Posted on 05/21/2002 10:07:10 AM PDT by johnqueuepublic
The Son is 'begotten,' and the Holy Ghost 'proceeds.'
These are striking word choices, chosen by the Nicene Council. Both the Son and Holy Ghost emanate from the Father.
That is true; however, the Catholic priesthood has always been a haven for homosexuals, albeit the vast majority of them did maintain the vow of chastity.
There have been child abusers in the priesthood as well, and bishops who covered for them.
Many bishops are simply non-plussed that they aren't being allowed to simply handle these cases as they were always handled, that is, privately and without the intervention of civil authorities.
Those who conduct these interviews don't have to be orthodox or even Catholic.
If the applicant expresses conservative beliefs like women shouldnt be ordained, or that liberation theology is bad, or that homosexuality is wrong then they are often denied access to the seminary, sometimes they are actually referred to further counseling, kinda like re-education after the 1966 Cultural Revolution in China.
It's not that these gate keeping people are homosexual its just that many of them have bought into the whole diversity mantra, where everything is ok as long as you are a nice person.
Yes, they are proposed by the Conference of Bishops but the pope must approve them. To ordain a bishop without the pope's approval will get you excommunicated.
For your informationThanks. I read through part of the article, but it didn’t seem to get much better then the openings:
The unprecedented changes made in the wake of Pope John XXIII’s historic Vatican Council have produced the unintended consequences whose effects we now see splattered across the windshield of American culture, in the form of a torrent of accusations of priestly sexual abuse.Do these guys ever do any research? Its all Vatican II’s fault!!!!
But what about guys like Porter, whose abuse career was clearly pre V2, and the numerous other abusers ordained pre V2. Yes, there are more public accusations today, but there is also a different legal and media culture today, and to blame these things on V2 is beyond simplistic.
patent +AMDG
As in the case of the schismatic SSPX.And isn't it true that since Vatican II names of bishops (in America anyway) are proposed by the Conference of Bishops?Yes, they are proposed by the Conference of Bishops but the pope must approve them. To ordain a bishop without the pope's approval will get you excommunicated.
patent +AMDG
Baptism does not restore us to exactly where Adam and Eve were. Our desires are still out of wack with our nature. In our nature we have the ability to do certain things that fit our nature as humans. Eat, drink, sex, etc. My understanding of this is that prior to the original sin, everything was in harmony or balance. The soul had complete control over the physical facilities.if Mary was distinct from the rest of the humanity in her sinless essence, then how can we say that Christ is fully human?Because Mary was fully human. All her immaculate conception means is that from the moment of her conception, she had all the graces Adam and Eve started out with, and which these days we get at baptism.
After the fall, it’s all thrown out of wack. We are subject to tension between our soul and our physical natures. Due to sin we are also out of union with God. Baptism restores our communion with God, but does not cure our nature; it does not restore the soul’s control over our physical facilities. Thus human nature is not subject to corruption, sin, ignorance and concupiscence.
patent +AMDG
Someone on another had the numbers of bishops and cardinals, which I forget, but it was too large for the Pope to have personal knowledge of each. Doesn't the Pope generally go along with the recommendations? Are there any instances in which he hasn't?
You know, I don't take everything in the Bible literally. (Parts of it are allegorical and use metaphor, and parts are historic in nature, as is pointed out in this thread.) But I do understand the Bible's contents to be the true message of God. However, in the case of Jesus, where you have words coming from the true Son of God, I DO take those words literally. I've always believed that when Jesus spoke the words above, he meant it. How could it not be better to cut off a hand than to miss entering the Kingdom of Heaven? I do believe that Christ meant what he said. The problem is, God (and Jesus) make salvation the ultimately most serious matter of existence, whereas many of us are quite a bit more casual about it. We are the ultimate fools if we are among those who do so.
That such is true (and much evidence has been presented that it is) is scandalous.
I'm not at all sure about this all too easy contention. I've seen now several polls and surveys which indicate that only a very, very small percentage of homosexual priests have maintained the vow of chastity. In addition, we have not been treated to many different sets of anecdotes which indicate that many seminaries are chock full of sexually active and promiscuous homosexual priests.
How can the Church continue to 'contract out' to secular third parties the selection of those who would seek to assume the personhood of Christ? This is a massive abrogation of responsibility.
Yes, and the schismatic Catholic Patriotic Association in China.
The American Catholic Church has embarked on a massive queerization of the priesthood. This has clearly resulted in: 1) the transformation of certain seminaries into gay brothels, 2) the sexual molestation and rape of thousands of teenage boys, 3) the inability of the church to present to the laity authentic Catholic teachings regarding sexuality, 4) the almost complete loss of moral authority on the part of the Church's leadership, 5) the complete loss of trust suffered by most parents regarding leaving their sons alone with priests, 6) the chasing away of hundreds (if not thousands) of heterosexual (i.e., NORMAL) men from vocations, 7) the spread of malicious and scornful(though not always inaccurate) jokes throughout our schools and work places concerning homosexual priests (which has seriously affected our children), 8) the loss of faith and deep demoralization of the majority of good priests in the Church, 9) the loss of faith in and trust in the Pope, and 10) many suicides among priests and the children they abused. I have compassion for men who suffer from the severe psychological disorder which is homosexuality. But it was a TRAGIC POLICY OF THE GRAVEST PROPORTIONS TO HOMOSEXUALIZE THE PRIESTHOOD.
I object to the idea that 30 to 40% of the priesthood should be homosexual, that most of that number should be sexually active (and thus sinning and breaking their vows), and that a significant subset of those should be molesters and rapists of teenage boys. I have no problem with an occasional chaste, holy and homosexual priest. But that is NOT what we're dealing with here. We now have an actively queer church, and all the tragic problems that come with that.
Can anybody produce definitive proof that we haven't ALWAYS had a "queer Church", the only difference being the sexual abuse of minors was covered up and not reported?
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.