Conditioned. Nice. How Gramscian! Hillary would be proud.
Oh, and don't quote AP polls, especially those which do not distinguish Catholic faithful from nominal Catholics (CINOs). How would Teddy Kennedy and Frances Kissling vote?
Posted on 10/22/2005 2:09:46 PM PDT by gpapa
Oh, and are these numbers supposedly being divided among families attending mass, or families registered at, this phantom parish of yours?
Ask your pastor how many families actually give to your Church (this can be measured by how many use weekly envelopes, or use a credit card for monthly or weekly donations). He'll know, and I'll bet he will tell you.
Then come back and share it with us. There may some differences here and there, but most suburban parishes are supported by less than a third of those who attend Mass or are registered.
You'll understand if, again, I don't simply take your word for it.
Assuming arguendo that it is true, it represents poor cathechesis of the faithful.
Registered. But, interestingly, there ARE families who donate to the parish but attend mass infrequently.
That does not constitute documentation of the numbers you claim, nor does it answer the other questions I asked, nor would two parishes establish any better than one the truth on the whole.
Registered, not attending?
LOL
Why? Any parish that has a married deacon provides fertile ground for most Catholics to realize that it's not that much further to envision a married priest.
I will leave it to you to do a little informal survey of Catholics you know, of various age groups.
I would bet that you'll find that a large number, if not a majority, would support the ordination of married men to the priesthood.
I suspect all the documentation in the world would not satisfy you. But it is simply fantasy to maintain that Catholics give anywhere near in the percentages or the amounts that Protestants (especially Baptists) do.
Camel's head in the tent, eh?
Pick and erode, pick and erode. Just the way Hillary wants to pull America into evermore-pure socialism, so to do you AmChurch lefties want to water down the Liturgy until it is unrecognizable.
So sad, by the way, about your desperate predictions (hopes) that Ratzinger would never become Pope. One more conservative the AmChurchies will have to outlive.
You will, again, understand if I don't take your word for it, no matter how intense the modifier you use.
Protestants gave away an average of 57% more money than did Catholics ($1379 compared to $878).
Registered or attending?
And the relevance to a discussion of married clergy?
This is a strange statement. Permanent deacons who could be married were re-instituted by Vatican II, and given final approval by Pope Paul VI. There are over 15,000 in the United States.
How a Vatican-sanctioned reinstitution of a very ancient office amounts to "watering down the Liturgy" makes no sense to me.
So sad, by the way, about your desperate predictions (hopes) that Ratzinger would never become Pope. One more conservative the AmChurchies will have to outlive.
Ratzinger is proving to be a very good Pope. Unlike John Paul II, at least Benedict XVI allows bishops to freely discuss issues in the Church. He will likely yield some surprises for everybody.
What a magnificent strawman!
But this is a discussion of married priests, not deacons.
So how is it handled for the wives and children of the married priests (see the reference to converts and Unitates above) already in the Roman Catholic Church? Why is it that this method could not be expanded?
But this is a discussion of married priests, not deacons.
And I attempted to show that Catholics have been conditioned to accept married clergy, especially those in parishes with married deacons.
Here's just one poll, taken this year, about American and Catholic attitudes toward married priests:
Sixty-nine percent of Americans and 60 percent of U.S. Catholics said the next pope should change church policies to allow priests to marry, while 25 percent of all Americans and 36 percent of Catholics said they preferred no change.
Gentlemen, diocesan priests (those who report to a specific bishop in a geographical area) do NOT take vows of poverty. That's why they're allowed to own their own cars, private property, and keep their own bank accounts.
Married Anglican and Lutheran converts have been very well accepted in the Church. And, yes, that experience could be expanded, should those in authority ever desire to do so.
Conditioned. Nice. How Gramscian! Hillary would be proud.
Oh, and don't quote AP polls, especially those which do not distinguish Catholic faithful from nominal Catholics (CINOs). How would Teddy Kennedy and Frances Kissling vote?
The Evangelical Protestant churches are THRIVING with married pastors who have wives and children. These are pro-life conservatives who are Republicans. The gays in the hierarchy of the Catholic church will never give up their power until the shortage of priests becomes a factor.
It has become an exclusive club of men who want to spend their life living with men. Men in favor of celibacy should ask themselves why they didn't become priests.
Celibacy is a good thing for the other guy, you see.
Married men would bring a positive dimension to the priesthood, in more ways than one.
One thing it would certainly do is help rid the priesthood of the increasing notion that it is a gay profession.
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.