Free Republic

How come in the Hebrew 'Messiah' have various options, but in the Greek all other options disappear? Isn't that kind of leading the reading to an end result that isn't really there?

I believe the answer is that the Greek syntax and vocabulary were more complex than the Hebrew, so in Hebrew the same word could be a noun, verb or adverb depending upon the usage, whereas Greek would have had several different words using the same root "chri-." For instance, "Christos" means "one who is annointed", "chrisma" is "ointment, and "chriein" is "to annoint."

I breath a sigh of relief at this news, but what the 4% figure says is that celibacy might not be the problem.

On one hand, if the population of sexually active men in America also contains about 4% offenders, then celibacy probably isn't the problem. If, on the other hand, the population of sexually active men in American contains significantly less than 4% offenders, then again celibacy might be the problem. To take it further, if the second proposition is true, the problem could lie in the character of the particular type of person who becomes a priest, or in some other aspect of priestly life.

Ultimately the 4% number makes the frequency of offenses less alarming on the face, but the problem demands more study to really come to any useful conclusions. It might also be useful to determine what percentage of sexually active non-Catholic clergymen have been accused of preying on youths in this manner.

I guess we need to define "celibate homosexual."

Definition 1: someone who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, recognizes homosexuality as a sin, and refuses to indulge in said sin.

Definition 2: someone who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, belives homosexuality is not a sin, but pledges to remain celibate to best serve the Christ.

By my understanding of what's been presented, a candidate that fits definition 1 could be ordained, but a candidate that fits definition 2 could not be ordained. Is that a correct conclusion?

There is nothing in Canon Law forbidding the ordination of celibate homosexuals.

There is nothing in Canon Law that prohibits the ordination of someone who boldly proclaims that an obvious sin is in fact not a sin?

My question is: why should we care? Critics like Crossan have been citing historical inaccuracies to try and undermine the message since the day after the resurrection. Does the fact that Mel Gibson didn't get Jesus' hairstyle correct mean that Christ wasn't God? Does that fact that Mr. Gibson put Latin in Christ's mouth mean that Christ never spoke those words? If that is the case then our Bibles would have to be written in several languages and nobody would get the message.

C. S. Lewis proposed that the greatest trick the Devil ever played was to convince us he doesn't exist. Lately I get the feeling that the greatest triumph of the Evil One was to get Christians to persecute each other.