage and the priesthood have 21 other choices they can make. Again, God Himself praises celibacy and as Scripture teaches us, if you make it to heaven, you too will be celibate as well: "And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:29-30

Scripture also teaches us to emulate God: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48

Are you aware that the Vatican banned, in writing no less, the ordination of homosexuals and pederasts in February, 1961?(That is a rhetorical question. Based on your demonstrated ignorance of Scripture and the topic at hand, we both know the answer is a deafening no):

"Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

So what has been demonstrated in the vast majority of these heinous crimes is a lack of holiness and disobedience on the part of both the criminals who perpetrated these acts and the bishops who thumbed their noses at the Pope in ordaining those that they should not have. You also have put forth a specious argument implying that the discipline of celibacy was the catalyst for these acts. However, your argument doesn't hold water, once again, since the discipline of celibacy played no part in the sex crimes perpetrated by these Protestant ministers, did it?(rhetorical again)

91 posted on 05/02/2004 11:24:53 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: MissAmericanPie
Read your Bible very carefully vis a vis Peter. You will not find what you think you found.
100 posted on 05/03/2004 12:57:05 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: MissAmericanPie
"The homosexual abomination and influence allowed to go on for decades by the Church is really inexcusable and a far worse situation than allowing normal men, married men, to serve in a priestly capacity."

Yes, but we are not faced with that dichotomy.

We have three alternatives: the two you mention, and a third, returning to orthodoxy with celibate priests who do not suffer from SSAD.

This last is clearly the best of the three alternatives, and therefore the one to choose.
102 posted on 05/03/2004 2:23:38 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson