Posted on 07/08/2005 10:41:30 PM PDT by gamarob1
Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Acting outside the Catholic Church, many married priests are attracting a following.
BOSTON — The priests came from three states, converging on a suburban park one Sunday to conduct an outdoor Mass. Wearing white vestments with rainbow-hued stoles, they led the worshippers in prayer and song. They stuck closely to traditional Roman Catholic liturgy.
But as they raised their arms in blessing, the five men revealed unmistakable proof of defiance: All wore wedding bands.
These men, who still consider themselves Roman Catholic priests, have wives, children — and unflinching commitments to their 2,000-year-old faith. As married priests, they say, they are not heretical anomalies but, instead, are following a model set by priests and popes in the earliest days of their church. They are part of a growing national network of thousands of deeply religious men who believe marriage does not compromise their ability to serve as spiritual ministers.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
There is nothing in Scripture which indicates that his wife was still alive when he was called by Christ.
That's funny. Let's say I wanted to be a marine. But I also wanted to wear fashionable clothes rather than a uniform. Now I would be FORCED to wear a uniform in order to become a marine. That's what I'm talking about...
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (1 Cor 7:6)
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment." (1 Cor 7:25)
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife." (1 Tim 3:2)
"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Tim 3:12)
No argument there. Yet God chose him to be the apostle to the gentiles knowing full well what he would do. Now, why would he say that celibacy/chastity was better?
I spent a few good years in and around the Anglican world on my way to Orthodoxy. I also spent a couple good years attending Catholic churches and seriously exploring Catholicism. Not sure I get the point of your question, in any event.
You are probably correct about the terminology.
My point, again, was that the crisis is portrayed in the media as being one of pedophilia, when it is really a problem with homosexuality.
I agree.
Well, let me know whether it is a term of derision or a badge of pride, so I know what term is au courant... I'll try to keep up. :-)
I just browsed through all his posts from the past 6 months and didn't see the Orthodox Church mentioned once. So what has got you all riled up by my coreligionist?
sitetest: There is no such thing as a "homosexual" or "gay" unless you are referring to a person by a label based on their actions, as if they are somehow different from their sin of preference from another group of men who are "heterosexuals". "Homosexuality" is a construct of 19th century German study of sexual psychology, created by Richard Freiherr von Kraft-Ebing. It only exists in the mind of those who love labels of categorization.
In reality, there are perverted men who enjoy the sins of passive and active oral and rectal sodomy, and there are people who are free of this phyisco-mental sickness thanks to the grace of God.
The larger majority of those involved in these moral crimes would be called heterosexuals, because they practice them with women, having not had occasion to look into such feelings with a man. However, it is unclear in my mind how the female mouth or rectum is actually different from the male, and so what prevents someone accustomed to these crimes with women from seeking out the same with men should the feeling or limitation of choice push them in that direction. Hence, the propensity of many so-called "heterosexuals" to suddenly engage in "homosexual" acts in prisons, on ship, and in the armed forces. In reality, its the same perversion with a different person, the genitalia of that person ultimately being irrelevant, since it is not the point of interest of the sexual perversion.
It seems to me that even screening out so-called "homosexuals" ultimately does not do the job, as there are plenty of "heterosexuals" who've discovered a "homosexual" love interest when pushed in that direction by force of circumstance. We've discovered as much here in Philadelphia, where, despite the policy of excluding homosexuals from the seminary, we still have had priests bugerring boys.
I attribute this to poor moral formation, where certain tendencies in mid 20th century moral theology showed a willingness to look askance at male-male sexual sins. Thus Fr. Jone, writing of sodomy makes the claim: "The malice of sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex or in the attraction towards the wrong method of sexual gratification. If there is no such affection or attraction there is no question of sodomy, though two persons suffe emission from mutual touches or unnatural contact." (#228, p. 149). Further on: "Touching the semi-private parts of a person of the same sex is generally a venial sin at most." (#235, p. 155). And: "It is venially sinful to glance at the private parts of another of the same sex or to look at them out of curiosity ... to look at the private parts of a person of the opposite sex is gravely sinful, unless ... it is a question of little children." (#237, p. 156) Lastly, "Homosexuality is the abnormal sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex. It must be distinguished from the sins committed by persons of the same sex which are sometimes committed by those who have no occasion to have relations with persons of the opposite sex." (#243, p. 161) Then to top it all off, Fr. Jone refers us to the mitigating influence of passion, where antecedent concupiscence, which is the involuntary movement of the concupiscipble apetities "always lessens imputability and at times even destroys it entirelyy accordin as one is hindered in the use of his reason ... by passion." (#24 and 25, p. 9).
This sort of formation is not an encouragement of homosexual perversion per se, but rather, almost an invitation to use this sort of moral code to salve a guilty conscience and convince oneself one is still normal. Which is also probably why so many of the criminals in the Priesthood were ordained in the 1950's and 1960's well before the homosexual takeover of certain seminaries in the 1970's and early 1980's.
Roman Catholic is the proper term for both Latin and Eastern Catholics and all the Orthodox as well.
Long before there was an creature called an Anglican, Rome proscribed professions of faith for repentant heretics that included phrases such as "we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved." (Profession of Faith for the Waldensians). Similarly, in his famous letter of 1393 to the Russians, Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople stresses that the Emperor in Constantinople is "the Emperor of all the Romans, that is, all Christians."
Any Catholic who does not like being a Roman is hardly a Catholic, since they are two sides of the same universal society - the Empire and the Church. Romanitas is of the essence of the Orthodox Faith and the Catholic Church.
"But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment--and I think I also have the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 7:40)
And he thinks God would agree with him.
Being celibate does not guarantee one complete and uniterrupted devotion to God 24/7. Some of those who are sworn to celibacy wear their love for food, sports, even anger, and other passions which distract them from complete devotion to God, which separate them from Him. Even those sworn to celibacy continue to sin.
That's why monasticism is the backbone of Eastern Orthodoxy. Only when you have removed yourself from the distractions and passions of the world can you begin to devote all your time to God, in prayer. Celibacy, then, is only a part of complete denial of other passions, and not an end in intself.
I was already corrected and I said I was sorry, Hermann. The lumping of "schismatics" who are also "married" smacked of what has been leveled against the Orthodox before and not so long ago.
The gentleman below shared many verses that show that God assumes that most pastors will be married.
If you keep stretching that far, you're going to break something...
Bingo. It was only Paul's opinion, and he made it clear that it was just opinion, and not edict from God. God apparentely sees it differently, as most pastors in that time (and our time) are married...
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.