Posted on 07/09/2011 11:27:26 AM PDT by armydoc
Furthermore, I criticized him about even considering closing parishes and demanded to know what he was doing about increasing vocations like the orthodox Catholic dioceses were doing instead of decreasing vocations like he was doing. I demanded to know exactly why my children should become priests in his diocese.
In public. In front of the cameras.
We'll see if he has the gall to close our parish.
Are you taking attributes upon yourself?
“What authority would the SBC have over that little 80 member family cult, what relationship do they have?”
As it turns out, none. Are you finally done? Or will we waltz about for another 50 posts until you finally either acknowledge that I said that many posts ago, or you get tired and quit posting the obvious?
Relax, you posted this to me, and I had to correct you,”I think that ‘simple’ does not pertain to your question, necessarily.”
My simple correction didn’t require a follow up from you.
You called him Not Catholic?
I bet you called him a Martin Luther! You’re just being nice for my sake.
LOL, Anyway, next time call him a no better than Heretical ELCA Martin Lutheran Bishop and a pawn of the Democrat party.
You’re a fighter, I have seen that.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
Did you read my post, and post 64?
Nobody has said such a thing, so why do you want to pretend that someone did?
Your post was miles off track.
Mammarella.
But requirements like those are impossible to enforce, and they are plainly ignored.
Wrong - it's NOT impossible to enforce. Spiritual leaders need to be honest - at minimum. Ask. If they lie, they're out.
The Church has always said that homosexuality per se is intrinsically disordered, and that entertaining homosexual fantasies is a sin.
The rest of your sophisticated post may reflect what you think of as "all the love possible for the mother church" but your version of the truth is not truth. Pedophiles are not helped by marriage. Neither are homosexuals. Celibacy is not the problem.
Excellent post.
There is no reason to cling to the celibacy rule in the modern Church.
Some of Jesus’s own apostles were married men.
Let’s go back to the common sense of Our Lord.
Right on... well said.
” Pedophiles are not helped by marriage. Neither are homosexuals. Celibacy is not the problem.”
So true, so true.
I wish that particular bit of sophistry could be stomped out once and for all.
Nothing new. Several years before the “95 Theses” in the early 1500s, Martin Luther was sent to Rome as part of an official delegation from his monastery. Rome, by which I mean the part of the city affiliated with the Vatican, was a cesspool even (or especially) then—500 years ago.
A pope at the time had taken Aquinas’ advice on allowing prostitution literally—and was running houses of prostitutes especially for priests. Of course at that time indulgences and relics were huge money makers too...(Michelangelo—in that exact time period—was paid with indulgence money, actually).
Concerned Christians have ALWAYS wanted to be reformers...but usually stifled by the system.
Did I miss something, or was that whole article based on the conduct of three priests?
Three? Really?
Does anyone know how many priests there are in Rome? Any other group of that size would be doing very well to claim only three sodomites among their numbers.
They weren’t just having a meal...and quit downplaying this!.. it was well known within the church membership...as I said in my e-mail to you.
I’m not so sure I want to give you his name now. I think you’ll just blow it off just like the Leadership has been doing for so long to others who tried to tell someone.
I didn’t ask you what is NOT proof....twisting it around to soft sell behavior that is more than unbecoming amongst Priests is exactly why your church has this problem....by making it sound less than it is.. Well it’s not!... and it is just as disgusting the Vatican has not gone full speed to get these twisted pervets out of the church.
What I did ask you is what proof would be acceptable to you? So what is it?
Mark, it takes a whole lot for me to tear up over most things, but once in awhile someone can say something so powerful and with such strength of heart and conviction that it touches the very soul.
I would that many more men would dare to speak so on behalf of these children...kids within the church need to hear men say this Mark, and so do those who are even thinking of touching the kids.... and that with force of heart and mind. They need to know the 'men' of the church are standing up for them and standing in the gap between them and these perverts.
Thank you for standing strong Mark...may God continue to keep you strong for the task....
Amen...excellant rebuttal!
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.