Replies

Bigsigh,

You wrote: "Every child's first religion teacher is not his mother."

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?

"While Jesus may have been celibate and he asked his disciples to follow him, the church certainly took it's time making it the rule. So were they ignoring Jesus?"

No. The Church always had some celibate priests. It did not take its time in following Christ. It took its time in requiring a vow -- just as it should take its time in such an important decision.

"There is no proof that the church needs men as leaders just as there is no counter proof that they need women."

What? If there are no men to lead then who will? Not women. That isn't their role in the church.

"You're using illogic to try to put down the other poster's views."

No, I used sarcasm to put down to put down the other poster's views. I used no illogic. I leave that to you and them.

"Some of your comments are false and others are just misdirection."

And your examples are....? Yeah, just like I thought. None.

"It takes the church a few centuries to turn around."

Turn around from what? You are seemingly predicating this on a strange belief whatever that is. There is no problem with celibacy. There is nothing to turn around from. The vocations crisis has nothing to do with marriage or celibacy and has everything to do with the following:

1) worldly culture that emphasizes sex at every turn
2) lousy bishops who stopped doing their job 40 years ago
3) lousy seminary training that assumed seminarians would be allowed to marry any moment now (back in the 1960's!)
4) general idiocy from poorly catechized Catholics who, rather than support their priests in their celibacy, do everything they can to whine and attack it.
5) contraceptive mentality that made sex easy and "cheap," helped created our "presentist" culture soaked in sexuality, and led to ever smaller "Catholic" families that are terrified of their only son becoming a priest. When families had seven kids it was considered an honor to have a son join the priesthood.

That's why their is a vocations crisis. No where in that list did you see "marriage' or "celibacy" nor should you. If celibacy was the issue then there would have been a vocations crisis 100 years ago, or 300 years ago, etc. There were no such crises. Refute my logic if you can. I know you can't, but it might amuse us nonetheless.

"We have married priests now, but that's okay, is it?"

We've always had some married priests in the Church. Hello, earth to poorly catechized Catholic! Hello!

"When the church allows married priests, people like you will be stuck on go, and there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Uh, Bigsigh, the Church just said a big "NO" to married clergy. What part of that "NO" did you not understand? It isn't going to change. Vocations are up overall around the world. The "pressure" to have married clergy will actually lessen in years to come. GET OUT OF THE 1970'S !!!

"But the conclusion will be, it was a stupid rule and it will be forgotten a few years later."

A thousand year old rule will be forgotten? You are clueless. Just about every saint you ever heard of being canonized was celibate. Think of a parish church. It was probably named after a celibate saint. All the great missionaries? Celibate. All the popes of the last however many centuries? Celibate. If you think that is all going to go away in a few years than you really are out of touch. Again, orthodox seminaries are almost all full -- even in the Western world. Wake up! A parish ninety minutes from me has produced something like 60 vocations in 40 or so years. They have had the same CELIBATE priest throughout that whole time. Gee, I wonder how he did it without being married and without having women run the parish?

Bigsigh, the 1970's called they would like their malaise, cynicism, and weakness back.

In a christian family, every first religion teacher is not always the mother. You make a statement which is untrue statistically, practically and every other way. You start with an exaggeration and you want us to believe your other statements? Then you repeat it as if it is a law of nature.

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.