Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland Admits He's Gay
Fox 6 ^ | May 11, 2009

Posted on 03/29/2010 2:17:12 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican

A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man has written a memoir that describes how he struggled with being gay.

Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, "is up front about his homosexuality in a church that preferred to ignore gays," Publisher's Weekly wrote in a review Monday.

The book, "A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop," is set to be released in June and is described by the publisher as a self-examination by Weakland of his "psychological, spiritual and sexual growth."

The Vatican says that men with "deep-seated" attraction to other men should not be ordained.

Weakland stepped down quickly after Paul Marcoux, a former Marquette University theology student, revealed in May 2002 that he was paid $450,000 to settle a sexual assault claim he made against the archbishop more than two decades earlier. The money came from the archdiocese.

Marcoux went public at the height of anger over the clergy sex abuse crisis, when Catholics and others were demanding that dioceses reveal the extent of molestation by clergy and how much had been confidentially spent to settle claims.

Weakland denied ever assaulting anyone. He apologized for concealing the payment.

In an August 1980 letter that was obtained by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Weakland said he was in emotional turmoil over Marcoux and signed the letter, "I love you."

"During the last months, I have come to know how strained I was, tense, pensive, without much joy," Weakland wrote. "I felt like the world's worst hypocrite. So gradually I came back to the importance of celibacy in my life."

The revelations rocked the Milwaukee archdiocese, which Weakland had led since 1977. But when he publicly read a letter of apology for the scandal, Milwaukee parishioners gave him a a standing ovation.

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee released a public statement last week alerting local Catholics that the book is soon to be published and that it deals in part with Weakland's relationship with Marcoux and the scandal.

"Some people will be angry about the book, others will support it," the archdiocese said.

Weakland, who has been a hero for liberal Catholics because of his work on social justice and other issues, will also address in the memoirs his failures to stop abusive priests.

In a videotaped deposition released last November, Weakland admitted returning guilty priests to active ministry without alerting parishioners or police.

Advocates for abuse victims said that Weakland's cover up of his own sexual activity was part of a pattern of secrecy that included concealing the criminal behavior of child molesters.

The archbishop did not respond Monday to an e-mail request for comment. Weakland, a Benedictine, plans to move to St. Mary's Abbey in Morristown, N.J., this summer.

U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."

Cozzens, a former seminary rector, said in an interview that Weakland's acknowledgment of his sexual orientation "cuts into the denial that relatively few priests or bishops are gay."

But Russell Shaw, a former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, questioned whether the book would have much impact.

"That one controversial archbishop acknowledges what everybody's known for several years," Shaw said, "I don't think that's going to make any big difference."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: catholic; fagpriests; homosexualpriests; potstirrer; repost; retread; sin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 last
To: danno3150

Thanks for your posts.


251 posted on 03/29/2010 10:02:31 PM PDT by Running On Empty ((The three sorriest words: "It's too late"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
Using your logic, Elizabeth Taylor should be a marriage counselor considering she has so much experience.
252 posted on 03/29/2010 10:04:49 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: sabe@q.com
2009
253 posted on 03/29/2010 10:07:49 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
I have difficulty describing celibacy as a “gift”, much less even considering practicing it.

A common trait of those who allow their libido to do their thinking for them.

254 posted on 03/29/2010 10:09:04 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

conclusion germinated by a simple mind.


255 posted on 03/29/2010 11:29:43 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

>> A common trait of those who allow their libido to do their thinking for them.

You assume too much.

SnakeDoc


256 posted on 03/30/2010 6:27:34 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

The vast majority of the translations I have read specifically use the term “wife”. If you choose to discount that, that’s your prerogative. It remains that there is a Biblical reason to believe Peter was married, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume his wife was dead.

SnakeDoc


257 posted on 03/30/2010 6:29:49 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

Your rant deserved nothing more than a flippant response ... so that’s what it received. You’re aruging about pedophilia when I made no mention thereof.

Christianity transcends personal weakness, and always will. But when a singular entity claims to be the sole representative of the Almighty on this earth, as does the Vatican, rampant “personal weakness” within their ranks may indicate that their monopoly isn’t quite so ironclad.

SnakeDoc


258 posted on 03/30/2010 6:33:53 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Where did I say that Peter was not married? I’ve said it over and over again that he was married. Scripture makes no mention of her, even when Jesus comes to visit her mom. Therefore it makes sense to me that when he became Christ’s disciple, she had already passed away.


259 posted on 03/30/2010 6:42:18 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

‘But when a singular entity claims to be the sole representative of the Almighty on this earth, as does the Vatican, rampant “personal weakness” within their ranks may indicate that their monopoly isn’t quite so ironclad.’

Well then. Cite please to show that the Vatican actually says that they are the sole representative of God on Earth. :)


260 posted on 03/30/2010 6:43:40 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>> Therefore it makes sense to me that when he became Christ’s disciple, she had already passed away.

That is nothing more than pure conjecture ... a guess. There is simply no justifiable Biblical reason to believe that Peter’s wife was dead. It is a forced interpretation as justification for contrived celibacy arguments that would be completely derailed if Peter’s marriage was not objectionable to Christ.

The passage I cited from 1 Corinthians, under most translations thereof, seems to indicate that Peter brought his wife along with him during his discipleship.

SnakeDoc


261 posted on 03/30/2010 6:49:20 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>> Well then. Cite please to show that the Vatican actually says that they are the sole representative of God on Earth. :)

The doctrine that the Vatican alone is endowed by the Almighty with doctrinal infallibility, so as to make decisions and proclamations on His behalf, would seem to indicate as much.

SnakeDoc


262 posted on 03/30/2010 6:52:51 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Thank you proving my point. You marginalize my opinion by calling it a rant. You don’t deign to argue since my response doesn’t rise to the level of your towering intellect. Your understanding of Catholicism is miniscule, yet you present yourself as an expert and, as an extra bonus, you insult me for my beliefs. Welcome to Free Republic President Obama. BTW-your tying deviancy, whether it was homosexuality or pedophilia, is still flawed and ignorant (but I’m sure you’ll still be able to come up with a pithy and insulting response anyway).


263 posted on 03/30/2010 9:02:48 AM PDT by danno3150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

>> Thank you proving my point.

You’re welcome.

>> You marginalize my opinion by calling it a rant. You don’t deign to argue since my response doesn’t rise to the level of your towering intellect. Your understanding of Catholicism is miniscule, yet you present yourself as an expert and, as an extra bonus, you insult me for my beliefs.

I have never referred to myself as an expert on anything, and never touted my own intellect in the least. I am just your average Baptist (non-Catholic) observer. I haven’t insulted you ... and honestly haven’t even addressed you very much at all. I disagree with some of your beliefs wholeheartedly, and won’t pretend otherwise. If you regard that disagreement as an insult ... so be it.

>> Welcome to Free Republic President Obama. BTW-your tying deviancy, whether it was homosexuality or pedophilia, is still flawed and ignorant (but I’m sure you’ll still be able to come up with a pithy and insulting response anyway).

You seem to be hankerin’ for a fight — not sure why, and I’m not really interested in any case. You disagree with me. You find me “flawed and ignorant”. Fine by me. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been disagreed with.

Pithy enough?

SnakeDoc


264 posted on 03/30/2010 9:23:21 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The Catholic Church’s decision (in the US anyway) to allow admittedly gay men into the priesthood was, is and always will be inexcusable. They now literally have their own private enclaves in som diocese, trading sex for power and position, and running anyone who challenges them out into the boondocks.

Pope Benedict needs to seriously purge the church of this infestation.


265 posted on 03/30/2010 9:27:18 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Sorry, but don’t agree with this. While the incident of Homosexuality is far higher in the priesthood than most leigh folk realize, the pedophile issue is mass hysteria over reality. Rates of catholic priests even accused of such acts are lower than the general population.

How the church has handled these incidents has been poor to flat out disgusting depending on the case, but the actual incident of cases is lower than the general population. The press generally doesn’t bother to point that out though, because of their hatred of anything that doesn’t buy into the anything goes mantra they desire.


266 posted on 03/30/2010 9:30:10 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

>> and, as an extra bonus, you insult me for my beliefs.

For the record, the first sentence of your first post to me (before which I had never spoken to you), referred to me as “ignorant and moronic”. Thus far, you’re the only one that has been throwing around insults. This opening salvo is also why I characterized your little hissy-fit as a “rant”, and why I really haven’t bothered to speak with you at any length.

SnakeDoc


267 posted on 03/30/2010 9:30:17 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
It seems blatantly obvious that the Catholic church environment attracts homosexuals and pedophiles into their priesthood.

Sure. Because the homosexuals want to take down the Church from the inside. That has been the plan for some time now.

BTW, I never trust anyone with the word "conservative" in their screen-name. It reeks of trolldom.
268 posted on 03/30/2010 9:33:26 AM PDT by Antoninus (It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Bingo! That's the only reason I posted this article. While I respect the church and its traditions, it's clear to me that the current Pope needs to resign and that they need to allow priests to marry so they can clean house of homosexuals and pedophiles.

Really? How do you protestants plan to get rid of the homosexuals and pedophiles among your ministers, then?

Very rarely have I seen such blatant know-nothing ignorance spouted on FR. And during Holy Week no less!
269 posted on 03/30/2010 9:35:23 AM PDT by Antoninus (It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
More information about how the Slimes in sliming the Catholic Church here:

Defending the Pope against Hot Air
Catholic Caucus: Accusations that Pope Complicit in Abuse Cover-Up Fall Flat
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy

Former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland Admits He's Gay
Long Applause for New York Prelate Who Defends Pope
NYT UNFAIRLY CITES POPE'S ROLE [Catholic Caucus]
Scoundrel Time(s)
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you

270 posted on 03/30/2010 9:37:18 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
**blatantly obvious that the Catholic church environment attracts homosexuals and pedophiles into their priesthood.**

This is not true.

Seminarians now undergo a series of tests and interviews that would daunt the average career seeker.

It has been cleaned up. Do you know that there were more sexual attacks in public schools and in Protestant churches than in the Catholic Church last year?

Now stop believing the NYSlimes!

Sexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers

Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year

Abuse by Protestant Ministers of Every Denomination

Child Sexual Molestation by Various Protestant Clergy

Baptist Predators website

"Yeshiva" of Brooklyn also Guilty of Child Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church

WHEN BOYS ARE MOLESTED BY TEACHERS AND OTHERS IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY


271 posted on 03/30/2010 9:40:41 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

>> Really? How do you protestants plan to get rid of the homosexuals and pedophiles among your ministers, then?

We have our ways. Ted Haggard, for instance, was fired, excommunicated, forbidden from preaching anywhere in the State of Colorado ... and became a traveling insurance salesman.

SnakeDoc


272 posted on 03/30/2010 9:46:35 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Again, you never address anything in my argument. For the record, your statements were ignorant and moronic. You made broad and unsubstanitated statements which showed your ignorance. You made them about people you don’t know based on information gained from publications you know have a record of fabricating stories about people or groups they don’t like; that’s moronic. You don’t speak to me because I defend people you’ve already decided are beneath contempt. You’ve gone from referring to my argument as a rant and now you want to call it a hissy-fit. I’m glad you’ve decided to elevate the intellectual level of the conversation. You insulted a group of people that I happen to know personally and regard highly. If you weren’t prepared to back it up with anything other than schoolyard taunts, then don’t post here. I may not be as measured in my responses as I should have been, but you hit a nerve. That doesn’t mean I will not contimie to challenge you. What else do you have besides “I didn’t say they were pedophiles”?


273 posted on 03/30/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by danno3150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
We have our ways. Ted Haggard, for instance, was fired, excommunicated, forbidden from preaching anywhere in the State of Colorado ... and became a traveling insurance salesman.

You know what's funny? When I heard about Haggard, I was saddened for you guys. I didn't go around exalting in his downfall and trying to use it as an evangelical tool.
274 posted on 03/30/2010 9:49:44 AM PDT by Antoninus (It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Frankly, I’m not surprised to see that you are a Baptist. I’ve had a Baptist pastor tell my child she wasn’t a Christian because she was a Catholic. Beleive me, the exact opposite is being preached from the pulpits of my church. True evil divides true Christians. Always has, always will. I don’t know if you’ve read it here or not, but there is a war on our culture and our faith going on right now. Allowing ignorance (and it is ignorance) like this to divide us leaves a big hole for our common enemy to fill. Well at least this let’s me know where you are coming from.


275 posted on 03/30/2010 9:55:51 AM PDT by danno3150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

>> Again, you never address anything in my argument.

I thought I was clear. I’m not particularly interested in a back-and-forth bitch-fest with you.

>> You made them about people you don’t know based on information gained from publications you know have a record of fabricating stories about people or groups they don’t like; that’s moronic.

I didn’t make any statements about any individual, and never referenced any particular publication as the source of my opinions. Keep the insults coming, chief.

>> You don’t speak to me because I defend people you’ve already decided are beneath contempt.

I don’t speak to you (with mixed success) because you’re kind-of a pain.

>> You’ve gone from referring to my argument as a rant and now you want to call it a hissy-fit.

It is.

>> I’m glad you’ve decided to elevate the intellectual level of the conversation.

It didn’t have anywhere to go but up.

>> You insulted a group of people that I happen to know personally and regard highly.

Who? Gay priests? Priests generally?

>> I may not be as measured in my responses as I should have been, but you hit a nerve.

Oversensitivity is not a virtue.

>> What else do you have besides “I didn’t say they were pedophiles”?

Your initial argument was about placing a “Scarlet P” (for pedophile, I assume) on priests ... or something to that effect. It was a nonsequitur — I haven’t referred to anyone as a pedophile, or even referenced pedophilia at all ... thus your “scarlet P” argument doesn’t make any sense.

SnakeDoc


276 posted on 03/30/2010 10:02:06 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

>> Frankly, I’m not surprised to see that you are a Baptist.

Thanks.

>> I’ve had a Baptist pastor tell my child she wasn’t a Christian because she was a Catholic.

I haven’t said that. Your Salvation is between you and God.

>> Allowing ignorance (and it is ignorance) like this to divide us leaves a big hole for our common enemy to fill.

An unfortunate turn-of-phrase in a conversation about homosexuality in the church. Ignorance of what? Gay priests?

>> Well at least this let’s me know where you are coming from.

Gutsy move ... a sweeping judgment of Baptists in the same paragraph that castigates a Baptist preacher for a sweeping judgment of Catholics.

SnakeDoc


277 posted on 03/30/2010 10:08:46 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

First not all Lutherans are in the same denomination, so the abuse you describe may be in one particular or several but not all denominations.

The more important difference between the Lutherans and RCC is that the Lutheran churches, when this stuff is discovered, are able to remove their pastors at the church level by the Elders and/or the Congregation, and turn the matter over to law enforcement. There is no church hierarchy that exists like the RCC’s that had an unofficial policy of shuffling and hiding abusive priests and not involving law enforcement. Lutherans get rid of those that do this and have the power at the Congregational level to do that. The RCC historically has not, the bishops and archbishops have moved them around in their archdioceses and not told the places that were getting abusive priests what they were getting.

I know, I was in a church that got one of these guys and the senior priest in charge was never told. He began abusing boys while he was there, several wound up committing suicide because they were messed up from it. The abusive priest was Dan Burns, up in Sheboygan WI. One of the few who wound up in jail for awhile.


278 posted on 03/30/2010 10:09:03 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

A widespread problem and possible cover-up may indicate a larger problem than does an individual fallen parishoner whose behavior is met with an immediate firing and excommunication.

If Haggard had not been fired, excommunicated, and run out on a rail, I would’ve expressed my own problems with the handling of the situation.

SnakeDoc


279 posted on 03/30/2010 10:15:24 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

You kind of missed the whole ironic nature of my post, didn’t you. The “gutsy move” was meant to mirror what you’ve said. It’s obvious that you just want to goad me (and everyone else that has disagreed with you on this thread), so I’ll just leave you alone. Be sure to not to break anything falling off of that high horse of yours.


280 posted on 03/30/2010 10:16:00 AM PDT by danno3150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

>> The “gutsy move” was meant to mirror what you’ve said.

How so? I have not made any generalizations about Catholics or even Catholic priests. I have simply said that the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities.

>> It’s obvious that you just want to goad me (and everyone else that has disagreed with you on this thread) ...

Nonsense. I had several very reasonable conversations in this thread with several individuals that were less sensitive and less prone to throwing around insults than you appear to be.

>> so I’ll just leave you alone.

Much obliged.

SnakeDoc


281 posted on 03/30/2010 10:25:34 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

That’s not an assumption you can support. Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen. If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable because they don’t all contain the same exact facts (some omit certain things, some include things the others don’t) would have their ‘proof’ they are unreliable.

Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom, rabbis of Jesus’ age would be getting married around his age, and why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding? Yet there is no factual evidence in the story AT ALL about it being his wedding, you have to assume a bunch of things based on the LACK of evidence.

Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels. Are we to assume due to lack of evidence she is now dead, or not important anymore? Nobody left prays to Mary, nobody asks Mary to intercede for them in any of the following letters/books of the New Testament. Nobody is saying “Hail Mary’s”.

It doesn’t fly. You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead. Further if we are going to play fast and loose with evidence, who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus? Peter was an “apostle” - one who was a follower of, and taught face to face by Jesus - as soon as he dropped his fishing net and followed Jesus. Who’s to say the wedding at Cana wasn’t Peter’s wedding? The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.

And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married, there was no prohibition on marriage, so whether he got married before or after he was a follower of Jesus makes no difference. He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.


282 posted on 03/30/2010 10:29:19 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

You don’t think “the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities” isn’t a generalization? Just so that we’re clear, it is. You’ve had several reasonable conversations with people you agree with or can share sarcastic comments with. When I made statements about divisions you made it about homosexual priests. I was addressing your flawed assumptions about priests and the priesthood in general. The fact that you continue to do so makes me regret saying I was done. I’m not.


283 posted on 03/30/2010 10:56:32 AM PDT by danno3150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“That’s not an assumption you can support.”

Why not?

“Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen.”

Where does scripture say that she was alive? Scripture doesn’t even give her name.

“If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable”

And they would be wrong because they do differ on some of the details, but they are all substantially the same.

“Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom.”

Quite the contrary, they do mention the host. Look, I appreciate you saying this, but you really do need to reread the account. Jesus was a guest at the wedding. Scripture does in fact refer to the host, who was not Christ.

“why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding?”

Because she knows what Jesus is capable of. What’s your explanation for why we hear of Peter’s mother-in-law, and yet his wife is not there to attend to her mother?

“Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels.”

Gee, do you sola scriptura folks even read your bibles?

“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”

Acts 1:12-4.

If you are going to bash Mary, it would help if you actually get your facts right.

“You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead.”

Why not? Is there any evidence in scripture that she is alive?

“who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus?”

Do we have any evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they followed Christ? No. There’s no evidence for it in scripture.

“The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.”

Just as the lack of evidence allows you to assume that she was alive.

“And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married,”

Yes, this is very true.

“there was no prohibition on marriage”

There is a difference between saying that it is permissible for bishops and priests to be married when they are ordained, then to say that those who are ordained are permitted to marry.

“He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.”

Is there any evidence of your contention that the Apostles were married after their ministries? I’ve heard this assertion before and the evidence just isn’t there.


284 posted on 03/30/2010 11:05:15 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“The more important difference between the Lutherans and RCC is that the Lutheran churches, when this stuff is discovered, are able to remove their pastors at the church level by the Elders and/or the Congregation.”

I presume you aren’t referring to the ECLA? They call themselves Lutheran. At least the Catholics aren’t blessing sodomy as equal to marriage.

Why should we regard Lutherans as followers of Christ when they explicitly reject Christ’s teachings?


285 posted on 03/30/2010 11:08:02 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

He’s happy? Good for him.


286 posted on 03/30/2010 11:08:46 AM PDT by gathersnomoss (General George Patton had it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: danno3150

>> You don’t think “the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities” isn’t a generalization?

No, I don’t. It addresses a doctrine, and what I see as a doctrinal problem, not a person or group of people. I have said nothing about all priests, or any particular priest. That there are homosexuals among the priesthood is undeniable ... and that this is a problem is also undeniable.

>> When I made statements about divisions you made it about homosexual priests.

The original article made it about homosexual priests.

>> I was addressing your flawed assumptions about priests and the priesthood in general.

I have made no assumptions about any priest or any group of priests.

SnakeDoc


287 posted on 03/30/2010 11:09:08 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

“The doctrine that the Vatican alone is endowed by the Almighty with doctrinal infallibility, so as to make decisions and proclamations on His behalf, would seem to indicate as much.”

I said a citation from the Vatican, not from you. Sorry. I don’t care what you believe the Vatican teaches, I care about what the Vatican actually teaches.

Cite, or stop bothering us with your opinions.


288 posted on 03/30/2010 11:11:12 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

You need a direct citation to recognize the existence of the doctrine of infallibility? Good grief. Its your faith, look it up yourself.

If you deny that the doctrine of infallibility exists in the Catholic church, then your problem isn’t with me ... its with all the multitudes of true-blue Catholics (on this board and elsewhere) that recognize such a doctrine.

SnakeDoc


289 posted on 03/30/2010 11:14:51 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

“He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.”

Is there any evidence of your contention that the Apostles were married after their ministries? I’ve heard this assertion before and the evidence just isn’t there.

It doesn’t matter. The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc. You are trying to make a condition that is not there. There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader. Given the context, that church leaders can be married, and there is no further clarification following as to WHEN it is permitted and when they no longer can marry, except to say “husband of one wife” - which God’s Word does choose to elaborate on - it’s clear from the context there is no “only before, not after” clause pertaining to when a church leader can get married. Scripture is clear they should be the husband of one wife and makes a point to say that. It does not take the extra step and say they only can marry before being a church leader.

Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.

The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example. It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.


290 posted on 03/30/2010 11:23:31 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

“You need a direct citation to recognize the existence of the doctrine of infallibility? Good grief. Its your faith, look it up yourself.”

FRiend, it’s your assertion. You must prove that the doctrine of infalliability as taught by the Catholic Church corresponds to what you have asserted.

So go ahead, cite the Vatican, if you can. If you can only cite yourself and your opinion, then I have no reason to believe that you have actually taken the time to research what the Catholic church teaches.

Yes, my problem is with you. You’ve distorted what the Catholic church teaches here.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops. As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

Now, where on earth does this presume that the Pope and only the Pope is the exclusive representative of Christ on Earth? He’s not. Nor does the Catechism teach that only those who are Catholic can have the Holy Spirit in them. All that the Catholic church teaches is that the fullness of the Christian faith is with them. Not exclusivity.


291 posted on 03/30/2010 11:24:20 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>> Now, where on earth does this presume that the Pope and only the Pope is the exclusive representative of Christ on Earth?

“Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope.”; “the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful”; “his definitions [...] are justly held irreformable”; “for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit”.

Those are just the citations from the passage you quoted that indicate a “special way” that the “supreme shephard” can make “irreformable” “pronounce[ments]” on behalf of “the Holy Spirit”.

That very passage expresses a special connection (i.e. exclusive) between the pope and the holy spirit so that he may speak on His behalf. So ... there you go.

SnakeDoc


292 posted on 03/30/2010 11:30:33 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“The reason there are no clear examples of someone married after being a church leader is that for the SCripture as it is written, it doesn’t need such an example.”

So, your assertion rests on the fact that there is NO evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they took up their ministry with Christ.

“It’s clear from teh Scripture itself you are reading in something that it doesn’t say.”

How so? There’s no evidence that they were married before their ministry. You are asserting that they were in fact married, despite the fact that Scripture is silent here. Can you not accept that if you rely on scripture only you have no means to justify yourself?

“The qualifications do not specify as to when a person is married, it simply is IF the person is married, ie his house needs to be in good order, the children under control, etc.”

Exactly. Thank you. I have been saying that since the beginning. I’m glad you’ve finally come around to my very first post in the thread. Just because Timothy says that a priest may already be a married man, doesn’t mean that marriage is a requirement.

“There is no explicit specification that they cannot marry after being recognized as a church leader.”

Timothy is talking about the eligibility of already-married men. Paul talks about how priests should be celibate. Why is Paul less authoritative in Corinthians than he is in Timothy?

“Ambiguity is not God’s way, if there was such a prohibition of church leaders marrying AFTER, but NOT BEFORE, I believe that would have been made explicit, to avoid such confusion altogether.”

I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?


293 posted on 03/30/2010 11:31:39 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Where does it say that the Pope is the only representative of God? Where does it say that the Catholic church is exclusive, in that it says you cannot be saved outside the church.

Are you denying your previous assertion?


294 posted on 03/30/2010 11:32:48 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

>> Where does it say that the Pope is the only representative of God?

It says the pope alone holds a “special” ability to “make pronounce[ments]” infallibly with the “assistance of the Holy Spirit”. If this ability were not exclusive, it would not be “special”. Do you claim that other persons or religious bodies have such an ability?

>> Where does it say that the Catholic church is exclusive, in that it says you cannot be saved outside the church.

I never spoke of the source of Salvation ... though it would be noteworthy to me if you, a Catholic, claimed that Protestant denominations are also members of His church as Biblically referenced. Many Catholics I have had conversations with do not believe this — instead believing that Protestants left Christ’s chuch heretically. However, I am unsure if this is an official church position or just the position of some parishoners ... so would not attribute it to the Catholic heirarchy.

SnakeDoc


295 posted on 03/30/2010 12:15:48 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant ... that even a god-king can bleed." - 300)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

I think Paul is very clear. “It is better for an unmarried man who can devote himself entirely to God”. But I guess you believe that is ambiguous?

Since when do you read “better” to equal “required”? You are totally distorting and taking things out of context, including this line from Paul.

In that same letter Paul provides the context he is talking about celibacy in.

1Co 7:6-9 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.I say therefore to the unmarried (WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CANDIDATES FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP) and widows, It is good for them IF they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better - if you can handle it. Obviously for these people who cannot, it would be better if they were married. But marriage is not a disqualifier for service to God as a church leadership position.

Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.

If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader, because we know from Scripture that statement is FALSE. Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married, and therefore, the bible would not have to specify ‘husband of one wife’ anywhere when explaining the qualifications to be a church leader because none of the church leaders, present or future, would ever possibly be married.

When you take one sentence out of context you can easily create doctrines and traditions that are not true. When you have to be forced to view things in the context they are given, and supported by other areas of Scripture, it’s a different story.


296 posted on 03/30/2010 12:39:54 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

“Further evidence after this confirms it. Paul is saying marriage is good, and in his judgment, celibacy is better if you can handle it.”

Exactly. And priests are called to be devoted to God. Read into it whatever you want, but Paul is saying that priests ought to be celibate so that their attentions are not divided.

“Further in First Timothy Chapter 3, when Paul talks about qualifications for bishops ande deacons, and includes husband of one wife, etc, he doesn’t talk about those bishops or deacons who are married being inferior to other bishops and deacons that aren’t married, he doesn’t speak of them as being less qualified because they’re married, he doesn’t chastise them for not having the moral fortitude to be celibate like others may be.”

That’s because he’s referring to two things here.

1, if you are ALREADY MARRIED, you must be the man of one woman. Again, for obvious reasons. If you are unmarried, and plan to be married, you don’t meet this qualification. This is for already married men.

2, he’s very explicit later on, that in his opinion, he believes that celibacy is superior to marriage. He acknowledges that there are others who do not have his calling, but the ideal is for men who can devote themselves entirely to God.

You are hinging your entire argument on one word, rather then on the whole paragraph that Paul devotes to discussing the issue around celibacy. And he says just the opposite that you do, that celibacy is to be preferred.

“If celibacy is a gift of God, that Paul says very few people have, and that for most others it’s better for them to be married and not burn, there’s nothing that says the gift of celibacy is a REQUIREMENT in order to be a church leader.”

Why do you know that to be false? All the requirements say is that if you are married, you must be the husband of one wife. That’s it. It doesn’t say that marriage is required at all. It does say that already married men can be bishops. It does not say that those who wish to get married should become priests, paul says just the opposite.

If you cannot abide by celibacy, get married, have kids. But don’t become a priest like Paul. The unmarried man can be devoted entirely to God. You sincerely believe that celibacy is not the preferred state for priests?

“Because if it were true there would be no bishop or deacon or elder that would be married.”

False. Again, this comes back to the question regarding continence. If an already married man were to become a priest, he is expected to remain continent. This is no different today than it was in the age of apostles.


297 posted on 03/30/2010 1:41:05 PM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

“It says the pope alone holds a “special” ability to “make pronounce[ments]” infallibly with the “assistance of the Holy Spirit”. If this ability were not exclusive, it would not be “special”. Do you claim that other persons or religious bodies have such an ability?”

Actually, yes. There are prophets with the same ability to make infalliable pronouncements. However only the pope has the ability when speaking ‘ex cathedra’, in the seat of Peter.

>> Where does it say that the Catholic church is exclusive, in that it says you cannot be saved outside the church.

I never spoke of the source of Salvation ... though it would be noteworthy to me if you, a Catholic, claimed that Protestant denominations are also members of His church as Biblically referenced. Many Catholics I have had conversations with do not believe this — instead believing that Protestants left Christ’s chuch heretically. However, I am unsure if this is an official church position or just the position of some parishoners ... so would not attribute it to the Catholic heirarchy.


298 posted on 03/30/2010 2:17:54 PM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson