Pope bans homosexuals from ordination as priests

WorldNetDaily ^ | September 19, 2005

[george wythe]

Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America.

Deja vu.

Why is the old formal policy not enforced?

[sinkspur]

Let them appoint new parish councils.

We elect our parish councils.

If the pastor appoints the council, why have one? Just let the priest run the parish, since he's surrounding himself with "yes" men anyway.

Our pastor never talks about money; the stewardship committee people do that. He never talks about lay ministries in the parish; the stewardship committee people do that.

That's why the number of people involved in ministry has tripled over the past three years, and our average Sunday collection tops $30,000.

[BlackElk]

I well understand that many AmChurch parishes actually elect parish councils. When I was in legal partnership with my very liberal long-time friend (from the age of 3), he was the Treasurer of the reasonably affluent parish in which we both grew up. He was forever whining that the quite Catholic pastor (a frequent purveyor of the Tridentine Mass at a parish in our then hometown too poor to have been wreckovated) wanted to "waste money" on Catholic religious activity when my partner, as Treasurer, had more mundane priorities like architectural improvements.

Electing parish councils is another failed experiment of the AmChurch revolution. Pastors ought to be pastors. If the pastor does not run the parish (preferably making the real decisions and removing malcontent "council" members as appropriate, and if the pastor is an exemplar, the parish is far better served. An increasing number of pastors refuse to cooperate with the farce of parish councils, call no elections, and hold no meetings. Good for them.

Also, a lot of parishes with "councils" develop imperial ministry structures to provide paychecks to the parish liberals to further subvert Catholicism. It sounds like the "stewardship" committee also needs abolition if it has the consummate gall to replace the pastor in running parish ministries. The pastor might consider spending less time on the golf course and more time doing his job. AND money isn't everything. The poorest parishes in our diocese can do major renovations and restorations (NOT wreckovations!) out of their own collection baskets.

An appointed council, serving at the pleasure of the pastor, will cooperate with the pastor and serve under him or not at all. Much better model. Not unlike pope and curia.

[ninenot]

You get two guesses.

If your first guess begins with "Because the already-ordained homosexuals wanted a lot of company,"

then you WIN THE PRIZE on the FIRST GUESS!!

[ninenot]

Under Canon Law, the pastor MUST have a "financial board" from his parish. Sometimes this is disguised as a Parish Council--but in any case, the Finance Board/whatever must exist.

In Wisconsin, the parishes are separate corporate entities, but there are 5 trustees who actually run the Parish. Two of them are elected by the Parish at large, and ex-officio are the Pastor, the Archbishop, and the Chancellor of the Archdiocese.

Since this group serves as the "Financial Board", there is no Canonical need for a Council. However, most parishes up here have one. Keeps a lot of people busy one night/month, and gives the impression that parishioners actually have some say in things.

As you can see from the above graph on Trustees, however, it's just a show.

[hardworking]

Y'all sure are uptight. I suspect we're all going to be a bit surprised to discover with whom we have to share heaven. Do you think you might want to request a transfer?

[JSDude1]

I have a problem with anyone being a priest (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox) if they have not recieved Christ as savior AND Lord, and therefore repented of their sins whaever they may be, lust, gay, alcoholism, hatefulness or any other sin named or unamed. And the post above is correct: WE are ALL SINNERS, unless we have repented, and said: Christ save me, now I want to follow you for the rest of my life whether that be giving up everything that I want in life or not :)!!! Many do not want to hear this be we as humans all deserve death and eternal punishment for our sins (Have You Personally EVER broken one of the 10 Commandments???) I have that is why Christ died for You and ME so that if I recieve His forgiveness, and am willing to give him my life as a result then we can be saved from the eternal punishmen in hell that we would otherwise deserve from a JUST(ICE) GOD that can not tollerate any sin; The sin is therefore "wiped away" but Christs sacrifice, and we do not deserve it: MAKE NO MISTAKE YOU AND I DESERVE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN EVERLASTING FIRE: CHRIST CAN SAVE US: It's your choice.

[Blake#1]

You are ignorant of the facts on J. Edgar Hoover! The smear was in a Baltimore newspaper made up by a "commie lover" You can find this in Google.