Replies

You are an Episcopalian according to your profile page. I am a Catholic. Is it any of my business that you belong to a church whose very existence is rooted in the frustrated, illicit and adulterous desires of a mere king, Henry VIII, who could not obtain papal approval to abandon his legitimate wife after more than twenty years of marriage for another woman whom he later beheaded at an early stage in his career as a regal male Liz Taylor?

Why is it any of your business whether the Roman Catholic Church to which you do NOT belong maintains a celibate priesthood? Should either of us be pushing rabbis to eat pork or lobster? Do you have any suggestions as to how Muslims ought to pray? Any advice for atheists or agnostics on how to best practice their atheism or agnosticism?

I would point out that Roman Catholicism, even in its gravely afflicted AmChurch form, has yet to consecrate lesbian bishops. Clean up your own tiny backyard before sticking your nose into the vast estate next door which your theological ancestor Henry VIII abandoned NOT for doctrinal reasons but to facilitate his serial adulteries.

thank you so much for your posts. i do not think i have ever read a better response to Catholic bashing.

good post! bump.

You are an Episcopalian according to your profile page. I am a Catholic. Is it any of my business that you belong to a church whose very existence is rooted in the frustrated, illicit and adulterous desires of a mere king, Henry VIII, who could not obtain papal approval to abandon his legitimate wife after more than twenty years of marriage for another woman whom he later beheaded at an early stage in his career as a regal male Liz Taylor? Why is it any of your business whether the Roman Catholic Church to which you do NOT belong maintains a celibate priesthood? Should either of us be pushing rabbis to eat pork or lobster? Do you have any suggestions as to how Muslims ought to pray? Any advice for atheists or agnostics on how to best practice their atheism or agnosticism? I would point out that Roman Catholicism, even in its gravely afflicted AmChurch form, has yet to consecrate lesbian bishops. Clean up your own tiny backyard before sticking your nose into the vast estate next door which your theological ancestor Henry VIII abandoned NOT for doctrinal reasons but to facilitate his serial adulteries.

FACT ONE: You have a lot of history misrepresented--Henry VIII was forced into marriage by his nobility to his dead brother's wife (Catherine) at 19 years old...yes, he was an adulterous king (later marrying the very pregnant Anne Boyelyn) but he is also regarded as one of the strongest monarch in English history--setting the beginning of the British Empire.
FACT TWO: There is a tremendous historical error regarding Catholicism and priestly celibacy--because it was not a condition of the Church until after the 10th Century. In fact, two popes fathered two sons who succeeded them on the throne of Peter and ALL FOUR TODAY are regarded as saints by YOUR church and also by mine! Celibacy, IMHO, should be confined to the monasteries and convents (where it is in the Episcopal church) but have no place in the priesthood where things such as marriage counseling often comes up. FACT THREE: I know of no lesbians being considered for bishop in my church...however, I also know of no New Testament scripture prohibiting such; the ordination of women, IMHO, is scripturally sound based upon the APOSTLE Mary Magdaline role with Christ!

Hey Black:
You've got your Leos mixed up buddy. It was Leo X who unjustifiably did in Henry VIII. Incidentally, you might take note that both Henry II and Philip were known to have roving eyes as well, but the church--still reeling from the fact that Henry VIII's papa turned down its request to wage war on the Turks--had it in for the king of England; therefore the monarchs of France and Spain got off scot free (oh well, as you Romans say: "Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur"!)

As far as your attempted denial that early popes did not marry and have offspring (many produced offspring without the benefit of marriage)shows, IMHO, either your ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of the history you took in Roman schools. For instance, in the case of the Apostle Peter, how else could you explain the reference in Matthew 8:14 when Christ is speaking specifically of Peter's Mother-in-Law?

On another matter, you call yourself a "Catholic" but that is what I am--catholic being defined as "universal". The difference is that some churches don't deny the very body of Christ to parishoners who have (many through no fault of their own) suffered divorce and after years of celibacy gotten remarried without having to suffer a church investigation and obtaining permission from the Bishop of Rome!