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...]
Dear marajade,
It matters for two reasons.
The first is that you've made adherence to your interpretation of biblical commandments an issue in this thread. So, determining whether you actually believe in adherence to biblical commandments seems a fair, on-topic issue.
The second is that it is you who have announced your support, even on this thread, for Roe v. Wade. Yet, your other statements concerning abortion contradict your stated support for Roe.
In fact, as best as I can determine, your own position on the question of abortion may actually be as absolute as the new law in South Dakota, which bans ALL abortions, or perhaps might be a little more lenient then that, in that there appears to be some possibility that you might endorse a legal regime that permitted abortions in some "medically-necessary" circumstances (the parameters of which at this point are known only to you), but not generally.
Or maybe (I don't know because you haven't really been willing to give specific, detailed, definitive answers), you define "medically-necessary" the way that Roe's companion case, Doe, defines the "health exception," which includes being distressed that one might not fit into one's prom dress.
The difficulty for other posters, marjade, is that you're saying certain things that have certain defined meanings to other posters who actually know what the terms mean, but at this point, no one can really be sure what you're talking about, because your definitions of those terms appear, perhaps, to be idiosyncratic.
In the case of abortion law, if someone says, "I support Roe," and he also says, "Abortion should not be legal except to remove a dead baby from a woman's womb," then he has contradicted himself, and his interlocutors are left scratching their heads trying to figure out what he really means, what he really thinks, what he's really saying.
And it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation under these circumstances.
sitetest
That's fine, and I can understand. But this isn't an abortion thread.
Ping me.
Dear marajade,
One of the issues that you've raised is adherence to biblical standards, and support for abortion does violate adherence to biblical standards.
As well, the underlying issue of intelligibility is relevant to all threads.
Your answers are important for both reasons.
So, what other "medically-necessary" circumstances might you endorse?
sitetest
I sense that we may "agree to disagree" on some matters -- but a sensible and reasoned discourse remains of great value.
I sense and respect the cherished value of the CCC to your own heart and others of Catholic persuasion -- Yet I know this was written, legislated, negotiated, and abridged many time through the years. It remains a valuable amplification for life in the organism --His Body -- and a working framework of reference for the organization the corporate church.
But this framework of declaration does not rise to the same level of a authority as the Holy Biblical Scriptures -- therefore its citation remains a valuable guide to those so subscribed -- even as you cited the Talmudic tradition -- remains authoritative to the tradition of our kindred, Israel.
I also expect we will not completely agree on the example you have now cited twice --
The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy.
I simply disagree with these findings of our brethren of long ago -- I conceded that their legislation was for those under their sovereignty --
But I would hold that such an order was contrary to the intent and spirit of 1 Corinthians 7:3-4,and 7
Some of this is plain on its face -- e.g.
It remains so clear OT & NT -- that God loves and esteems the covenants, the estate and the people joined in holy marriage -- As an earthly token and symbol of the love of Christ for all of the church --
And Jesus suffered the little children to come; and He rebuked His disciples and forbade them not-- further -- he stringently warned of the damnation to come for anyone who caused these little ones to stumble! (Matthew 18:6)
And we agree that as Christ was indeed chaste -- the law required a perfect Lamb -- and He is holding virtue for His Bride--an obedient Son, yes -- AND faithfully betrothed --- She is yet to be presented to Him --He remains so pure in expectation that the Bride will come to Him in full and holy array -- without spot wrinkle or blemish... Both Bride and Groom will be holy, meet, and fit for the marriage supper of the Lamb!
So much of the Song of Songs appears to be a viable spiritual & prophetic picture of the love and mutual adoration that Christ holds for His Beloved... the church.
Regarding our brother Peter -- hard to find you challenging this guy!
If bringing the fullness of the revelation of Jesus Christ to the known world -- including the Gentile -- beginning with the Romans (Cornelius & family)-- and following the Master in life and cruel torture and death for the sake of the Gospel --
IF THAT IS NOT living on earth in human form and inspired of the Holy Spirit to a committed fulfillment of mission; even unto the highest calling and obedience to Christ --IT WILL DO until a better opportunity arrives! --
I cry out to God to emulate the courage, longsuffering and complete obedience of the big fisherman -- this side of my Lord Jesus -- Peter remains one of my heroes of the faith... He still had his quirks and issues -- But does not the Lord's servant, the highest spiritual authority and Leader of the Catholic church sit in the seat of this same fisherman?
Regarding the Eleven -- 1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly infers that (among the apostles--plural), and the Lord's brothers (plural -- odds are more than probable including James- half brother of Jesus Christ), and (named apostle) Peter brought a sister (in Christ) who was their (believing) spouse with them -- and that they were entitled to maintenance for them. I doubt they were referring to siblings and it would have been inappropriate to bring (unmarried) female servants along
Suffice it to say.... I am not objecting to voluntary celibacy or singleness, nor its esteemed place in the ministry -- so please don't misunderstand --
But their are many valuable gifts vested in the married men of God... and if they are following Christ --- baggage and all-- they will reproduce -- after their kind
Your final summary makes a lot of sense -- and handling the responsibilities of marriage, family, and ministry -- I have observed-- is quite a juggling feat -- However...
Shouldn't those among you who are up for the challenge of those several responsibilities be permitted to accept them all before God?? And not forbidden by men??
Time to go... too many questions and places to plant our various theses in all of this... We may never completely agree -- about priesthood, ministry, and all of the opportunities presented to announce the Kingdom, and glorify the Lord therein...
But I believe we are each finishing the race "marked out" for us... and I choose now to pray and trust that we all will finish well!
It may be that one feature of the plan for a good life in eternity-- is in order to continue the chat -- and sort all these things out... (humor)
Have a blessed Lord's day!
I know it's a work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, but this marajade seems closed to the Truth and paying little attention to the facts you all post to her. You prove her errors USING HER OWN WORDS and she STILL insists on arguing she didn't say what you post from her verbatim. Isn't it time to "wipe the dust off your feet" and move on?
Like I stated. Condemnation without the truth.
Terminology gets in the way of understanding each other many times. I get accused of being pro-abortion because I believe in the exceptions of a significant threat to a mothers life, rape or incest. In these cases I beleive then the woman should counsel with clergy, if married her husband, and most importantly speak with God in prayer before deciding.
Abortion should never be used as birth control!!
Anyway, I believe the media sometimes puts out information on topics such as roe vs wade that confuses us so some people sometimes don't understand what they are supporting.
I clearly want roe overturned!
Thanks for your post and I agree wholeheartedly, albeit OT.
If you read through the Four Gospels,you will never find a scintilla of evidence that any of the Twelve were married.
With regards the passage from Corinthians,the word Paul uses that you interpret as "wife" is the same word that Jesus uses when He addresses His Mother at the wedding at Cana, (that is in the original language). So do you think He was calling His Mother "wife"? I don't.
I think in both cases the word used is probably most likely,something close to,gentlewoman. I have read that in those times,many men took a woman along while traveling,those women were usually a relative,such as an aunt,sister,cousin,mother-in-law. I would suggest that Paul was referencing that kind of traveling companion and that he traveled without anyone. Probably thought the others were a little lazy and wanted someone to do laundry and cook for them.
Marajade,I beleve it was you who mentioned the Bishops. I think that since the Apostles expected Jesus Christ to return shortly,they were somewhat surprised that He didn't and realized that they might be dead before He returned and they had better appoint and teach others to ensure the Word was spread and the great commission continued.
Who would they be more apt to assign those duties to than men they knew and had taught themselves. Since they had stayed in households as they evangelized,those men who had opened their homes to them were the most likely to know what Jesus had taught. These men,in whose homes they stayed were probably married. Thus,they asked them to serve until the Church was more developed. The Church was basically a work in progress in those early days.
Just a few thoughts for you. I am sure you have read the multitude of passages that seem to clearly indicate that Jesus and Paul both knew that the it was preferable to not be married.
I just wish the Gospels had been prescient enough to have put in writing that "No man can serve both a master and a mistress". That would have made it pretty darn clear(little joke,wink,wink).
Dear landerwy,
Although we disagree to some degree, I appreciate your views, which are clearly expressed, consistent with actual facts, and don't contradict each other.
I'd agree that you're not entirely pro-life, in that it's difficult to imagine why the crime of the rapist must condemn to death an innocent unborn child.
However, it seems that you actually understand what Roe was about, and the need to overturn it.
As well, in that well over 96% of abortions committed annually in the United States don't fall under the exceptions you would carve out, it appears that we agree far more than we disagree.
sitetest
"If you read through the Four Gospels,you will never find a scintilla of evidence that any of the Twelve were married."
And is there any evidence that says they weren't? Except maybe the first book of Timothy when the Bible is talking about "the qualifications of bishops"?
" ... in that it's difficult to imagine why the crime of the rapist must condemn to death an innocent unborn child."
But at that point is the person who committed the rape outside the will of God?
Dear marajade,
So, you've determined that you don't support Roe? Am I getting that right?
Thanks,
sitetest
Irrelevant. If one is using the Gospels to demonstrate that clerical vows of celibacy are wrong, one must supply evidence that at least one of them was married.
An unmentioned apostle's wife doesn't help your case at all because that theoretical wife is . . . wait for it . . . unmentioned!
I guess you missed the remainder of my post where I cited the book of first timothy?
Didn't miss it at all. I said Gospels. First Timothy is not a Gospel.
I believe you meant to say 'practiced' in the past tense. But yes, he wasn't married, though that was the norm amongst the Jews of his time. Why didn't he marry? (Hint: it's in the scriptural evidence I have already presented).
Jesus never taught against marriage.
That is true! But, he did leave instructions for those who would follow him into the priesthood of his church (again, this is in the scriptural evidence already presented).
Are the letters to be discounted?
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.