Replies

You are missing some nuances here. Henry the Adulterous died believing himself Catholic, hilarious though that particular pretension may be. He simply imagined himself the "head" of the Catholic Church of England...You can keep on reposting this business of married popes and popes who were sons of other popes until the cows come home and it won't be one whit morew valid as a criticism. The celibacy rule of the Roman rite was not imposed until the twelfth century long after the popes in question. Clerical celibacy is a changeable discipline which may be bound or loosed by Peter or his successors as they deem prudenbt... dogma. It is not doctrine. It is governance. If JPII declares tomorrow that priests may marry, that is fine by me. This question has to do with OBEDIENCE to papal authority, but you already knew that, didn't you? You just want to make believe that it is permissible for Catholics, and even "Catholic" priests, to defy papal authority, just like Luther and Henry the Lecherous did. No surprise here. Move along now. I am still waiting to hear the names of each wife of each apostle and the Scriptural reference as to each and the Scriptural evidence that any marriages that survived the call by Christ to apostlehood continued to involve sexual relations. It might well be that each and every one was married and it would be dogmatically irrelevant as well, but the burden of proof is on those who make the assertion that the apostles were married and sexually involved with wives DURING their respective ministries... As to Peter's mother-in-law, just as a widower or a divorced man (quite permissible under Jewish law for the pre-Christian Simon bar Jonah) would still be the father of any of his children in spite of the cessation of his marriage, so too he would continue to be his mother-in-law's son-in-law. This is a lot easier to decipher than murderer Henry the Insatiable's status as murderess Lizzie I's father AND grandfather. Roman Catholicism is apparently not convenient to your sexual desires. It is not convenient to the sexual desires of many people. Then again, it never claimed to be convenient to the sexual desires of many although it is to many others: the ones who would be married to one person of the opposite sex until death do them part....

Firstly, Blackie, check out some history facts: Henry was first betrothed to Catherine of Aragon way back in 1503--a contract he denounced in 1505 long before his divorce. As I stated previously, he was more or less forced into the marriage by his nobels when brother Eddie kicked the bucket and ugly little Cathy was left without a hubby...and though wedded to little Cathy for nearly 20 years, it was far from a happy situation for Henry, hence enter eager Anne Boyelyn (among countless earlier others) in the court. But let's take a look at what was happening in one-religion Europe about the same time: When he wasn't demanding war and excommunicating EVERYONE in the Venetian Republic (or, later, his ally France afer he formed the Holy League) Pope Julius II was busy diddling just about anything resembling female...(incidentally, Julius did invite Henry VIII into his Holy League so the rumors adultry must not have mattered too much to this randy pope). Much of what was going on the the church then--forking a life's savings to get a loved one out of purgatory, the tortuous Inquisition, etc., was what sparked a little known monk in Worms Germany to nail his protest to the door of the church...oh, but there were some good points to old Julius such as the rebuilding of your great St. Peter's Church which was begun during his reign (1506)...
Later, about the time of Leo X, that great Catholic, Holy Roman Emperor Charles, was establishing an adultry record that more than eclipsed Henry VIII--that is if you consider five bastard children ('course Henry's Mary, Lizzie and Eddie were all legit.)

But enough about history of adultry in the 16th Century. On to some other points you made. Of course I cannot name the wives of some of the apostles, I can't name any of the wives of the prophets either, nor the wives and concubines of Kings David and Solomon. But I know they had them because it was (still is in orthodox versions) an absolute bedrock requirement in Judaism that Jewish men marry. Roman Catholicism has nothing to do with my sexuality, nor should it have anything to do with anyone else's. All I am hoping (praying) that the church will regale celibacy to the monestaries and convents (where the Anglicans have put it) and let hetrosexual married priests do their jobs (50 percent of that job is, according to their very own lips, involved with marriage counseling).