T1B

Diogenes wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What on Earth would be so troublesome about married catholic priests, in 2006? Let's hear something creditable.

Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic.

• At every Mass you hear about the decline in priestly vocations, and the evidence would appear to bear out the fact that they're not just crying in the rain on that point. Many parishes have had to close or merge, there aren't nearly as many Sunday Masses said anymore as there were when I was a kid, and many parishes, which once had two priests assigned, now have only one priest assigned who, btw, is also assigned to another parish. Btw, in the diocese where I live, the average age of priests is over 50.
• Further on the point above, of the three vows required of Catholic priests (poverty, celibacy and obedience), there's a case to be made that the Vow of Obedience is the most difficult. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but there are those who espouse it. Yet it doesn't seem to be the Vow of Obedience that is responsible for the continuing long-term decline in vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that as a child, I wanted to be a priest, but gave up that idea once I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.
• Many married Catholics who find their marriage in trouble turn to their parish priest for help. Yet a parish priest, who has never been married and therefore has no practical advice to give, and who in all likelihood has not completed any specialized training in marriage and family counseling, is no more, and quite possibly less, qualified to help you in that regard than is your next-door neighbor.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What on Earth would be so troublesome about married catholic priests, in 2006? Let's hear something creditable.

Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic.

I am, and while I can't speak for all Catholics, I don't have a problem with it in the least. Truth be told, at this point I think the discussion ought to be driven more by practical concerns than by interpretation of Paul's theology, given the historical context Babs pointed out as well as the fact that Paul's opinions weren't exactly majority opinions even during his lifetime. Here's why I think priests should be allowed to marry:

• At every Mass you hear about the decline in priestly vocations, and the evidence would appear to bear out the fact that they're not just crying in the rain on that point. Many parishes have had to close or merge, there aren't nearly as many Sunday Masses said anymore as there were when I was a kid, and many parishes, which once had two priests assigned, now have only one priest assigned who, btw, is also assigned to another parish. Btw, in the diocese where I live, the average age of priests is over 50.
• Further on the point above, of the three vows required of Catholic priests (poverty, celibacy and obedience), there's a case to be made that the Vow of Obedience is the most difficult. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but there are those who espouse it. Yet it doesn't seem to be the Vow of Obedience that is responsible for the continuing long-term decline in vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that as a child, I wanted to be a priest, but gave up that idea once I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.
• Many married Catholics who find their marriage in trouble turn to their parish priest for help. Yet a parish priest, who has never been married and therefore has no practical advice to give, and who in all likelihood has not completed any specialized training in marriage and family counseling, is no more, and quite possibly less, qualified to help you in that regard than is your next-door neighbor.

Again, I don't see a decent practical reason for continuing the Vow of Celibacy. As I said before, it is an anachronism which at one time was probably necessary for the protection of the Church, but that isn't the case any longer.

jiminphilly wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic.

I am, and while I can't speak for all Catholics, I don't have a problem with it in the least. Truth be told, at this point I think the discussion ought to be driven more by practical concerns than by interpretation of Paul's theology, given the historical context Babs pointed out as well as the fact that Paul's opinions weren't exactly majority opinions even during his lifetime. Here's why I think priests should be allowed to marry:

• At every Mass you hear about the decline in priestly vocations, and the evidence would appear to bear out the fact that they're not just crying in the rain on that point. Many parishes have had to close or merge, there aren't nearly as many Sunday Masses said anymore as there were when I was a kid, and many parishes, which once had two priests assigned, now have only one priest assigned who, btw, is also assigned to another parish. Btw, in the diocese where I live, the average age of priests is over 50.
• Further on the point above, of the three vows required of Catholic priests (poverty, celibacy and obedience), there's a case to be made that the Vow of Obedience is the most difficult. I'm not saying that I agree with that position, but there are those who espouse it. Yet it doesn't seem to be the Vow of Obedience that is responsible for the continuing long-term decline in vocations to the Catholic priesthood. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I point out that as a child, I wanted to be a priest, but gave up that idea once I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.
• Many married Catholics who find their marriage in trouble turn to their parish priest for help. Yet a parish priest, who has never been married and therefore has no practical advice to give, and who in all likelihood has not completed any specialized training in marriage and family counseling, is no more, and quite possibly less, qualified to help you in that regard than is your next-door neighbor.

Again, I don't see a decent practical reason for continuing the Vow of Celibacy. As I said before, it is an anachronism which at one time was probably necessary for the protection of the Church, but that isn't the case any longer.

Couple things-

A catholic priest is not required to take a vow of poverty. If they are in a religious order they may be required to do so but your run-of-the-mill diocesen (sp?) priest is not required to do so.

There is an intersting loop-hole in the catholic doctrine concerning marriage and priesthood. If an Anglican priest who is married chooses to become a catholic priest there are provisions made that allow him to do this and be able to continue to roll in the sack with his ole lady until she croaks in which case he has to then remain celibate.

The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

jiminphilly wrote:The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

They just care about showing up every Saturday or Sunday, feeling good about themselves and then going back out into the world and ignoring any Church teaching that happens to inconvenience them.

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Also, rack Terry and jim. I'm just not seeing the practical necessity of the vow of celibacy -

The problem isn't the vow of celibacy. The problem is that they are ignoring that vow.

Celibacy does not authorize one to go balls deep in altar boys.

PSUFAN wrote:

The body of the Church (at least in western countries) doesn't give a rats ass about Church doctrine.

$$$

Top U.S. Bishop Accused of Sex Abuse

Wed Mar 8, 6:29 PM ET

SPOKANE, Wash. - A woman has filed a claim that she was sexually abused more than 40 years ago by Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops and leader of the Spokane Diocese.

Skylstad issued a statement Wednesday categorically denying the accusation, saying he has not violated the vow of celibacy he took 47 years ago.

The claim was filed against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Spokane on Dec. 27 by a woman who said she was under the age of 18 when Skylstad sexually abused her at St. Patrick's Parish and at Gonzaga University from December 1961 to December 1964.

Skylstad was a student at Gonzaga University from 1962-1966 and taught mathematics to students at Mater Cleri Seminary at Colbert, north of Spokane.

The diocese is one of three in the nation that filed for bankruptcy protection to deal with claims of sexual abuse by clergy. Skylstad last month offered to settle with 75 victims for $45.7 million.

The woman's claim was filed as a result of the bankruptcy "proof of claims" process, the diocese said.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse have until Friday to file claims. Greg Arpin, an attorney representing the diocese, said there were a total of 135 claims as of Wednesday morning, including the original 75 who would be covered by the settlement.

The woman's claim was first reported Wednesday by the Spokesman-Review newspaper of Spokane.

It is unclear under the reforms American bishops adopted in 2002 for responding to abuse claims whether Skylstad should temporarily step down while his case is being investigated.

The policy requires Catholic officials to determine whether there is "sufficient evidence" supporting the allegations against a cleric before they take him out of public ministry while a full review is conducted under
Vatican oversight.

The woman's claim was filed as a result of the bankruptcy "proof of claims" process, the diocese said.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse have until Friday to file claims. Greg Arpin, an attorney representing the diocese, said there were a total of 135 claims as of Wednesday morning, including the original 75 who would be covered by the settlement.

The woman's claim was first reported Wednesday by the Spokesman-Review newspaper of Spokane.

Diogenes wrote:And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon.

Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

Diogenes wrote:
And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon. Ditto for the problem of pederasts joining the priesthood

Possibly the actual problem is an excess of western Catholics who don't even believe in Catholic doctrine.

Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And the 'shortage of preists' is, coincidently, also a western phenomenon.

Of course, in the eastern world, Catholics are a distinct minority. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with that?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Either way, the Vatican isn't going to dispense with doctrine to appease apostacy anytime soon.

Diogenes wrote:If you don't believe in Catholicism, why remain a Catholic?

PSUFAN wrote:What's so bad about that? He was a man with a healthy sex drive. I'm not so sure it's wise to prefer folks who are totally and freakishly denying their sexuality as clergy.

Diogenes wrote:... or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

Diogenes wrote:Amd no, I don't believe that nations which never embrace Vatican II, the sexual revolution and homosexuality as a viable 'alternative lifestyle' to begin with have the same problem.

Diogenes wrote:If you don't believe in Catholicism, why remain a Catholic?

There is a difference between controling one's sexuality and denying it.

So again, do you have a problem with celibacy in general, as opposed to a problem with the Catholic Church?

You consider anyone who doesn't run around trying to get laid at all costs 'denying their sexuality'?

Are kids who decide to actually postpone sex until they are older, or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

Vatican II is every bit as valid a Church teaching as is the vow of celibacy. And of course, neither is central to Catholic ideology. The only difference, of course, is that the vow of celibacy and the doctrine of Papal infallibility are the things that most noticeably (although not exclusively) separate the Catholic Church from mainstream Protestant denominations.

PSUFAN wrote:

There is a difference between controling one's sexuality and denying it.

So again, do you have a problem with celibacy in general, as opposed to a problem with the Catholic Church?

You consider anyone who doesn't run around trying to get laid at all costs 'denying their sexuality'?

Are kids who decide to actually postpone sex until they are older, or couples who decide to wait until the honeymoon 'brainwashed freaks'?

Waiting on sex for a spousal partner is a lot different than swearing off of it for the rest of your life.

I simply don't understand the mandated vow of celibacy. What practical purpose does it serve? I've never seen a single one creditably defined.

BSmack wrote:

jiminphilly wrote:The church will disguise their exceptions in biblical mumbo jumbo but essentially they've been telling themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong for far too long to change anything. It'll take the actual body of the church.. ie practicing catholics to actually bring about any change to the issue of women priests and allowing priests to marry.

The body of the Church (at least in western countries) doesn't give a rats ass about Church doctrine. They just care about showing up every Saturday or Sunday, feeling good about themselves and then going back out into the world and ignoring any Church teaching that happens to inconvenience them.

Diogenes wrote:

Vatican II is every bit as valid a Church teaching as is the vow of celibacy. And of course, neither is central to Catholic ideology. The only difference, of course, is that the vow of celibacy and the doctrine of Papal infallibility are the things that most noticeably (although not exclusively) separate the Catholic Church from mainstream Protestant denominations.

So if you have a problem with being 'seperate from mainstream protestant denominations' why remain Catholic?

Grandpa was a carpenter
He built houses stores and banks
Chain smoked camel cigarettes
And hammered nails in planks
He was level on the level
And shaved even every door
And voted for eisenhower
’cause lincoln won the war.

Diogenes wrote:Try the Lutherans.

Indulgences were a smokescreen, Martin was just wantin to get laid.

Tom In VA wrote:I saw both episodes last night. You're correct.

Dan - Dude was carrying the cross because his mentor "suggested" it. I can see him carrying it through.

Joe - Was in Germany, got dumped. My money is on him saying "NO" to the priesthood.

Mike - Same. His girl is cute and he's another one that's doing it because of pressure to please his father, who's dead. He's out.

Last Dude - Don't remember his name, but apparently gave up a lucrative career and the reality of that is setting in. But I see him carrying it out.

The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly do actually become the body and blood of Christ. However, they have in general refrained from philosophical speculation such as that which found expression in the theory of transubstantiation, and instead usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, preferring to say too little about the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth, they speak simply of a "change" (in Greek μεταβολή) of the bread and wine. Orthodox theologians generally speak in terms of what is called metousiosis, which is used to speak of a great mystical change of essence, not only of the bread and wine, but also in those who partake of the Eucharist.

Diogenes wrote:Is this anything like the show where they dumped Amish kids in the big city to see what would happen?

If transubstantiation is important, . . .