Posted on 10/22/2005 2:09:46 PM PDT by gpapa
Don't bet on that. The African bishops were not keen on the idea of sending priests abroad, primarily because, they said, THEIR OWN GROWTH would need those priests within a few years.
The United States is not the country in dire need; it is Latin America that needs priests. The evangelicals are attracting Catholics in large numbers due to the community leaders who have the status of being "ordained" ministers in those communities.
Nope. I just see no reason to pretend that this is some how open to discussion in the Church when it isn't.
LOL! It was just OPEN TO DISCUSSION, at the Synod. And, now that it's been discussed, expect the discussion to continue.
Surely you're kidding. Try Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing or Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse.
Or, for a real biggie, how about the Salvation Army?
"How Catholic Charities USA Turned from a Revered Institution into an Arm of the Welfare State"
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/9/story_970_1.html
by Brian C. Anderson
"Catholic Charities received nearly a quarter of its funding from government by the end of the 60s, over half by the late 70s, and more than 60 percent by the mid-80s, where it has remained ever since.
Rather than trying to promote traditional values and God-fearing behavior, Catholic Charities has become over the last three decades an arm of the welfare state, with 65 percent of its $2.3 billion annual budget now flowing from government sources and little that is explicitly religious, or even values-laden, about most of the services its 1,400 member agencies and 46,000 paid employees provide."
Hey buddy, this is still America. I can state my opinions all I want. If you think they're ignorant, that's your problem. If you don't like it, I hear North Korea and France are recruiting.
There are Catholics on this board who are under the delusion that only Catholics can talk about the Catholic Church.
They'll give their opinions all day long about the Baptists, or Presbyterians, or, especially, the Episcopalians.
But you are NOT, under any circumstances, to say a word in criticism of the Catholic Church.
Ignore them.
I'm sure they may get food money, but a living wage?
Diocesan Priests........yes...... a living wage. No, I don't know how much. That might depend on their assignment, their Bishop, etc. I know a Diocesan Priest who has his own Airplane. Airplane maintenance alone, not to mention the cost of the plane itself, along with hangar fees, fuel, insurance, etc...is not cheap. I know. We have one too. Another priest I know bought a brand new BMW. Another priest I used to know had a 4 bedroom house at the lake in the Ozarks. Not his family's property. He bought it himself. These are (once again) men who do NOT belong to any particular order. Their boss is the Bishop of the diocese in which they serve.
Then keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
Well, that's not called for. If someone wants to understand something about the Church, we should explain it to them, not call them ignorant. If we don't have an answer to a particular question or a mistaken idea, we certainly know where to get the answers. Dialogue is a good thing.
And where does the money go? The Catholic Church is far more active in charitable works. I've never heard of a Baptist or other Protestant charity of any note.
You think the Catholics have the corner on the charity market? Friend, you need to get out more. Metropolitan Lutheran Ministries does a great deal of good works in cities across America. Ever hear of the Salvation Army? Just do a search on religious charities. You'll find hundreds of them.
Sinkspur,
You wrote: "Don't bet on that. The African bishops were not keen on the idea of sending priests abroad, primarily because, they said, THEIR OWN GROWTH would need those priests within a few years."
Nonsense. There are numerous foreign priests in my diocese and no end to the priests from Poland and Africa.
"The United States is not the country in dire need; it is Latin America that needs priests. The evangelicals are attracting Catholics in large numbers due to the community leaders who have the status of being "ordained" ministers in those communities."
And yet vocations have skyrocketed in Latin America and will continue to do so.
"LOL! It was just OPEN TO DISCUSSION, at the Synod. And, now that it's been discussed, expect the discussion to continue."
No, it will not continue and really never started. A few speeches, unheeded and even derided by those who know better, is tnot a discussion.
http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2001/mar2001p6_149.html
Of course, there were celibate priests, that wasn't my point. Either you need a logic course or your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said there weren't. I said the church did not reqiore it for centuries, so why didn't they follow Jesus's teachings which you cited in your original comment?
Women can lead as well as men. If all the men in the church disappeared, the church would survive. Your comment is ignorant, unprovable, and counterintuitive.
I'm not basing the church changing on any of that nonsense you made up. I'm basing it on historical changes in the church itself. If you are unaware of church history, read, and stop grabbing modern day societal problems and using that to show the church will not change.
Unless you can come back weith something intelligible, I'm finished with you.
Yes, they've got the same one that's been in place with the Orthodox Christian Church since the time of the Councils. The odd thing is that it is allowed to operate within the Roman Catholic Church without doing any apparent harm to the larger body.
Followed on January 22, 1973 by Roe vs. Wade
Bigsigh,
"In a christian family, every first religion teacher is not always the mother."
Yeah, sure. Did I say always? No. Is it true almost every, single time anyway? Yes. You are straining at gnats Bigsigh. Make a real point or stop pretending to be worthy of being taken seriously. Show me examples of Christian families where mom is not the one who first teaches the child about God. Go ahead and post some actual evidence for a change.
"You make a statement which is untrue statistically,.."
Really? Okay, post the statistics that proves me wrong. When you can't will we know you to be full of hot air?
"... practically and every other way."
So it is Dad who commonly stays home with the child in those first few weeks? Are you for real? You are embarrassing yourself Bigsigh.
"You start with an exaggeration and you want us to believe your other statements?"
Prove even my "exaggeration" wrong. Can you? Why haven't you even tried? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument that shows what I said was untrue? All you are doing is whinning. How about a reasonable argument? How about some evidence? Is that too much to ask?
"Then you repeat it as if it is a law of nature."
What I said is true. You deny it but don't offer even a logical argument as to how it is untrue. Why is that? I also did not merely repeat the comment Bigsigh. I pointed out the following: "In a Christian family yes it is so. While dad is off at work, who prays with the child? Who teaches him to make the sign of the cross from infancy?" And your evidence to the contrary was what? Zip.
"Of course, there were celibate priests, that wasn't my point. Either you need a logic course or your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said there weren't. I said the church did not reqiore it for centuries, so why didn't they follow Jesus's teachings which you cited in your original comment?"
You are the one who needs the logic course. I never said that Jesus taught that priests had to be celibate. Why are you creating a straw man? Your point that it took the Church a long time to follow Christ's teaching is moronic because it is untrue since there was no such teaching from Jesus nor did I ever claim there was; is a rejoinder to no point made against it; and has nothing to do with the issue anyway. Didn't that even occur to you?
"Women can lead as well as men."
Not as priests they can't. Only men can be priests. Women can be priestesses, but they never existed in Judaism or Christianity. Thus, women cannot be priests as well as men because they can't be priests at all. It is a physical impossibility.
"If all the men in the church disappeared, the church would survive. Your comment is ignorant, unprovable, and counterintuitive."
No. I made no ignorant comment. I also made no unprovable comment if you simply use common sense. I have also posted links to evidnece in some cases and you have given us NOTHING. Also, counterintuitive does not mean automatically erroneous. Intuition can be wrong. I have said nothing that is counterintuitive, however. Notice how you offered not even one example? Why is that?
"I'm not basing the church changing on any of that nonsense you made up. I'm basing it on historical changes in the church itself. If you are unaware of church history, read, and stop grabbing modern day societal problems and using that to show the church will not change."
Hey, rocket scientist, I am a professional Church historian. I know more about Church history than you will ever know. And the Church won't change either. Get a clue.
"Unless you can come back weith something intelligible, I'm finished with you."
You have yet to post ANYTHING intelligent or intelligible Bigsigh. Claims you've made? Many. Proof of said claims from you? Zero. You're not doing too well here Bigsigh. I know you have to leave. You're afraid to embarrass yourself further. I pity you in your ignorance.
"EVERY child's first religion teacher is his mother, for instance." I pointed it out twice and you denied it twice. Please don't waste any more band width. Good-bye.
First of all celibacy is a fairly recent Vatican policy in the grand scheme of things. If you think Priests have been required to be celibate for 1950 years, you might want to check your history.
As far as the problems go. Yes, part of the problem has to be that there is much less stigma attached to deviant behavior than there was 50 or 100 years ago.
But given the fact that there are married priests in the Catholic Church today and they don't present a problem, why continue to exclude from the priesthood the segment of society least likely to victimize children. Married men.
Bigsigh,
You wrote: "Just to show how dishonest or forgetful you are, here's the answer to your first comment and then I won't waste my time any more on your personal interpretation of church history and your denial of your own remarks."
I don't give personal interpretations of Church history on this issue. The Church has said the same thing. Look for it and you'll see it. Also, your citing of my own words doesn't change the veracity of what I said. Provide evidence that what I said was wrong. Can you? Stop dodging and actually post evidence that I am wrong. My comment is still true. You provided no evidence or examples to the contrary.
"I pointed it out twice and you denied it twice."
No, you did not point out the supposedly offending statement. You merely alluded to something without evidence. Why can't you be honest?
"Please don't waste any more band width. Good-bye."
I never waste band width. You waste much more than that.
My comment is still true. SAD.
Oh yes I agree. But the problem was born of ignorance, arrogance, and poor thinking on the part of people who should know better. rbg81 was insinuating that the hiring and retaining of pedophile and or gay priests was DELIBERATE as if it was HOPED FOR, EXPECTED and seen as a positive good that little Catholic boys would be molested by their parish priest. Rbg81 was insinuating that it was seen as a positive thing that there be gay activities among priests. And he was saying that married priests are not being permitted so that the priesthood would remain a gay club. And that of course is not the reason and he knows it.
He could have just said, "I don't understand why they are not allowing priests to marry given the scandals they have had in the past." But he had to get in a nasty dig so he could vent some hostility or whatever your problem is with the Catholic Church and hopefully offend some Catholics in the process.
So while the messenger does not deserve to be killed he needed to be called out.
Bigsigh,
Yes, you're pretty sad -- you can't even offer evidence or logic for what you deny.
That's just dandy. Gay priests are still in; married priests are still out.
Same Old Same Old.
We paid their airfares to Rome for this?
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.