Church to blame for spread of Islam in Europe

Catholic Church Conservation ^ | 9/5/2012 | Cathcon

[Gillibrand]

The Egyptian-Italian MEP, Magdi Cristiano Allam criticized yesterday an article published in the Italian daily newspaper Il Giornale, the Islamization of Europe. As "clear evidence", he cited the citizens of European countries, who convert to Islam. "Did you know that in Italy there are already 70,000 Muslim citizens?" Allam asks in his article. The total number of Muslims currently living in Italy comes to, according to the Interior Ministry, to more than 1,583,000. "Did you know that on average every four days in Italy a new Islamic place of worship is established?"

[Gillibrand]

Amazing intervention by convert baptised by Pope

[bicyclerepair]

Two reasons I left the Catholic church:

Why the priests can’t get married (offspring dilute the assets).

They wanted $500 to disolve my marriage. (I doubt Jesus would’ve asked for money)

[SgtHooper]

The muzzies ain’t stupid. Given enough time, they will rupture the country from within and assume control. It’s so easy. They can’t lose!! It’s even happening in Israel!!

[null and void]

Nature abhors a vacuum...

[hinckley buzzard]

Naive cynicism doesn't fit well with the Church. Just as well you left. Maybe after you learn a little bit you'll see and appreciate what you gave up.

[bicyclerepair]

Joined a Lutheran church and like it very much.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Why the priests can’t get married (offspring dilute the assets).”

That’s not the reason why nor was it ever. By the way, priests NEVER married in the Orthodox or Catholic churches. You probably mean “married men were not allowed to be ordained” - but that is another thing entirely.

“They wanted $500 to disolve my marriage. (I doubt Jesus would’ve asked for money)”

Yes He would if He had need of it. Also, no marriage can be dissolved by the church for any amount of money. What you must mean - because this is the only thing that is logically possible - is that you were ASKED to pay $500 toward the process of an annulment. If you don’t have the money, you don’t have to pay a dime. I know this for a fact from numerous examples. The annulment investigation can cost a diocesan tribunal THOUSANDS of dollars and no diocese actually makes money from its tribunal. They all run in the red according to fees actually collected. That’s why they all receive a budget from the diocesan central fund.

If you would actually like to know the truth of these matters from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about send me a private message. I would be happy to discuss it there or here, whichever you prefer.

[jobim]

So encouraging to see a man seek the truth by examining the doctrine upon which a religion is founded. Although, come to think of it, church assets & fees for services are not in the catechism.

[Campion]

Reason number one is simply false. "The assets" were never the priest's to bequeath to his children in the first place. As far as a priest's personal property, he can still bequeath that to anyone he pleases.

Reason number two reminds me a lot of 1 Tm 5:18. If you're like most Americans, you have no trouble spending $500 on vacations or other entertainments.

[Celtic Cross]

But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. — 1 Corinthians 7:8.

[Little Ray]

Sorry.
Catholic Priests weren’t banned from marrying until about the 12th century in the Lateran Councils.
Dunno ‘bout the Orthodox priests.

[Pyro7480]

I think vlad meant bishops.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sorry. Catholic Priests weren’t banned from marrying until about the 12th century in the Lateran Councils.”

Priests were NEVER supposed to marry. Ever. That was always the ideal, and tradition. Married men could be ordained. Ordained men were not to marry. Also, Church laws against priests marrying - which should never have been needed since priests marrying violated the tradition in the first place - came about already in the 11th century. That’s why Anne Llewellyn Barstow could write Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy:
the Eleventh-Century Debates (published in 1982) even though the First Lateran Council didn’t happen until 1123. Also check out the venerable, but still useful, article by CNL Brooke, “Gregorian Reform in Action: Clerical Marriage in England, 1050-1200,” Cambridge Historical Journal 12 (1956): 1-16.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Little Ray, I think you are making the common error of assuming that if there is an official decree of a Church council (like the Lateran), they are "banning" something that was previously allowed, rather than officially reaffirming something which was always part of common practice and belief -- perhaps something on which discipline had become lax, or something that dissenters were making controversy about, and had to be reasserted.

Like today's (erroneous) headlines saying the Catholic Church "bans" women from the priesthood or "bans" gay marriage, as if they were ever allowed to begin with (rolls eyes).

Mind you, there were problems of lax discipline, where a Council or Pope had to correct abuses that had been wrongly tolerated but would be tolerated no more.

It was sometimes the case that married men could receive Holy Orders and became deacons or parish priests --- most especially in he East; but I don't think it was ever the case that men already in Holy Orders --- priests --- were permitted to marry. Ever. East or West. Unless they were laicized. And then they could not function as priests.

Vlad, I think you know the history better than I do. If I am in error, please correct me.