Posted on 10/07/2005 9:08:56 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
That's crap. It's maybe driven plenty to have affairs, even forsake their orders, but if they weren't homos before they started, celibacy didn't make them so.
Why didn't you speak to your own mother about converting? Or did you not feel up to the task?
It's simple to do, really. Just take your mother to church, to experience the Eucharist.
It's almost amuzing that you assume I didn't talk to my mother about it. The fact is I did, and I took her to church with me a lot. The point is I would have liked the tiniest bit of support from "my" church and received none. I guess I never really accepted the fact that the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church" isn't missionary and never tries to convert anyone (that's something the "rednecks" do based on "Biblical literalism"). Nope, turns out the Catholic Church converted people up until Ireland and since then has relied on sexual reproduction among the "right people" (Poles, Irish, Latins, Hispanics) to keep going.
Way to go for your first groundless and ignorant assumption.
Speaking of the Eucharist, I notice you didn't, in your post. Did the sacraments mean anything to you while you were Catholic? I notice you place a great stock in the literal interpretation of Scripture, but you say nothing about the very literal signs of God's presence in our lives, the seven sacraments.
You say nothing about Jesus' real presence in the Eucharist, yet, for some reason, you are in a huff that Jonah may not be accepted as a real person.
Groundless assumption number two. I was baptized by intinction (contrary to everything I had been taught by my culture), was confirmed, and took communion as often as I could. I even made a special point to take the cup because I was from a teetotalling tradition and I wanted to make my faith in the transubstantiation of the wine manifest to the world (but I gave it up when I learned that communion via the cup is "left wing").
And it just so happens that I did believe in the Real Presence. In fact, because of my own literalistic heritage it was no problem at all. But I never understood why one literalism had to drive out another. Exactly how does Jonah threaten your Church again?
Furthermore, may I add that you have no idea whatsoever of what I went through for six years trying my best not only to understand but to submit to your darling bishops. I spent a great deal of time reading articles in the Catholic Encyclopaedia in a local university library to learn things I wasn't taught in catechumenate class. The only things I absolutely refused to submit on were the literal truth of the Bible and Israel, because on those two issues my conscience would simply not allow me to compromise.
You have no idea what it was like being at a major secular university and turning to "my" church for help against all the higher criticism and being told instead to get out (and on a holy day at that, which mean I had to go immediately to church after being told this). You have no idea how bad and wicked I was made to feel because I "wasn't a real Catholic" because my conscience would not allow me to jettison Genesis and Jonah while hypocritically adding new literalisms.
You are quite the hypocrite, you know that?
So Mr. Sinkspur, was Juan Diego an evolutionist like you, or is silly irrational supernaturalism more palatable on the part of quaint little brown people? If I painted myself and adopted a funny accent would you be making these ignorant comments about me?
You, sir, are an intolerable know-it-all blowhard.
-A8
Believe me, many of those 200,000 have had to fight their way in. I have had Orthodox and Protestant friends who wanted to become Catholic and were told to stay with their own churches because the local liberal parish didn't believe in making - shudder - converts. Truth never entered into the equation; but then, liberals are not particularly interested in the truth.
Very difficult to gather any reliable research data on that. But the Church Doctrine, Teaching, and Law, as you well know, my dear Sinkspur, is there to set forth an ideal, and just because it cannot be perfectly enforced at all times is no reason to give in and condone it.
This is NOT HOMO BASHING. They just shouldn't be priests. If that means the Church has fewer priests, so be it.
God bless you for your passion - May He lead you where you need to be and may you have the courage to follow His lead.
Your Catholic brother,
A_R
Historically, abstaining from sexual intercourse would have been understood to be the necessary implication of choosing not to marry, given the common understanding of the virtue of chastity.
-A8
I'm very sorry to confront you like this, but if you took the sort of angry, aggressive tone with the Fathers and the Bishops that you are taking here, I'm not surprised they told you to get out.
Oh, I don't know . . . could it be because in the absence of an Objective G-d all "morality" is nothing but subjective hang-ups of either individuals or societies?
But I suppose it depends on how you define morality. And since the actual definition of morality is adherence to Divine decrees . . .
No, you don't know what we're talking about.
The subject is the use of the word "celibacy" in the context of a Catholic theological pronouncement - a pronouncement that will be written in Latin.
In theological discussion, the word "celibacy" has a very specific meaning.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is what got the American branch of the Roman Catholic Church into the sex abuse scandal. Continuing with that policy doesn't make much sense but is what will happen because Benedict XVI has the same opinion of this issue as John Paul II.
Converts practically have to fight to get into the Church. I have met many people who have had this experience.
I entered the Church on my own initiative (which is the only way, aside from being born Irish or Italian that one can get in). And Catholicism certainly practices what it preaches on this one issue, since it condemns missionary activity by other churches and doesn't engage in them itself. In fact, Catholicism and Judaism seem identical on this one issue (but that doesn't stop Catholics from hypocritically condemning Jews for being anti-missionary).
Perhaps you will explain to me why the Catholic Church has no problem with the millions of superstitious and illiterate peasants that have always made up the bulk of its membership while being absolutely allergic to Anglo-American peasants whose "superstition" consists of the Bible being literally true. Why is everyone welcome except Biblical literalists? And why are poor rural Heartland Anglo-American Fundamentalists any more stupid than Juan Diego or those Italians who wrap snakes around some saint's statue every year? Would you please explain that to me?
Are you afraid we'll all turn into Oliver Cromwell and start hanging you from lampposts?
Somebody actually told you that you weren't a Catholic because you believed in a literal interpretation of Scripture? I find that very hard to believe, but, if it did happen, it shouldn't have. You are free to believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture if you wish. It is not an article of Faith, one way or the other.
So Mr. Sinkspur, was Juan Diego an evolutionist like you, or is silly irrational supernaturalism more palatable on the part of quaint little brown people? If I painted myself and adopted a funny accent would you be making these ignorant comments about me?
You should get some help. You are cheesed off for no good reason, and it has caused you to speak and think irrationally.
You were never required, as a matter of faith, to give up your belief in a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Where Israel fits into this whole deal is beyond my understanding.
The Church is being practical. There is simply no reliable way to judge who is, and who is not, a homosexual if the homosexual chooses not to reveal it.
Beyond that, there is ample evidence that celibate homosexuals have served the Church honorably throughout history and today.
Converts practically have to fight to get into the Church.
That has not been my experience, AT ALL.
If what you say is true, how come the number of Catholics is growing, dramatically, every year? Over 200,000 people came into the Catholic Church in the United States last year. That's pretty impressive.
Yes, but those converts 1)had to initiate the process themselves and 2)are over-educated high-@ssed individuals who won't embarrass your Church (which can't stand the thought of American white trash but thinks illiterate Hispanics in New Mexico who crucify themselves are just darling little things).
Your Church has no use for and would be embarrassed by simple people who believe the universe was created in six days. Now, liquefying blood or bilocation or saints who slew dragons are a different matter!
Fine. Just don't be surprised when this article, and Allen's, turn out to be true.
Hmmm... I have no reason to argue with your thesis. I just think that the man who's calling is powerful to overcome the normal human need for physical companionship is very rare. I'm not enamored with Lay Eucharistic Ministers, but if that's what it takes to get the truly, truly called into the Priesthood, then I must accept it.
High praise, that!
You, Campion, defending someone who "isn't really Catholic" because he interprets the Bible literally and therefore just has to be some sort of Judaizing/Protestant borer-from-within?
Wideawake simply must be Irish if he can get away with this!
This is a racist rant. It is beneath you. You should get off of FR until you can control yourself.
Please don't post this bilge to me again.
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.