Posted on 01/23/2023 8:22:16 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Where is it written about Luther’s immorality?
St. Francis Seminary in San Diego was finally closed due to the fact that it was full of gay seminarians. That was back around the 1990’s. Their club was not in the seminary but nearby. At the time there was a lot of publicity about it.. The priesthood has become a covering refuge for pedophiles
Strange they allow converted evangelical and protestant ministers that are married to serve but not others.
According to 1 Timothy 2-5:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
Both JPII and Benedict XVI were godly men. Maybe JPII was not the best administrator, I don’t know. Benedict XVI worked hard to get rid of bad priests - not just “reassign” them. You must know that both men had the right enemies. Benedict knew he was getting frail and it would take someone younger to finish cleaning house. Well, that didn’t work out too well.
There’s no such thing as a schism in the mystical Body of Christ.
If a branch of the vine does not bear fruit, it withers or is cut from the vine.
The vine does not schism.
Pope Benedict is the author of the book, exposing this stuff posthumously and trying to get the truth out there. Did you read the original article?
From Catholic Answers (for your benefit):
Celibacy and the Priesthood
Protestant attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject about which so many different confusions exist.
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Protestants make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Protestant time lines of “Catholic inventions” assign “mandatory priestly celibacy” to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.
These Protestants are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry; and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
Is Marriage Mandatory?
Another, quite different Protestant confusion is the notion that celibacy is unbiblical, or even “unnatural.” Every man, it is claimed, must obey the biblical injunction to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28); and Paul commands that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). It is even argued that celibacy somehow “causes,” or at least correlates with higher incidence of, illicit sexual behavior or perversion.
All of this is false. Although most people are called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from “commanding” marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).
It is only because of this “temptation to immorality” (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their “conjugal rights” (7:3); he specifically clarifies, “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am” (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, “better” than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, “If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom”:
“Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” (Matt. 19:11–12).
Notice that this sort of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation; nor does it mean that the individuals in question were “not really called” to that vocation. The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. “Be fruitful and multiply” is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.
“The Husband of One Wife”
Another Protestant argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” and “must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if “the husband of one wife” really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic “keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way” would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements, it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops that he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
Uahhy...tell me you’ve got more research skills than this. From that question, I surmise that many here have forgotten a great deal more than you may think you know. Maybe another time B9.
And if you can’t keep your pants on, stay off the altar. It’s there in Exodus.
A tweet:
Michael Knowles
@michaeljknowles
The late pope Benedict XVI has just published a book, only available in Italian, titled, “What Is Christianity?” He asked that it be published after his death to avoid “a murderous clamor” from “circles opposed to” him. How are so few talking about this?
amazon.it
Che cos’è il Cristianesimo: Quasi un testamento spirituale
5:41 PM · Jan 23, 2023
·
315.5K
Views
The only way to solve this problem is to allow priests to marry. Anything less won’t work. (and obviously when I refer to marriage I mean man + woman)
If the media and culture compared the Catholic church, as a whole, to the US K-12 education establishment as a whole, I would not be surprised if it were revealed the schools are more full of predators than the RC church.
Benedict predicted at Vatican II that there would be far fewer churches, schools, etc. as well; the Church would be a much smaller, more faithful gathering.
Some point to the selection of married men as Apostles as proof that marriage is OK for priests (and I understand that logic), but in the end all of the Apostles but one were martyred - and there is no mention as to how their families were cared for afterwards.
Recent battles with Nazism and Communism highlight a great argument for celibacy; Catholic priests could accept martyrdom far more readily than Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox clergy.
Before the revolution was pink, it was red. Before it was red, it was orange.
The transition from red to pink occurred in 1933 with the publication of “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” by Wilhelm Reich, who died in an FDA prison after sentencing for medical fraud for repeatedly marketing a kooky Orgone Machine (Woody Allen-type orgasmatron).
In the book, which took Marxism into the sexual revolution finalized by Michel Foucault, Reich theorized something very practical, leading us into the present “Heresy of Ba’al of Peor” (Numbers 25:1–15):
As a Marxist, you don’t argue theology with a Seminarian, you get him to engage in flapping (the vicious, solitary habit), then he won’t pray, he’ll be spending time in the bathroom watching TikTok, with the water running so no one will “know what’s going on in there”. (Right.)
It’s like pretending that African priests weren’t married. The local priest when I was growing up had a “housekeeper” that everyone winked about
Benedict knew how to keep the church in order. All of Bergoglio’s misdoings are on purpose
I agree.
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.