Posted on 07/22/2006 7:06:59 AM PDT by NYer
Aw dang, Jeff, you caught us red-handed!Trying to Hook More Youths on Priesthood
In this era of Eminem and Britney Spears, of sexy sitcoms and sexier commercials, of high-speed Internet and instant gratification, a life of celibacy devoted to God can be a hard sell to a teenager.
So as the nation's Roman Catholic leaders gathered recently and watched a video called "Fishers of Men," designed to draw young men to the priesthood, they had good reason to worry about the future of their chosen way of life.
Church leaders have long been aware of the statistics. There are now about 43,000 Catholic priests in America, down from more than 58,000 in 1965. As the U.S. Catholic population has risen to about 70 million, more churches have had to share priests.
What receives less attention is that the men who go into the seminary generally don't do so until later in life. The average age of newly ordained priests was 36 last year, up from 28 in the 1960s and 26 in the 1940s.
...
Observers of vocational trends say more effort is needed now because of smaller families, with parents who want grandchildren; a secularized culture wary of lifetime commitment and celibacy; Catholic assimilation in America; and increased family mobility, which detracts from parish loyalties. [More...]
Now you do.
Jesus practices celibacy because he wasn't married. Jesus never taught against marriage.
You challenged him to produce the information, then you get all pissy when he does. LOL
As for "OT personal attack," it seems to me it's entirely ON topic to expose this bit of hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy?
LOL
Excuse me but how is it a personal attack when I have used your own words? I am merely trying to show you that you support abortion, don't want kids, yet it is okay for you to (almost on a daily basis) attack the Church on celibacy and its priests trying to enforce on us that they are somehow suppose to have children but you're not to suppose to? Why are you exempt from the command Thou shall not Kill and to go forth and multiply?
If you can explain that to me, I am willing to listen.
Did you read my post 62? FJ290 was the one who twice now has introduced personal attacks into a thread.
Where have I ever said I supported abortion or bragged about not wanting kids. You may think you know my heart but all you do in these threads is attack me personally. How honorably Christian of you. If that's the kind of Christianity you are offering you can forget it if I'm not taking it.
"Why are you exempt from the command Thou shall not Kill and to go forth and multiply?"
Did you miss the part where I stated I can't because of medical reasons? How is that sinful?
I challenge you to show me a personal attack. Where have I called you out of your name? What I have done is exposed where you are preaching what you don't practice yourself.
That's right. You accused me of "bragging" of not wanting kids and then posted some comments I made from other threads which don't support your argument.
Again, you must of missed the part where I, for the third time, have stated I can't produce children because of medical reasons.
I have a medical reason why I can't produce children, why are priests celibate when Timothy teaches against it?
LOL! Did you miss the part in your own post where you said you and your husband made a mutual decision not to have kids when you originally thought you did want them? Let me show you again:
"It took me 28 years to find Prince Charming and I was extrememly picky. I even thought at the time when I walked down the aisle that I wanted kids. After we had been married a few years we made a mutual decision to be childless."
Do you take us all for a bunch of idiots?
Dear AnAmericanMother,
"Well, I'm sure some bishops were acting with the best of intentions, believing that they were doing the right thing. On the other hand, there were homosexual or sympathizing clerics who wanted to cover for their buddies."
Yup. There were both types, and perhaps even a third.
A lot of smaller dioceses didn't run into the problem frequently. Even some larger dioceses weren't exactly swamped with molestors. The Archdiocese of Baltimore a few years ago published a list of all cases from the 1920s on up to the current day. There were around 80 or 90 cases, as I recall. Thus, even in this larger archdiocese, dealing with the molestors wasn't a frequent event.
I think a lot of the errors committed were made by bishops acting in good faith who just didn't have much experience with the problem, and many of them didn't do a very good job.
Yet, there are some bishops who appear to have perhaps been caught up the in the "lifestyle" themselves, and the culpability of these is likely far greater.
Finally, there WERE bishops who saw a lot of cases come through their chanceries (Cardinal Law comes to mind), and these men for whatever reason, continued to make the same errors over and over, and with great frequency.
These two latter groups deserved harsh punishment.
sitetest
"LOL! Did you miss the part in your own post where you said you and your husband made a mutual decision not to have kids when you originally thought you did want them?"
That's right I did say that. And right off the bat from the first day of marriage, 16 years ago, it wasn't medically possible.
Your charge of my "bragging" about it is OT and out of line.
Not mine; you came to the same conclusion! Sometimes we just don't like what they say, do we?
Not really!
You made that post just last year and in it you did NOT mention any medical problems that prevented you from conceiving. You said originally you wanted kids, but after a few years of marriage you and your husband made a MUTUAL decision not to have any.
I'm not going to argue anymore about this. I believe the proof is in your own words. Let the chips fall where they may.
Then take your sunglasses off, LOL!
"You made that post just last year and in it you did NOT mention any medical problems that prevented you from conceiving. You said originally you wanted kids, but after a few years of marriage you and your husband made a MUTUAL decision not to have any."
That's right. We talked about having children BEFORE we were married.
"I'm not going to argue anymore about this. I believe the proof is in your own words. Let the chips fall where they may."
Proof of what? That I am taking you for an idiot?
Dear marajade,
"Law Enforcement didn't want the Church to report the crimes of priests committing the crimes of sexual molestation of minors?"
No, in many places, at many times, no they did not. Nor did folks in law enforcement necessarily want to get involved in exposing the crimes of judges, legislators, or other powerful interests. Today, it's popular to beat up on the Catholic Church, and there are those who will take every opportunity provided, whether legitimate or not.
But 30 and 40 years ago, often the Catholic Church benefited from the great silence and looking away that have benefited other powerful institutions and people. Folks in the know didn't only look away from the sins of the Kennedys or FDR.
"Where is this cited?"
Much of it has been cited here on FreeRepublic, from other sources. If you were to go back through some of the threads here on the Religion Forum from 2002 and earlier, you might be able to dig up some of that stuff.
In any event, I used to work in the mental health field, thus I remember first hand when the "rules," both written and unwritten, were changing. I remember when laws were changed to require health care workers to report suspected child abuse. This was controversial to many. Up until that time (early 1980s), it was believed that the best way to handle these incidents was privately and informally. It was thought to be better for the victim, the families, and the offenders.
This conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong all the way around, but nonetheless, that's what folks believed going back 30 years or more.
sitetest
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.