Posted on 05/02/2005 7:25:14 AM PDT by worldclass
Noting that in his Good Friday homily soon-to-be pope Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger condemned the "filth there is in the church," Wheeler believes the pontiff "will not tolerate [homosexuality's] presence in his church."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Quite interesting to hear that, actually. For some reason, I always thought the fact that John Paul II was just such a decent person that he found it particularly difficult to believe such a charge against a priest.
And send us some bulletins on the success of the program to "De-homosexualize" the Protestant Church, OK?
"Chaput needs a red hat"
Couldn't agree more. I met Chaput in Memphis and Spokane, at two Kateri conferences. Shared a bottle of wine one evening, we were in the same hotel.
He has my vote for Benedict's successor. (If I had a vote!)
Instead of disbanding them. they should be worked over and turned back into the kind of Christian shock trrops and defenders of Christian Orthodoxy they once were.
PERSONALLY, I'd like to see the Catholic Church bring back the TEMPLERS.
Not a problem at my church. We don't have "celibate" "priests", nor a lot of those other extras not found in the bible.
"the Catholic church might as well disband the Jesuits"
The Jesuits haven't been Catholic for years.
IF this article is true regarding what the Holy Father (Ratzinger) may actually do, then we should support him on this.
Regardless, shouldn't we FReepers be focused on the "De-homosexualization" of the Bush Administration instead of the underhanded Church bashing implicit in the article author's critique of John Paul the Great?
Okay, FReepers, now's a good time to OUT the pro-homosexual members of the Bush Administration, especially those who have dissuaded the President from pushing a constitutional amendment clarifying marriage as between a man and a woman, only.
It certainly is a problem in the Protestant churches, as the Methodists recently proved. Also, at least two chaplains at Harvard's chapel are practicing sodomites. Before we can purge the culture, we need to purge the church.
"We don't have "celibate" "priests", nor a lot of those other extras not found in the bible."
Biblical evidence for the discipline of celibacy can be found in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. "The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place'" (Jer. 16:1-2).
Also in the Old Testament, God asked even married couples to practice celibacy on certain occasions. For example, Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), and Jewish tradition attests that he remained celibate for life following the command of Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 5:28. The Lord also asked that the priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their time of service in the temple. In yet another example, the priests ordered King David and his people to abstain from marital relations on the occasion of eating the holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4).
In all these instances, there is a theme of abstaining from marital relations due to the presence of something very holy. It is not that the marital act is sinful, but that when one is in such proximity to God, it is right to offer him an undivided mind, heart, and body. If it was fitting under the Old Covenant to serve the temple, to approach God, and receive the holy bread with a consecrated body, it is no surprise that permanent celibacy is fitting for a Roman Catholic priest, since his priestly service is continual.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.
Paul recognized the wisdom in this, and encouraged celibacy in order to free a man to be anxious about the things of the Lord and to serve him undividedly (1 Cor 7:8,32-35). In his words, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor. 7:8, 32-35, 38).
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp
This is an issue of homosexuality, not celibacy.
Offer them a buyout. The money the church would loose on the buyout, they would get back 10X in weekly donations.
A very prominent priest in our area mentioned that 80-90% of the abuse problems are homosexual related vs. pedophilia, based on the fact that most is directed at post--pubescent teenage boys, not pre-pubescent children (which is by definition what pedophilia is). It's also rarely a case of a priest preying on a girl -- almost always boys.
When a 22 year old college frat boy hits on an 15-17 year old high school girl, most wouldn't consider it pedophilia (except for perhaps in a legalistic sense). It would be a case of a man acting like a scumbag, not controlling his sexual urges, and exposing himself to a charge of statutory rape.
But when a priest targets a boy in that same age range, everyone calls it pedophilia because they are afraid of offending the homosexual community.
Just like there are heterosexuals that are pathetic sexual preditors, it may pain people to hear it, but there are also homosexuals that are pathetic sexual preditors.
This isn't a rant against homosexuality, it's just a rant against any group who won't admit that some of their members have the capacity for immorality.
Yes. But in a round-a-bout way. Both are sexual perversions. And once somen commits one perversion it's far easier for them to commit the next one. (the slippery slope does indeed exist) So since the 'gay' culture worships youth you can safely assume that any and every 'gay' would molest a kid if he knew he could get away with it.
Therefore all 'homosexuals' must be considered to be and treated as child molestors. For the sake of our children.
I'd be happy to go to such a parish. Can't be in any parts of this country I'm familiar with.
When I was a kid growing up in the Catholic Church (I no longer practice Catholicism in large part because of their tolerance/use of homosexuals as priests/deacons), that was how families in the church planned to "deal" with the male homosexuals in their family--by sending them off to the seminary. It was widely known. I don't think permanent celibacy (in adulthood) is ever legitimate until one has been married and perhaps lost a spouse or been heartbroken.
No, the two are intricate related! - the culture of perversion, does not want us to see that way for obvious reasons, but we know better... it's all realated to sex and throught another male's a**. The two main requirements that define their lifestyle/culture.
Of course "evidence" can be found of general celibacy, but even the OT priesthood was not celibate. John the Baptist's dad was a priest, Moses was married, Aaron was married. Who is the RCC to invent a Christian "Priesthood" which itself is my bigger complaing, then then to impose celibacy on them. There is an awful lot more "biblical evidence" that there is not such thing as a Christian "Priest" in the RC sense. There are entire paragraphs of "biblical evidence" that the standard minister role, the elder, must be married and have kids with only a few exceptions being unmarried.
FatherofEight
Not being Roman Catholic, can someone please explain to me this fixation on the "Latin Mass"?? As long as the Latin is accurately translated, what difference does using the local language make???
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.