Posted on 04/18/2002 10:46:10 AM PDT by Rum Tum Tugger
Anyway the next time you talk to one of your many priest friends ask them if they don't find it hard to live and be sustained by lies. I really think they would enhance their self esteem if they left,and lived an "authentic" life.
Here, Here! I'll second that! and a very big AMEN! :)
For the record, I have yet to meet any priest, who in his own way, however flawed, is not trying to do the best he can for the Church. Disgusted as I am, I think that the recent problems are the result of bishops being overwhelmed, and not having the guts to make unpleasant decisions. Enron's auditors are among the many who could sing a similar tune.
All Protestant Christians are actually more "Catholic" than this anti-Christian NCR mob.
Just last week I heard the Eucharistic Prayer changed to incorporate a "community in communion with one another" as the primary reason for our Sunday celebration. I frequently hear of the miracles Jesus performed as not miracles at all but just a way of getting people to share. When the abbot of the shrine of of Our Lady of Guadalupe made some remarks questioning the truth of the events,many Anglo priests here jumped at that and were oh,so concerned about how to tell these simple Hispanic believers that their favorite event probably did not occur. It was pathetic to listen to the priests feigned concern over this. They could hardly contain their glee. I guess I was conditioned to respond to your remark from my experience with priests who consider themselves "prophets".
Well,if you run into those kinds of priest tell them to do the honest thing and leave. They should preach the truth as they see it from someone else's pulpit.
True, when it comes to biblical precepts.
But when it comes to history and development of such precepts, most protestants I encounter sound exactly like this article. They seemed bent on undermining the Church! Why don't these NCR mob just go away and join the protestants?
Notice that in this article, they have no mention at all of the Lord's reference to the "eunuchs for the kingdom" Mt 9:12 but instead, simplemindedly reduced the celibacy evangelican counsel to a matter of money.
How sad that NCR even considers itself Catholic!
That it is a human policy is true.
Celibacy is not a "purely human policy" but an evangelical counsel, based on the Bible.
"Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it is given...There are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can." Mt: 19:12
Presumably, those who enter the priesthood think they can, and therefore they accept it. Those who cannot accept this requirement of the Church should not enter the priesthood.
And that's ALL RIGHT. There have been plenty of married Cathoic people have been proclaiming Jesus Christ for generations. And married protestant ministers have also been doing such great job - really great jobs - preaching the Gospel.
But this article misses the point when it says it's all about money. How pathetic!
God bless.
And the New York Times considers itself a fair, unbiased, objective newspaper committed to reporting the truth. Go figure!
But in the process of addressing this, how do we prevent hysteria from taking over, like happened in the McMartin madness, the "pedophiles under the bed" frenzy that gripped many communities several years ago? Most of those allegations proved totally bogus. Several innocent lives were ruined. How do we protect good priests from the disgruntled, the anti-Catholic bigot, and the mentally disturbed? How do we dispassionately review allegations? Remember, men who enter the priesthood essentially give up everything for God, and all they have left are their reputations. It would be a terrible injustice to allow them to be smeared with such ugly charges without a reasonable chace at fair review.
Then there is the issue of recent, or ongoing acts versus those that happened many years ago. It appears that many acts occurred during the "let it all hang out" era of the sixties and seventies. Many of these persons have subsequently repented, or grown up, and now are straight and narrow. Should they be punished for a 30 year old act? If there still is criminal liability, yes. But if not? I don't know. They should probably be kept from minors to be safe, but can they contribute positively in other ways? I would hope so.
Like so may things in life, it's not that there is no right or wrong, but that there are so many subdivisions in which right and wrong have to be determined. I hope that when the bishops meet later in Texas they will carefully consider all the ramifications of this scandal, and that the spirit will be with them in their decisions.
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.