picture's worth a thousand words...colorful, really colorful.
Posted on 04/12/2005 7:31:36 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
Re: Fr. Martin, there are some excellent interviews with him by Bernard Janzen available on tape if you are interested. He gives a very good explanation of the crisis in the Church.
Agreed.
Bishop Gumbleton, a shining example of Rome's impotence in removing a true danger to the flock. He, along with his compatriot Cardinal Law, is an absolute travesty.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Started to read it, but have to finish it later. Very long, and if the rest is like the beginning, very stupid.
The reason "gays" want to be priests or other religious figures is this:
Priests and other religious authorities are considered to be more godly, more holy, and living more an ideal life. So if homosexuals can fill these roles, they are "in like flynn". They have arrived. Their sexual depravity is now whitewashed, and they are not only accepted, equal - but better.
Let DirtyHarryY2K and me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
BTW, does anyone know anything about this Bishop? Is he a homosexual? Can't imagine that he isn't, writing drivel which supports evil such as this.
picture's worth a thousand words...colorful, really colorful.
You have ceded too much territory to the homosexualists by accepting their confounding of the temptation ('orientation') with the sin ('practice').
The problem lies with the ordination of those who call evil 'good' and good 'evil', or who yield to grevious temptations, not with the ordination of those subject to any particular besetting temptation.
I have little doubt that for centuries, the Latin church (and for that matter the Orthodox church) has ordained men who suffer from temptations to all manner of sins from theft to sodomy, from wrath (which Our Lord equated with murder) to fornication. The problem besetting the Latin church arose when the gate-keeping at the seminaries, in terms of judging the stability of candidates for ordination, was passed to secular psychologists from those with traditional moral and religious sensibilities (who had typically discerned well which men were fitted for celibacy).
But, even if you concede most of his philosophical points, he still ignores the practical problems of allowing homosexual seminarians.
Has it never even occurred to him that the other men in the seminary deserve an environment conducive to their priestly formation? Or that having a homosexual subculture in the seminaries tends to undermine such an environment?
Having said that, I don't think homosexual men should be allowed to be ordained just as women shouldn't in the Catholic faith. Any other Christian faith which ordains women or gays is up to that church's policies. Not all homosexual men are pedophiles, but why drop a steak in front of the lion? An adolescent boy is just starting to explore his sexuality, and he shouldn't have Pastor Giggle-fingers exploring it for him.
IMO
THey just want to infiltrate even more than they did in Germany in the 30's. Hope it doesn't work!
Priests are not to be non-sexual. Sexuality is an integral part of the human person. The catechism says:
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others (2332).
To ask that a priest be non-sexual is to ask that he not be a human person. Celibacy is the manner in which the priest uses his sexuality. It enables him to sublimate that aspect of his personality into energy for the building up of the kingdom of Christ, which is the Church.
That being said, I understand what you are saying; and I agree that homosexuals should not be ordained simply because "sexuality affects all aspects of the human person."
I can't believe what I just read was written by someone who claims to be "Catholic."
Bishop/Preists/Men of the Cloth homosexuals who openly claim to believe "G-d made them that way," are blasphemers who are truly in denial of their own self deprecation. A member of any church heirachy who publically endorses what the Bible considers an "abomination," and deems importance in expressing that he had/has homosexual tendencies but "controls" it through faith, exhibits the characteristics of a religious phoney who seeks a political soap box to stand on. This man states that a bishop or priest who declares his/her celebacy while coming "out of the closet" at the same time, can benefit the church by openly admitting to their parishoners that they are in a sinful mindset at all times. What possible good can come of this?
IMO, this man is arrogant, as he and those like him require an audience to support their habit. They seek ultimate acceptance and adoration of their flawed nature from those who turn to them in their time of need. These are acts of vanity and pride, which are only but two of the seven deadly sins the writer has brazenly displayed. This type of person is unworthy of any position within the Catholic leadership, as his words declare he is a wolf among the sheep.
Want to knowe how this scandal happened? Just look at who is bishop.
The reason why the Vatican put an age limit on bishops. No fool like an old fool. Another reason why John Paul hung on as long as he could, so he could outlast men such as this guy. It is their generation that has brought ruin to the Church and naturally they will not assume responsibility.
Yeah, I'd be interested. Where do you find those?
And yes, Revel. I can see what you mean by the only one you considered 'legit'. I suppose there is nothing more supernatural than the nature of a truly spiritual man.
Ping.
The reason that the Church has not banned homosexual ordination is that priests have a vow of celibacy.
The "sin" is not the temptation to commit homosexual acts but the actual committing of a homosexual act.
So, the question becomes, "If a man believes that he is a homosexual and has homosexual urges but never gives into the temptation to commit a homosexual act, has he sinned?"
When are we beatifying Karl marx already. Bishop Gumbleton can't wait forever.
Is that true about the American bishops at V2? Anyone?
I don't know if was just the American bishops, but I do recall reading years ago that the "reformers" knew exactly what they wanted to push through and were prepared, Latin and all -- and got started right away, while the "outsiders" were "still finding their seats and brushing up their Latin."
Isn't Gumbleton one of the bishops Roman Catholic Faithful has been watching?
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.