Posted on 07/22/2006 7:06:59 AM PDT by NYer
Aw dang, Jeff, you caught us red-handed!Trying to Hook More Youths on Priesthood
In this era of Eminem and Britney Spears, of sexy sitcoms and sexier commercials, of high-speed Internet and instant gratification, a life of celibacy devoted to God can be a hard sell to a teenager.
So as the nation's Roman Catholic leaders gathered recently and watched a video called "Fishers of Men," designed to draw young men to the priesthood, they had good reason to worry about the future of their chosen way of life.
Church leaders have long been aware of the statistics. There are now about 43,000 Catholic priests in America, down from more than 58,000 in 1965. As the U.S. Catholic population has risen to about 70 million, more churches have had to share priests.
What receives less attention is that the men who go into the seminary generally don't do so until later in life. The average age of newly ordained priests was 36 last year, up from 28 in the 1960s and 26 in the 1940s.
...
Observers of vocational trends say more effort is needed now because of smaller families, with parents who want grandchildren; a secularized culture wary of lifetime commitment and celibacy; Catholic assimilation in America; and increased family mobility, which detracts from parish loyalties. [More...]
Rest assured, she will not be living down this sad performance.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Don't worry, it's not personal. It's about a track record of misinterpretation. I believe that's highly relevant, and not at all personal.
"...Led around the nose by a priest," upthread? That's kinda personal.
What? Do you think that the KJV dropped out of the sky and bonked the Holy Apostles on the head, LOL!
In the guideline, "personal" refers to another Freeper. On open threads, disparaging remarks about authors, religious figures, etc. are allowed. But personal remarks about other Freepers are never tolerable.
But once fertilized, it does become an innocent human life waiting to be born.
It is his bullet so to speak. If she was shot in the lung with lead we would remove it. He shot her in the egg. She has every right to have it removed, IMO. Let's just say I don't buy into rape and incest victims being forced to carry the baby.
Like I told sitetest I will agree to disagree with you on that point.
From what I have read, there is only a very small percentage of women that fall into that category of rape/incest victims who get abortions. It's like one percent. Do you advocate keeping abortion legal for this small percentage when millions of unborn are being killed every year worldwide?
In this case, the comment "led around by the nose by a priest" is not disparaging of the priest, but rather of Catholics, because the insinuation is that we do not think for ourselves. A comment like that is used as a personal insult, and I take it as one.
Other than that, I have no further comment on the meaning of "personal."
Every confession is subject to challenges on open threads. And some challenges will be offensive. Meet the challenge with respectful rebuttals.
Read my posts, please! I very much favor overturning roe v wade and outlawing almost all abortions especially those used for convenience and birth control. Only serious threat to mothers life, rape and incest would be exceptions. Then I would hope the woman would consult with other competent medical professionals in the case of health, her clergy, parents or husband if married, and above all God before deciding.
Both.
Dear landerwy,
Your bullet analogy doesn't quite work for me. Analogically, the bullet won't combine with something inside the victim to create a brand new, distinct, individual third psrty.
But the sperm does. And the sperm then ceases to exist.
So, following the bullet analogy, how does one remove the now non-existent sperm? As well, when removing the bullet, no other party is harmed. Remove the unborn child (who is partly the product of the sperm/"bullet" - and is all that remains that was connected to the sperm/"bullet") and you've killed her.
Having seen what abortion does to women, even if I could justify this morally, it's apparent that a woman is better off not following up one act of violence on the part of the aggressor with their own act of violence against another innocent victim.
sitetest
the sperm doesn't disappear. It is ever so much a weapon as a knife blade or bullett from a gun. I causes internal injury. And physological damage. The dna from the sperm remains until it is cut out or allowed to grow. It is not Gods will that heinious crimes such as this occur. And I am convinced there are times he allows innocent life to be destroyed, like when the Jews ended their 40 years in the wilderness.
And her liberty has been violated. We fight wars to defend our freedom, our liberty. But now in your opinion she has none because of some criminal, who in my opinion has committed a crime worthy of death.
No I don't like innocent being killed anywhere but sometimes it is necessary in war and for some in extreme circumstances like this.
But I will not convince you and you won't me so like I said I'll just agree to disagree! I hope you have a great day in worshipping the Lord!
Dear landerwy,
Yes, actually, the sperm disappears. It donates its DNA to a new human being, but the sperm, itself, disappears.
There is no physical internal injury caused, unless we re-define pregnancy as physical injury, which is perverse beyond description.
Is there psychological damage? That occurs from the rape, itself. This becomes a matter of prudential judgment, rather than an application of principle, but my own experience is that abortion leaves a far greater wound in a human being than bringing to term an innocent human baby, no matter how she was conceived.
"It is not Gods will that heinious crimes such as this occur."
That's true, but it's not God's will, either, that people fornicate or willingly commit adultery. Yet, that's hardly justification for killing the unborn baby that might result from those acts.
"And I am convinced there are times he allows innocent life to be destroyed, like when the Jews ended their 40 years in the wilderness."
I'm not sure whose innocent lives you're getting at, here, but God is the Author of Life, and thus, may give and take life freely. We all die eventually, the Author of Life takes each one of our lives eventually. Yet, that isn't justification for us to take innocent human life, directly, and intentionally.
"And her liberty has been violated. We fight wars to defend our freedom, our liberty."
Yes, but even in war, we are forbidden to directly, intentionally kill innocent human beings. If we accidentally kill innocents while pursuing legitimate military aims, that isn't illicit. However, if the only way to bring about our military goal is through the deaths of innocents, then that isn't morally acceptable.
"But now in your opinion she has none because of some criminal, who in my opinion has committed a crime worthy of death."
The criminal is certainly worthy of death.
The unborn baby is not.
To kill the unborn baby is to commit a greater injustice than the rapist, who is worthy of death.
"No I don't like innocent being killed anywhere but sometimes it is necessary in war and for some in extreme circumstances like this."
One may never directly, intentionally kill an innocent human being. One's actions, through the principle of double effect, might licitly cause the otherwise unwanted death of an innocent human being, because it cannot be practically avoided in pursuit of the actual purpose of an act. But one's acts may never be directly, intentionally directed toward the killing of an innocent human being.
sitetest
Well I do not buy your logic and to be honest with you I believe that logic played a major role in Roe v wade being decided the way it is. God commanded the Isrealites to take innocent life; to spare none; destroy women and children.
The women you talk of who were raped and who carried their baby through to birth had a choice of whether to do it or not. Because the choose to do it and were not forced to do it it was part of the healing process.
Sperm changes but it message (DNA) does not. It is there and an invader. Unwanted and unsolicited.
You have not convinced me and will not in this matter. But i still wish you a good day!
Dear landerwy,
"Well I do not buy your logic and to be honest with you I believe that logic played a major role in Roe v wade being decided the way it is."
Maybe, but I doubt it. If the Court had wanted to carve out an area of law for raped women to get abortions, they could have used the logic you've presented. No, the whole thing was a set-up to "free" women from the consequences of sex.
Instead, they've been enslaved by their "liberation."
"God commanded the Isrealites to take innocent life; to spare none; destroy women and children."
Well, when you can show me a verifiable command of God to kill some innocent human beings, let me know. Until then, I believe that the law should always protect the fundamental liberties of human beings, including the right of innocent human beings not to be directly, intentionally murdered.
"Sperm changes but it message (DNA) does not. It is there and an invader. Unwanted and unsolicited."
Well, not quite. The message recombines with that of the ovum, to create a new, unique human being who is ontologically different from either her father or mother. The DNA of this new human being resembles that of both the sperm and the ovum, but is not identical to either.
And this new human being deserves the protection of law.
sitetest
Is God commanding every single woman out there to have an abortion?
sorry that should read, "Is God commanding every single woman who has an abortion to kill that baby?"
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.