Posted on 10/14/2008 11:23:48 AM PDT by SmithL
Good to see the American Catholic Church finally taking a stand against the liberal heresy in its own ranks.
He says he “had to go against the church”...well then he had to go against the Bible as well. The same book that he supposedly pledged to uphold when he became a Priest. I am not a Catholic but I do appreciate their stance on abortion and gay marriage. Perhaps it is time the Catholic Church went the way of the Orthodox churches and allow Priests to marry...they would certainly cut back on the number of gays and pedophiles in the priesthood.
Just to clarify, that’s a compliment and a word of encouragement to the Catholics who actually BELIEVE. (-:
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
Farrow's comments at the end of the Oct. 5 Mass have left his congregation bitterly divided. Over the weekend, some parishioners praised Farrow's courage for defending the rights of gays and lesbians, while others condemned him for challenging church doctrine without giving warning.Such is the caliper of Catholic parishoners at that church, I guess. Does Mrs. Allison have a young son? I wonder how she would feel about "Father Geoff" taking him on a weekend trip...Katherine Allison, 46, said her entire family liked Father Geoff, as he was known. He taught a Bible history class Tuesday nights and seemed passionate about his work, she said.
"There is nothing to apologize for," she said. "God tells us to speak the truth, and that's what he did."
Good riddance. Now, defrock him. That way, when he’s trying to seduce middle schoolers in his next career as a guidance counselor, they can call him a “former Catholic priest” instead of a “Catholic priest”.
The position of the Church on this can not be more clear. What in God’s Name could this priest be thinking?
This is why the preeminence of the Holy Father and the Magisterium are so important. There will always be those wanting to destory the Catholic Faith, but even more so today, there are great-many priests, parishes and Governments all wanting to interpret scripture as they please, according to the mood and politics of the times.
“Officials at St. Paul Newman Center...” They already made Paul Newman a saint?
LOL! Good catch! Truth be told, it's probably the "Saint Paul" [pause] Newman Center. From Wikipedia:
Named in honour of John Henry Cardinal Newman, the Newman Centres, are residence and Catholic ministry centers at non-Catholic universities throughout the world. They were inspired by Newman's writings encouraging societies for Catholic students attending secular universities.
You saw that too? I had to read that several times to make sense of it. What’s up with that?
I wonder what he means by saying he is gay? Does he mean that he prefers men as sexual objects but is chaste, which is acceptable in the Church, or does he mean he has violated his vow of chastity?
“I wonder what he means by saying he is gay? Does he mean that he prefers men as sexual objects but is chaste, which is acceptable in the Church, or does he mean he has violated his vow of chastity?”
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Catholic Church would want anyone who is gay in their ranks as priests, whether chaste or not. It is a contradiction in terms. It’s like Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what the definition of IS is”. Only replace IS with CHASTE. How can you be chaste in mind if you are lusting in that very same mind sexually for men? The whole concept of homosexuality is against church teachings. And you could never ever trust that a known gay priest won’t at some point act out rather than remain chaste. It’s like Russian roulette. There should be NO gay priests, not a one. They should be weeded out. What does the Catholic Church think it is, the U.S. military? Don’t ask, don’t tell? Ugh.
Lust, for men or women is one of the seven ‘Deadly Sins’ and must be confessed. A temptation to sin is not itself considered to be a sin, unless it is deliberately indulged in.
Perhaps it is time the Catholic Church went the way of the Orthodox churches and allow Priests to marry...they would certainly cut back on the number of gays and pedophiles in the priesthood.
***********************************************************
In my opinion you are mistaken. There are many gay priests because they let them in the seminaries. In fact they advertised in gay magazines.
For many centuries the priesthood was devoid of gay priests. They were not allowed. The Gay men will congregate where there are young people. That is way the Boy Scouts have few problems with scout masters hitting on young boys.
i have hope that gay priest will soon be a thing of the past. There are signs of this occurring.
Godspeed,
Lust, for men or women is one of the seven ‘Deadly Sins’ and must be confessed. A temptation to sin is not itself considered to be a sin, unless it is deliberately indulged in.
You are making my point. You are splitting hairs here, what IS is. How does one differentiate “lust” which must be confessed from a “temptation” to sin, which in my mind, is just another word for lust. How do you climb inside someone’s brain to figure out the degree of temptation and when that crosses over into lust? Or does the “sinner” himself make that judgment? Oh, I’m merely tempted here, but I haven’t crossed the line into lustful thoughts, only tempting ones. Clarify please.
Also, without the initial lustful thought, there would be no temptation to have to deal with. Makes no sense, this hair splitting.
While I do see how this fits with many ideas of some of those in the Republican Party of today, this social tyranny approach has moved us far away from the founding principles of our party and more importantly Jeffersonian ideas of “equal rights” and “liberty”. Why should the government be given that much more of the rights of the people beyond which is needed for the protections of liberty for all by enforcing tyrrany on the few?
This is clearly a state issue alone and DOMA needs to be tossed out in keeping with strong federalist principles. The social agenda attacks by us Republicans are weakening our party and are interfering with our basic premises of freedom, liberty and equality. I find it personally distasteful, unnecessary and antithetical to our constitution. Because their family structures are unusual does not mean that they cannot have strong families. They tend towards conservatism by nature. Apparently, they make better parents than many being involved in their children's schools, making education a high priority for themselves and their children, behaving very responsibly, fiscal conservatism, earn more than the average citizen, are more highly educated than the average citizen and are politically involved and astute. Aren't these the very bases of individual repsonsibility which leads to social and community responsibility that our country needs and we demand? Why would we not want to welcome them with open arms into our party. More importantly, why would we seek an agenda to deprive them of the equal rights everyone is supposed to have available to them? Did we not make this same mistake with the Civil Rights movement? Look what that did to us and more importantly to others? Did we not make the same mistake with Stevens in the Midwest in the 20’s and 30’s aligning ourselves with the Klu Klux Klan? Did we not make these same mistakes with partnering up with racists and bigots in the Southeast for a long time? When are we going to realize we need to be the true party of inclusion and equal rights and stop shoving religious ideas of morality down people's throats?
Finally, what the heck do you care about this for anyway? Please do not say religion as religious morality lies far below the morality that I choose to believe Lincoln, early members of the Republican party and other early Republicans such as Jefferson have spoken to. Religious bases for this thinking is antithetical to separation of church and state. Perhaps some reading of John Locke would help some of you get a grip on this. True morality lives above all religions.
“Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860.
Just the opinion of a “Progressive Traditionalist Republican” as I like to call myself and who believes strongly in Jeffersonian Democracy and the liberty of all men and women and that “all men and women were created equally” and have the equal right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” including the choice of whom to marry. I sill not judge. The extreme far right social agenda will destroy this party as it is utterly hypocritical to our foundation. One cannot stand firmly in selficonflict and neither can our party.
“I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” (July 10, 1858), p. 502.
Please be aware that Eastern Rite churches do allow married priests. They just are not permitted to marry after ordination. Also former Anglican priests who are married have been allowed to become Catholic priests in the Latin Rite.
Render unto Caesar salad?
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.