Posted on 05/03/2002 7:54:20 AM PDT by american colleen
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Of course.
Celibacy is never taught by Christ or Paul as an obligation or requirement and remember Paul also gave a very timely warning regarding this subject Christians would do well to heed, "better to marry than to burn".
. . . who is a professor of religion! Looks like Emory University got a two-fer: they have a homsexual and they can claim they have a "Catholic."
I did a quick Google search on the author -- looks like he's a one-trick pony, taking his turn after that one who claimed in a book a couple of years ago that the medieval church sanctioned same-sex unions, and the numerous claims ("scholarly" and dramatic) that Christ himself was . . . well, I don't even want to finish that sentence in print.
Also because men who are attracted to men have never matured emotionally or psychosexually (which is why they shouldn't be ordained). They never made that transition from identifying with the mother to identifying with the father, therefore they are particularly attracted to those boys who are of an age at which they themselves last felt comfortable and secure. This strong attraction to boys is known in the "gay" community, just scan their publications.
These non-celibate priests probably had an order of magnitude more adult male sexual partners, many of them fellow priests.
Possibly, possibly not.
It will be interesting to see if Shanley blows the lid off of the can of worms in an effort to make a deal with the DA.
If there is a lid to be blown, and there very well could be, I hope he does. Turn the rock over and shine the light on what's been hidden.
Yep. That was my impression too.
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.