Posted on 01/04/2012 9:21:26 PM PST by RnMomof7
Gomez, who to all appearances is conservative and orthodox, replaced Mahony, a notorious liberal, as LA ordinary. Mahony selected Zavala as auxiliary, obtained his approval from Rome (a formality for an auxiliary), and consecrated him bishop. Zavala also conducted his affair and maintained his secret family for years on Mahony's watch, if not with Mahony's knowledge.
Yet Mahony is mentioned nowhere in the piece, not a single time.
Gomez, who found out Zavala and subjected him to appropriate discipline, is mentioned. That way, the naive reader will associate Gomez with the scandal, which ought instead to be laid at Mahony's feet. Thus does the press obliquely slander the conservative and orthodox, while protecting their liberal friends.
Not a foolish statement at all since evidently he choose fornication over marriage. The lesser evil perhaps being the reasoning?
You are quite correct in saying he broke a covenant and his immoral conduct is rightly condemned.
Just as worthy of condemnation is forbidding what God permits to His servants.
It is a covenant entered into based upon deception and the distorted view of marital relations in Catholic teaching.
And what, precisely, was the "deception"? Zavala knew exactly what he was being asked to do, and freely pledged himself to it.
and the distorted view of marital relations in Catholic teaching.
"Distorted view"? What "distorted view" is that? Again, be precise.
He probably told similar lies that bigamists tell their dual families.
Thanks for the laugh.
” Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry.”
After quoting Paul:
“Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church’s action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood.”
Did being the Virgin Bride have anything to do sexual relations? No.
Was there any requirement in the NT that overseers or other ministers not marry? No, even as the article states.
Given that “the pure Body of Christ” was made up of many married men the “virginity” spoken of was not physical virginity but spiritual and knowingly confusing the two is deception and distortion:
“....it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood.”
There is “no ample warrant” for demanding an unmarried state for any minister of God. To do so is a mark of having fallen away from the faith. (1 Tim 4:3)
Quotes from The Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading on celibacy.
To do so is a mark of having fallen away from the faith. (1 Tim 4:3)
Nope. The verse says nothing about qualifications for ministry and doesn't even refer to Christians; it's condemning Gnostic groups which forbade marriage for all of their members.
was not physical virginity but spiritual
I have no idea what "spiritual virginity" even is. Since you're inventing this concept of "spiritual virginity," you can hardly accuse someone else of "deception" for not agreeing with your inventions.
Look it up: priests who served the Temple were not permitted to cohabitate with their wives during their period of service. Priests who serve the New Tabernacle serve daily for their entire lives; the extension of the idea is obvious. Then there's the 144,000 male virgins -- the Gk "having not defiled themselves with women" specifically refers to rendering them unfit to offer sacrifice -- in Revelation.
They ain't doing it.
So now instead of a priesthood of legitimately married men having legitimate relations with their own wives, you are saddles with a priesthood of adulterers and fornincators because they aren't controlling themselves, vows notwithstanding.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
In the OT cities were often compared to daughters of a nation as in Ezekiel chapter 23. The cities of Samaria and Jerusalem are described as engaging in harlotry with Babylon, Egypt, Assyria and committing adultery with idols.
It was not physical immorality that is being spoken of here, although surely present, but religious, spiritual prostitution of the these two “daughters”, Samaria and Jerusalem.
It is in that sense that Babylon the Great is called the “mother of harlots” in Revelation (chap. 14&18) and called a fornicator.
So we can understand the virginity of those 144,000 is not physical virginity but faithfullness as they have followed the Lamb and the “women” they did not defile themselves with were those God called religious harlots, spiritual not physical harlots.
They are indeed priests but they serve as priests (and kings)in heaven. Rev. 14:3 says they have been “ransomed from the earth”, so if the practice of the Levite priests is extended to those priests in heaven that would make sense.
It is in that sense that James called lovers or friends of the world “Adulterers”(NAB). (James 4:4)
“Nope. The verse (1Tim. 4:3) says nothing about qualifications for ministry and doesn't even refer to Christians; it's condemning Gnostic groups which forbade marriage for all of their members
Paul specifically mentions those who have turned away from the faith, one time Christians, would do such. It marked them as paying attention to the instructions of demons.
Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah use the idea of cities and nations being “women” as the example given shows. It was clear to anyone familiar with the prophets and hence the “Jerusalem above” being called “mother”, a woman.
So too the city of Jerusalem then and the Jerusalem above being compared to a slave and free woman. (Galatians)
Search as you wish...there is not even an earthly priesthood in the NT to be celibate. That is the real invention.
>> “I wonder what the kids thought dad did for a living??” <<
.
Sold Bleacher Seat tickets to heaven?
Using your juvenile logic the Church should do away with the Sixth Commandment because so many people, particularly married ones, are unable to adhere to it.
Do provide verifiable proof that your version of pudding isn't using curdled milk.
Any explanation why you omitted the following passage from St. Paul's epistle?
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment." 1 Corinthians 7:32-35
By the way, toots, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church, ordain, as a norm, married men. Any man who seeks ordination has a number of options.
That will come as news to Christ.
"Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:11-12
Eunuchs was the subject in that verse not priests. The context was the question of marriage and divorce not priests.
The only priesthoods discussed in the NT was the Mosaic priesthood and the heavenly king/priests.
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.