Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

That sneaky desperate Catholic Church is at it again
American Papist ^ | July 22, 2006 | Thomas

Posted on 07/22/2006 7:06:59 AM PDT by NYer

... or so claims the Washington Post:

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...]

Aw dang, Jeff, you caught us red-handed!


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; General Discusssion; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; celibacy; priesthood; vocations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 501-511 next last
To: marajade

Dear marajade,

"'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."

Then why do you say that you support Roe v. Wade, as Roe, along with Doe, permit just about any abortion at any time?


sitetest


141 posted on 07/22/2006 2:31:54 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

That poster introduced a personal attack into the thread. Look at some of my posts history and I believe you'll get a better understanding.


142 posted on 07/22/2006 2:32:05 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

All this stuff about abortion and homosexuality is OT in this thread.

Unless you want to address the article I will not post to you anymore in this thread.


143 posted on 07/22/2006 2:33:04 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: marajade
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?

HUH??? Please provide what you are talking about.

144 posted on 07/22/2006 2:33:18 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I support Roe v. Wade in that it legalizes abortion in that I would also like to see abortion being restricted for medical necessary reasons only. Do you need more clarification than that? Again, abortion is OT.


145 posted on 07/22/2006 2:34:13 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Dear marajade,

Abortion was legal in varying degrees in many states in the United States before Roe. Abortion was legal for medical necessity in pretty much every state of the United States before Roe.

Roe didn't legalize abortion for "medically-necessary" abortions.

Roe legalized all abortions.

Do you support Roe?


sitetest


146 posted on 07/22/2006 2:36:59 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: marajade

I've read the whole thread and I have a very good understanding of what's going on here, who is being consistent, and who is not.


147 posted on 07/22/2006 2:37:03 PM PDT by Petronski (Living His life abundantly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: marajade
All this stuff about abortion and homosexuality is OT in this thread.

Oh.. I beg to differ. You, almost on a daily basis over the last couple of weeks, have jumped into threads decrying the celibacy of the priesthood and demanding our priest should marry and have children. Yet.. you hold a different standard for yourself about children and following commandments from the Bible.

Unless you want to address the article I will not post to you anymore in this thread.

I've addressed it and then some. Don't attack our priests when you can exempt yourself from biblical mandates.

148 posted on 07/22/2006 2:40:30 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

"Don't attack our priests when you can exempt yourself from biblical mandates."

Can't read the Bible and see its not being followed and someone is pointing it out? Too bad.


149 posted on 07/22/2006 2:41:51 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

BTW, what commandments am I not following from the Bible?


150 posted on 07/22/2006 2:43:12 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Dear marajade,

No answer to #146?


sitetest


151 posted on 07/22/2006 2:48:34 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I've answered it enough.


152 posted on 07/22/2006 2:48:59 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Dear marajade,

You've answered it with internally contradictory replies.

Roe wasn't needed to permit abortions for "medical necessity," otherwise known as "therapeutic abortions." They were mostly already legal.

Roe made legal all other abortions.

Do you support Roe?


sitetest


153 posted on 07/22/2006 2:52:58 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I don't know the case history of Roe v Wade. I do support there are medical necessary reasons where abortion may be necessary.


154 posted on 07/22/2006 2:54:35 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Dear marajade,

"I don't know the case history of Roe v Wade."

Then, when you say, "I support Roe," we really shouldn't conclude that you actually support Roe. Am I getting that right?


sitetest


155 posted on 07/22/2006 2:56:17 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; The Invisible Hand
Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum;
habemus Papam
:

Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum Josephum
Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger
qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedictum XVI

156 posted on 07/22/2006 2:57:22 PM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

What diff does it make? And again, abortion of OT.


157 posted on 07/22/2006 2:57:35 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: marajade

Dear marajade,

In that you've made adherence to biblical commandments (at least as you interpret them) an issue here, I think that adherence to "You shall not kill" is on-topic in this discussion.

What do you consider to be "medically-necessary" abortions?


sitetest


158 posted on 07/22/2006 2:58:55 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: marajade
BTW, what commandments am I not following from the Bible?

Pro-abortion...Thou Shall Not Kill

Foregoing having children when married.. Go Forth and Multiply.

159 posted on 07/22/2006 3:01:33 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Again, its still OT. When the child is dead in the womb?


160 posted on 07/22/2006 3:01:36 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 501-511 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson