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...]
Please provide a link for me okay? If I remember correctly, for most social worker types, reporting abuse was mandatory upon condition of employment.
Still doesn't answer why the Church ignored Romans 13:1.
BTW, why you believe its my medical condition as to why I can't follow God's commandment of producing children?
Since you say you know me so well and all.
Dear marajade,
If you want to go researching, go help yourself. I'm not going to do the legwork for you.
"If I remember correctly, for most social worker types, reporting abuse was mandatory upon condition of employment."
It's the law. Now, at least. It wasn't always.
"Still doesn't answer why the Church ignored Romans 13:1."
Actually, it vitiates one of the premises of your false statement. As well, others have adequately addressed most of the other false premises therein.
sitetest
Marajade, I can prove that one too.
To: MillerCreek
Why can't homosexuals be conservatives? I'm pro abortion myself and would still consider myself to be conservative. You are pigeon holing people.
608 posted on 01/31/2006 2:55:19 PM EST by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
From thread: Broke Back Mountain Gets 8 Oscar Nominations
Actually the condition of employment that abuse be reported by social worker types is in support of Romans 13:1 is it not?
Try reading what I wrote again, with an eye to comprehension.
I'm in support of Roe v. Wade. I believe its a personal choice that women ought to have for themselves. Its not a personal choice I would make because I believe its murder.
Try again.
Um no, I read the scriptures you cited and they are about God's will.
Dear marajade,
"I'm in support of Roe v. Wade. I believe its a personal choice that women ought to have for themselves. Its not a personal choice I would make because I believe its murder."
So you believe that women should have a personal choice... to legally procure murder?
Can we change the laws so I can have the personal choice to legally rob banks?
sitetest
"So you believe that women should have a personal choice... to legally procure murder?"
I believe there are legitimate medical necessary reasons for abortion.
Wow. More things that differ from the Bible. Hebrews 5:1-4
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
How was Aaron called? I believe in Exodus Chapter 28 it is clear.
1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons...
41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office.
Moses approached them as he was commanded to do. Jesus approached his apostles. John 15:16 is very clear on this.
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Based on these I believe God does the choosing.
You made no such concessions in post #124 where you just said you were pro-abortion.
I would but the sun is way too bright!!! LOL
Why would I have to put such disclaimer in every single post in relation to an abortion thread?
Dear marajade,
So you believe there are legitimate medical reasons for murdering an innocent human being. Okay, let's lay that one aside for a moment.
Should the law then permit abortion in only those cases where a woman has a legitimate medical reason?
What about when a woman believes she can't afford another baby. What about when a woman believes that having a baby would interfere with a goal like finishing college, or going to the prom. What if a woman believes she just doesn't want to be a mother?
Should women have a legal right to procure murder under these circumstances?
Remember, Roe v. Wade, along with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, and the machinery of death jurisprudence that has grown up around these cases, permits an absolutely unlimited abortion license for any reason whatsoever at any time up until the baby is completely and entirely removed from within her mother. Even if the baby's legs, torso, arms, and neck are already born, if the baby's head is still within her mother, the baby may be legally killed. For any reason. Those are the demands of Roe v. Wade and the Court's interpretation thereof.
If I tell you I have financial hardship - I can't make the payments on my Porsche - can I have a right to rob banks?
sitetest
Marajade, I'm sorry but that isn't acceptable. Just because you wouldn't make the personal choice and still approve of those that do, you are in essence aiding and abetting to the murder in which you profess to believe abortion is.
Evil persists when good men do nothing. Ever heard that old saying?
Essentially, what you are doing then is giving a nod and a wink to something you consider to be murder! As long as you don't do it, it's okay, but millions of babies can be put to death if somebody else chooses it? Don't you see the fallacy of that belief?
"Should the law then permit abortion in only those cases where a woman has a legitimate medical reason?"
Yes. That's an abortion law restriction I would like to see be.
You just posted to me in reply about medical reasons as to why there should abortions and now this post from you? What's your problem?
Of course I read post 62, that's the statement contradicted by the earlier one FJ290 looked up. There's no personal attack, unless you count "pointing out hypocrisy" as personal attack.
Look at the post in context to what you were talking about. First you said a homosexual could be a conservative since you were pro-abortion and still conservative. That's another issue altogether, but I don't think you can be totally conservative and be a homosexual. Nor can you be pro-abortion only in some circumstances. Pro-abortion is as pro-abortion does, so to speak.
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.