Posted on 06/27/2013 2:27:40 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
I agree that the trend towards sex as recreation excluded from a loving relationship has not been good for society. However, this has had little if anything to do with the infiltration of the clergy by practicing homosexuals opposed to traditional Catholic values. “Goodbye Good Men” by Michael Rose documented an extensive network of conspirators in the seminaries who actively promoted an anti-Catholic pro-homosexual agenda and worked to abuse and remove those who did not agree with their agenda.
Evil people have infiltrated the Catholic Church. They must be expelled before they do more harm.
Ok...
It would be nice if...Protestants here would...
How long have you really been here? What was your FR account name used previous?
BlueDragon, I am new here....maybe a couple of months? So, whoever it is you think I am, I am not.
Christians bear their cross and suffer along with Christ when Satan attacks His body.
Those who aren't part of the body of Christ line the streets mocking and jeering at those who take up their cross and follow Him just like they mocked and jeered at Christ.
You can drop your cross and go along to get along or you can get used to the jeering and mocking from those who worship the god they see in the mirror.
Not a retread?
The "just for once" part threw me. We do get some re-treads around here. This isn't the first time I've wondered.
I can read your sign-up date. Telling me what that is...leaves me still suspicious. Sorry.
How did you find Free Republic? I do notice that most replies are in the religion forum. So I ask...
Was this particular forum spoken of elsewhere? I ask that as a semi-leading question, for I myself and many others much participating on this particular portion of FR didn't originally sign up to investigate or discuss religious issues, even as some do so now almost exclusively.
So when someone shows up, and seems to go straight for the RF, seems to know their way around the various arguments and the forum too...it is only rational that can lead to wondering...who is this?
Obviously the guy making the accusations is a queer himself who apparently expected to pick up where he left off before he went to prison. The fact that he was told, "no way" and went public is an indication that change is already underway otherwise we would have never heard of him unless someone missed a blackmail payment somewhere down the road. Figure it out, he was making good money and getting his perversion jollies before and he wanted to return to his vomit like every other dog does.
I'm glad to see it, actually. There was a major confrontation over this sort of things already just around the corner and this guy putting dirty details out actually makes it easier to dig out all the scum rather than just a few who get sacrificed by the rest of the queers but who are then quietly taken care of.
People won't be anxious to get the purge over with and miss anything now that this is public even if half of what this guy says is hot air to try and make a deal in return for spelling out the other half. On the other extreme, this could even be his warning shot to insiders to let them know that they're either going to come around and take care of him or they're going to be in the deep fryer.
Either way, I hope he's in protective custody instead of back at his favorite queer hangout.
I used to post on Catholic Answers Forums and I think someone told me about this forum there. So...religion has always been my forte so to speak. Really, I’m new here.
It really doesn’t take too many 1,000 post threads between the Protestants and the Catholics to figure out patterns. I’m not new to forums in general.
Agreed, for the most part, on one primary level at least, they are two separate issues. Yet there can be overlap, for what are we talking but various form of sexuality itself? Still, as much as possible, the issues should not be confused. Simple declaration they are not related (for reason they not be identical or even close) isn't enough to make it be so, in every_single_aspect.
Possibly true enough, for the issues are not precisely one and the same. There is abundant justification for opposition to homosexuality, in and of itself.
Holding that thought in mind...the status quo for celibacy [for a Christian 'priesthood'] being truly a separate regard, then it should be addressed separately, not tied to calls from some quarters for there to be women "priests" either.
It is real simple. There is precedence for allowing married persons to become priests, even now (although there is a forcing of requirement that even "procreational sex" be prohibited?).
There is precedence from the earliest formations of Christian church both in biblical support and earliest understandings that individuals be allowed to marry if they were not, or remain so and function normally if married. The mandated continence idea, although having some early promoters, was not universal requirement for many centuries.
In comparison, there is no real precedence for female priesthood in Christianity, and there is firm scriptural and historical foundation for out-right prohibition of acceptance towards homosexual behavior or activity of any kind, even as that last has sadly enough, at various time and place in history, long been present in the narrow confines of the RCC, as in other places in the world also.
At this point, I'm not sure why traditional heterosexual marriage, as it can well enough serve primarily as bulwark against illicit extra-marital fornication, which Christians are instructed to flee from, can't be seen as being also helpful bulwark against temptation towards engaging in homosexual acts, at least for some. That there are indeed homo clergy whom are otherwise forbidden more normal sexual gratification, and could well enough end up with complicating results (like fatherhood) if tempted to carouse with females --- then why not allow clergy to marry, even as 1 Cor.7 explains? As it is now,if a priest wish to marry he must go against vows previously made. Yet those vows, though said to be taken voluntarily, are still not without some false pretext, for that sort of requirement was NOT passed on from the Apostles.
Perhaps it is difficult for some Roman Catholics to read that chapter of 1 Corinthians without seeing it through lens of "tradition", and with that lens skewed towards later developments (but in half-blind fashion, half-blind to critical examination of how such developments came about).
Regardless, there is still long historical precedence for opposing both; idea of female clergy, and/or acceptance of openly homosexual clergy.
Those outside of Romanist walls who have taken their own 'ecclesiastical communities' in direction of those two ideas are withering on the vine, even as more fundamentalist ideology is holding it's own, and in some quarters of the world increasing (for both better and worse, depending upon how much non-fundamentalist or non-traditional Christian worldview novelties like 'prosperity gospel' or 'liberation theology' is introduced to the mix).
Ministers being married, and functioning normally in marriage, raising children and so forth, hasn't itself been root of any particularly insurmountable, universal "problem". One may point towards some apparent present day nepotism, the likes of Billy Graham's son rather inheriting his father's "ministry", but what does that point us towards also but one of the reasons mandated celibacy rule arose within the Roman Catholic church in the first place?
Marriage in fact, can keep help keep a preacher honest. Though not every married minister has been in all ways perfect, if such persons did sin in a sexual manner, it wasn't marriage itself that made them do it?
Meanwhile, there has long been significant numbers of successful marriages among ministers of various stripe whom have served congregations large and small, with marriage itself not unduly hindering, and in many regards otherwise in fact helping, although being a "preacher's" wife perhaps isn't the easiest things in the world to do, and can be seriously demanding and challenging for those women who are in that position. Many of them are full-time in ministry of sorts towards the church, it's congregational membership, their own family, and the Lord too, all at once.
It's better to marry than to burn, with that 'burn' not be limited to only some later hellfire for having "sinned", but also to being subjected to burning in one's own natural desires, which desires we can see that the creatures that we are, were designed to have, as part of our own nature.
The Creator created the world...and said it was "good". Sex in and of itself, is not an evil. It is not evil in the bounds of marriage, from the very earliest times, reaching back to Hebrew traditions which themselves came forth and grew under the Law.
Why so fully abandon that earliest [Hebrew] sense? It doesn't make sense to do that, for it artificially creates a new sense which in many aspect is itself insensible.
We don't see the earliest bishops required to be either unmarried or celibate either. What was recommended by the those earliest Christians, in toto, not picking and choosing SOLO scripture passages to justify requirement for either marriage or celibacy as requirement for being in service to others by way of holding office or position in the church, is the true "tradition".
According to men such as St. Peter Damian (see Book of Gomorrah), this is NOT a recent problem with the clergy. In fact, it has been an ONGOING problem for nearly as long as the Roman Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox. Were the offenders "expelled" back in Pope Leo IX's day?
1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:
- It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).
Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person of Christ.
So what’s the latest on this? Anything?
Do I need bring chapter and verse? You do know of them I assume. But this later arising codification can go straight against the scriptures (even as they carry along *some* truth).
Any of us (who have the Holy Spirit present within us) can act as in persona Christi Corpus in some aspect. It is artificial imposition which require that the one who consecrates the meal be a celibate priest, for it was not a requirement in the early church, nor is it in any way required in the scriptures, although such was spoken favorably on by Paul. Yet if we are to rely upon Paul, then a bishop can not only be married, but it was to be preferred that he be so.
What then? Bishops of the early church not be allowed to say word of blessing and sanctification over the bread to be broken? That bishops and overseers themselves not be acting "in persona of Christ" since they can't because they are married?
Really sir...
The answer you provide might make [ahem] perfect sense to TradCats, but historically, biblically , and logically based upon those two, makes no sense as it is being here applied as reply to what I just said to you.
1 Timothy 3 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)Over and over I see biblical principles leaned upon or relied upon, but to the exclusion of other pertinent scriptures speaking directly towards subject matter, not needing much special skills to simply bear in mind and carry them along while also considering other aspects.1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.
5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
But since it blows certain Romanist favorite 'aspect' away...then what? What then? Some table pounding about how God died and left the crew in Rome to be perpetually in charge from here on out to rule by their own SOLO ecclesia? Oh wait, it's not like that, right? God still lives, but only through a celibate Roman Catholic priest. Yeah right. Uh-huh.
Does the Spirit of the Lord refrain from allowing himself to be transubstantiated "under the forms of the bread and wine" as Trent put it, if a priest be married (and sexually active as much as fairly normal old guy that has been married for 35 years might be, you know.... like they're lucky, him and his wife, if they can be as one with one another, as man and wife, more than a few times a month by the time they reach that age?) ?
What if the priest is a fag? Does that stop the transubstantiation? I don't think so...
Which means, you are playing the wrong card. NEXT.
I’m not playing any card. I simply no longer have the time nor the inclination to engage in apologetics 101. Years ago I was happy to oblige, and was fairly competent at it, but the hour is too late for that, at least for me and in my opinion the culture in which we live. IMHO within five to ten years these old debates will be over, God will have shown His hand and purified our world, and the Church will be renewed and unified for the last great generation of evangelization prior to antichrist and the Second Coming.
At that point, one of us will be able to say to the other, “See, I told you so.” But we’ll do it in kindness and charity as brothers united in Christ.
Until then I just don’t have the heart for these silly old games.
I carefully [enough it is hoped] stripped away any of this being about women priests, or openly practicing homosexual priests.
I noticed that you did not touch the substance of what I've said, fairly well twice over, my saying much the same thing (relying upon the same precepts) but using different words and principles to demonstrate foundation for similar conclusion. To hand-wave now and tell me there is no time for "apologetics 101" is needlessly demeaning. I need no beginner's course. Just because I don't buy the story all down the line, does not mean I don't already understand it well enough. It is hubris to assume that I don't.
I do notice, that no notice was taken of transubstantiation itself being NOT dependent upon the purity of the priest ---and that, according to Roman Catholic precepts. Need I dig those out more precisely?
if so, that's like pulling teeth, tedious and painful, and unfortunately due to the nature of the forum itself, can make it even more difficult to keep all lined up on a tray they be placed upon, and kept continually in sight, once they are pulled.
Taken together with the scriptural and historical elements focused upon, that one item too fairly well craters offering a "Jesus wasn't married" rational, followed by the "priests are as persona of Christ" rational, applying that to a priests must be celibate' position, if the most important 'performance' of priestly duties, the most significant of them all, the very center of Catholic worship itself, since it be in part reliant upon transubstantiation to occur, and that the Lord be fully present under the forms of the bread and wine as I noted --- can all take place regardless if the priest himself is a rank sinner, himself.
Like I pointedly asked; what if the priest is a fag?
Would that stop or hinder transubstantiation itself? Not that the RCC is any way officially favorable to actively homosexual persons be among their priesthood, but it has doubtless BY NOW occurred. There can be no more denying of the FACT of the matter. Now then--- again, if the priest be a fag --- does transubstantiation still transpire? YES or NO.
For it is not the person but the office which is important, and that office by the tradition originally established, was not restricted to celibate persons only.
Now I do realize that this very same door I am opening, others with impure motives wish to utilize in attempt to bum-rush into the church both female priests and gay ones too. Not that you yourself pointedly raised issue that would be inevitable result, but many do raise that line of argumentation.
Yet it is not fully logical, nor scriptural, nor historical 'tradition' from earliest time that all priests, and bishops too, remain unmarried, or completely sexless if they are married. That position really has the three-legged stool, regardless of possible embarrassment for reason that the RCC in past times was less than precise in following those traditions (including scriptural understandings) that were part of the over all original articles handed to them.
Tell you what...
If you do not intend to DIRECTLY answer that question, then don't reply to me at all concerning this.
For if you don't include answer, but go any and everywhere else with reply (which you could do and I would take pains to receive and reply to politely; as long as you do answer that precise question, and hopefully too address both the scripture and history I pointed towards, in how those relate to this issue) then I will spare no effort nor extend much courtesy when I will have then been forced to again re-summarize, even as I will tear into and spare no effort towards ridiculing, shredding, stomping upon with both feet --- any distractions and specious counter argument. Do you understand? I am not playing here. Not at all. I am going straight at the issue.
I do confess that others may be able to summarize or present the same argument which I am hoping to outline here, but what is required? A full dissertation? Or just submission to whatever it is that you decide to say?
Validation of the the other facts of the matter, beyond transubstantiation not reliant upon celibacy or other concept of extreme purity of the person of a priest, have both solid scriptural foundation, and support found in earliest history of the church. All of these aspects...I cannot for the life of me see how they can be honestly denied.
The only argument left, is that later persons have been empowered to overturn and change what was originally received from Christ and the Apostles, into the subtly differing version which you now here present for support of mandatory celibacy requirements.
You may not like where my own oppositional positional statements go...but to now just wave hands dismissively towards it, well...perhaps this forum isn't for you?
Who can provide rebuttal to the evidences of scripture, history, and even present Roman Church teachings (it's not my fault that some can be in conflict with some other!) and actually address each of the items or aspects of the argument I'm making, without in the end just running back to magesterium, and sola ecclesia even in the face of the evidences here relied upon to the contrary?
What good is the magically fuzzily infallible magesterium when set against clear knowledge of history, scripture, and significantly important aspect of present-day "teaching" when those all are arrayed working together against the stubborn insistence that Christian priests must be entirely sexless?
The super-spiritualized;
God will have shown His hand and purified our world, and the Church will be renewed and unified for the last great generation of evangelization prior to antichrist and the Second Coming.seems to include fantasy that a 'last great generation of evangelization' will be lead by celibate Roman Catholic priests, which is much fantasy as not for not having much evidence that suggests it much likely to occur in that manner, even while it also ignores a great bulk of the church for reason of identifying "the church" to be chiefly Roman Catholic.
Though I am rather convinced we are in nearly the very last days myself, I must point out to one and all, that as it has been from before the time of Christ living on this earth as a man, the Father in heaven owns the cattle on a thousand hills. That "cattle" is also now us, with it still being only one church, but not necessarily needful for that church to have earthly headquarters in Rome, or anywhere else, for His Kingdom is not of this world.
Under conditions more as I here outline them, shall be those things yet to come.
My apologies. I was not referring to you in particular but to this forum in general. These debates have been rehashed over and over and over. I've given up on that in general. It is pointless and I refuse to play that game on the biased uneven playing field that is this Religion Forum.
Kudos to you for your attempt to discuss an issue important to you, in good faith.
But you'll have to continue that debate with someone else. I didn't post this thread to rehash this tired old debate over the discipline of priestly celibacy.
But why did you post this thread with the title of "Pope Francis and the drama of sodomy in the Church and in the Diocese of Rome", on an OPEN Religion Forum thread, if all you wanted to do was notify the troops? Are you unaware of what the purpose of this category of threads is? Did you not expect at least some back and forth dialog WRT the subject and the tie-in to certain Church disciplines?
I think far too few Catholics on this forum post threads with the proper motive and intent for which it was created - that of having a conversation or debate with other Conservatives. Many DO play a game of starting a fire and then sitting back eager to read the discord and ire such provocative threads invoke. If the reaction you get from those who are far too familiar with this tactic is unpleasant or unwanted, perhaps you should reconsider what and where you chose to post threads.
Maybe you heard there was an important SCOTUS decision this week? This thread illustrates what happens when churches go soft on homosexuality and how much we as conservatives need to fight the sodomites' agenda. It really isn't that hard to understand.
It may be an internal debate, but I hope it involves more than your Latin rite — the Uniates have the same reasons we have for allowing married men to be ordained to the diaconate and presbyterate, and rhetoric of that sort is thus an attack on folks in your own communion as well as harmful to relations with the Orthodox.
Given the events of today (”Who am I to judge?”) it really makes me wonder which side is winning.
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.