When is the Catholic Church Going to Allow Priests To Marry?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amelia
Do you hear yourself????

I am merely stating a reasonable position.

Why can't you accept that we are in the year 2005 now? Times have changed!

If i was the popa I'd let preists marry, heck I'd encourage them to marry and include women. Might order good catholics not to read the bible so much and restore the mass to latin too. From the events related to the protestants, the average person obviously isn't qualified to read the bible and understand it,just look at the mess its caused.

would he spit on him like he was a whore?

According to the RCC it would be a sin and he'd've broken his vows of preisthood. The church would forgive him if he confessed. Its the same policy they have with abusive preists, if they confess, they don't turn them in and they forgive their sins. I certainly wouldn't. I'd order them to turn themselves in to the police, excommunicate them, and do the same for anyone involved in the coverup.

NO, he would understand and send him love....that is what a true christian have to accept.

Similarly, jesus would forgive the disgusting pedophiles along with the lepers the poor and all the sinners.

A true christian like you must forgive and respect.

Your position is the position of those who protect and cover up the abusers.

Also, part of my concern is a reaction against anti-catholic bigotry. The anglicans tormented and executed large numbers of catholics, as did many of the protestants, and people seem to think that the Pope is Satan himself or at least that the anti-christ is going to be a pope, or the the RCC is the 'whore of babylon' or some other such nonesense. There've been lots of violent anti-catholics reactions that start out like this.

Additionaly, the catholic lay group, the Voice of the Faithful, are right on track to become something like another Reformation. The protest-ants didn't magically jump into existence when Luther nailed some complaints onto a door, it was a long, simming, issue. VoF is bound to result in something very similar, as are "Traditional" catholics who oppose the liberalizing of the more recent Popes and as a result distance themselves from the Papacy.

On the other hand, over the recent past, the Eastern Distant (but not 'eastern orthodox') churches did incorporate into the RCC, so thats a stabilization and makes it more 'catholic' or 'all embracing'.

Not that I am especially concerned for the Church, just the people in it. Everyone, especially me, was very disappointed when the old popa in rome did effectively nothing about the molestation of children by his preists.




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   


It does not follow. Sex is a sin for everyone in the RCC, except married couples. For the above to be true, single catholics would have to be on the verge of pedophilia. Also, why would an abstinent preist choose to molest a child, rather bang a female parishoner, or whore?


Ah dah Nygdan...if a priest chooses to molest a child and not "bang" a female parishoner to use your phrase, it's because THE PRIEST IS A PEDOPHILE. Is that hard to figure out? Like I said earlier, because priests aren't allowed to marry, the priesthood attracts perverts and homosexuals (I"m not saying all of them are)...but some of the homosexuals that are unhappy being gay, think they may get some sort of cure by becoming priests. But, of course, priests have been found in bed together in seminaries. I'm not saying this is the only place this happens. It happens in the military too and in prison.....but I'm getting off the point.

Regarding Cardinal Law...he's a scum bag and he retired so he wouldn't have to face the inferno that was about to engulf him. And the King of the church rewarded him with a job in the Vatican....where he can hide. The Pope is ultimately responsible for all the abuses in the Catholic church that have been ignored and also responsible for allowing the pedophile priests to be shuffled around instead of prosecuted.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
it's because THE PRIEST IS A PEDOPHILE.

Precisely, he's a pedophile, not a guy who became a preist and was twisted into perversion by a policy of abstinence.

but some of the homosexuals that are unhappy being gay, think they may get some sort of cure by becoming priests.

I suppose that that might follow, of course it also means that any religion that considers these things sins (ie, all fo them) will attract pedophiles.

Regarding Cardinal Law...he's a scum bag and he retired so he wouldn't have to face the inferno that was about to engulf him.

I expect that according to christian doctrine he's going to face a different sort of 'inferno'.

The Pope is ultimately responsible for all the abuses in the Catholic church

For the ones that he does nothing about, he certainly is. Perhaps the pope should be arrested.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy



Jesus wasn't married, and this rule has been instituted immediately when he formed the Church - you should read the Bible carefully.


I should read the bible more carefully? Jesus, a Jew, formed the Catholic church? Where does it say that in the bible? That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. So every other Christian on this planet (the non-Catholics) are worshipping Jesus incorrectly because they are not Catholic? I should read the bible? YOU SHOULD READ THE BIBLE!

Firstly, calm down, sonny, change your tone.
Secondly, If you paid at least a little attention to either the Bible itself or R.E. lessons at school, you would know that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Proof? Here are a few:
1) It is widely said that Jesus gave the authority over the Church to St. Peter. Then, who was he if he had the power to make such a decision? Of course he was the boss. And who was the boss before Jesus? No one, he was the first boss, so it is logical that he was the founder.
2) He instituted the sacraments, like Priestship and christianization.
3) He institued most of the rules, including the first rules.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   


Firstly, calm down, sonny, change your tone.


First of all, don't call me sonny and don't tell me to change my tone. What am I one of your children? Secondly in all that gibberish you wrote, where does it say that the church they created was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH? It was a Christian church yes, but where does the word Catholic show up? WHERE??

Jesus wanted his followers to continue his work. He was a Jew. He didn't tell them to start a new religion called Catholicism after he died....if he did, WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE??? IT ISN'T!!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy



Firstly, calm down, sonny, change your tone.


First of all, don't call me sonny and don't tell me to change my tone. What am I one of your children? Secondly in all that gibberish you wrote, where does it say that the church they created was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH? It was a Christian church yes, but where does the word Catholic show up? WHERE??

Catholic merely means something like 'all encompassing' or some such, ie it included the disparate churches. Oviously it doesn't say 'catholic', since its not an aramaic word. It does say peter is the basis of the church, and whatever he holds on earth is true in heaven, ie the bishopric of peter sets the base for the building of the church thru those who succeded to his position as bishop of rome are the ones who run the church and determine the dogma and rules of the church establishment. It didn't have to say 'make a catholic church' or 'call the head the pope' or 'wear silly hats' or any of that. Thats the basis for the authority of the catholic church. THe orthodox church, which came out of the same time period, rejeced that arguement for the supremacy of the bishop/patriarch of Rome over the other patriarchs.


, WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE??? IT ISN'T!!

It doesn't say to start a new religion called 'christianity' in the bible, or to use a rounded wafer, hold masses, wear crosses or say any prayer in paricular either.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
Jesus wasn't married, and this rule has been instituted immediately when he formed the Church - you should read the Bible carefully.
The rule has been institued to insure that priests handle ONLY affairs of the Holy Mass, evangelization etc. And it works. If there wasn't this rule, it wouldn't be like this and it still even is difficult sometimes, like with Priest Henry Jankowski or Priest Tadeusz Rydzyk, who care mostly for MONEY, so the Church will even have to cope with that as well. Also, the priests have to resign from something - it ws decided that they will resign from this.
This (I mean your idea) is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard, not only from the ethical point of view.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by AtheiX]


I found this on Jesus, marriage, and the bible. It basically says that the bible never mentions anything about him being married, or not. (I'm still reading and searching, so be easy on me. Although raised catholic, it's been a while and I'm rusty with some of the scriptures and church beliefs.)

Why was Jesus never married?



If marriage here on Earth is so important, why Jesus Christ was not married?

Why do you believe that Jesus was never married? The Bible does not teach that the Lord was never married, but simply makes no explicit mention of the subject. There are two possible reasons for this deficiency:

(1) The scriptures are not meant to convey all truth, but only those select things that are necessary for our salvation. For example, the Bible teaches the following:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:30-1)

Whether Jesus was married or not has nothing to do with our personal salvation and therefore is not authoritatively covered in the text.

(2) It is clear to Latter-day Saints that the Bible is missing many important truths which were removed during the beginnings of the apostasy. The Prophet Joseph Smith noted:

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.327)

These truths were removed in an attempt to make the text match the theology, instead of letting the text define the theology. In other words, since the idea of Jesus being married was so repugnant to some people, especially those indoctrinated by the immaterialism of Greek philosophy, they eliminated any clear references in the scriptures indicating that Jesus was married. (See The Holy Bible home page)



This is from the perspective of the Latter Day Saints, but does make a valid point with reference to scriptures.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by SourGrapes]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   


It doesn't say to start a new religion called 'christianity' in the bible, or to use a rounded wafer, hold masses, wear crosses or say any prayer in particular either.


Very good Nygdan...my point exactly. People read the bible and interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. Jesus wanted his people to continue his work, including his wife, Mary. THEY chose to develop it into whatever religion(s) it spun off into...the bible didn't do this! The bible isn't a religion. Faith isn't a religion. I have faith and I read the bible, but I am a member of no religion, because once a religion is formed then the people that follow are told what the bible says and how to live. The bible and religion are two separate things.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
This seems right out of the dark ages.

But instead, their sexual frustrations come
out in very bad ways such as molesting and
raping altar boys.


You have a right to your opinion, even though it's obvious that
you haven't bothered to read the Catholic Catechism to see why
the Catholic church, at this time, doesn't allow priests to marry.
Do you really want to know why? Or are you just using this
thread to spout anti-catholicism??

Having priests not marry is a discipline of the church that can change,
as those in charge see fit. At this time in church history, those in charge
of the church feel it is not in the best interest of the Catholic church to
allow priests to marry. The Catholic church IS NOT A DEMOCRACY and
doesn't care what outsiders think. It'll do what it feels is right with this
discipline. If Catholics agree with you that it isn't right, then they'll
leave. However, considering that there are 1 billion Catholics on this
planet, and they are able to live with the fact that priests don't marry
at this time in the church, it would seem your apparent hopes for the
change (or is it demise) of the Catholic church won't happen.

Now ... about that garbage that having priests be unmarried leads
them to become gay pedophiles.
My God ... have you ever
cracked a psychology book? Unmarried men don't just become gay.
They don't just become gay pedophiles. That's so ignorant I don't
even know where to start.

I suggest that you go read the Catechism of the Catholic church,
and then go read SCIENCE ... psychology of homosexuality to be
exact.
Geeeeeeeeeze!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
All the religions use the same basic bible, so why is it the Catholics are the only ones that deduced that their holy men and women are supposed to be celebate? Why do all the other religions that read the same bible allow their leaders to marry?? That was the point of this thread! And it's funny, but while Peter and whoever else you talk about created this Catholic Church (that wasn't called Catholic at the time), they were MARRIED!! When did they decide that the next generation of leaders cuold no longer procreate?? and why???

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Zabilgy]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
where does it say that the church they created was called the CATHOLIC
CHURCH? It was a Christian church yes, but where does the word Catholic
show up? WHERE??


HERE. www.catholic.com...

Read up. Church history. Early church documents. Read up.
All roads lead to Rome, even from the start. Catholic = Universal.
The entire Christian Church at the time was the UNIVERSAL Church
and it was under authority in ROME.

Feel free to browse all the other sections at this site. It'll educate
you on the early church history.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   


about that garbage that having priests be unmarried leads them to become gay pedophiles. My God ... have you ever
cracked a psychology book? Unmarried men don't just become gay.
They don't just become gay pedophiles. That's so ignorant I don't
even know where to start.


Dah...when did I say this? This goes to show people get what they want out of what they read. I wrote that the priesthood attracts perverts and homosexuals. I didn't say it turned them into perverts and homosexuals. They were already that way before they entered the priesthood. The homosexuals are fine, again, as I mentioned earlier as long as they stick to their vows....but pedophiles have no place in the priesthood and what I said was that it was disgusting how the church for years has been trying to cover up this problem....why don't you go to the beginning of this thread and read everything.....you seemed to have missed a lot......

You aren't very bright if you think I agree with the pathetic statement I quoted from you above. Talk about creating a statement that was never posted on the whole thread.......good work soldier!



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   


Having priests not marry is a discipline of the church that can change
as those in charge see fit. At this time in church history, those in charge
of the church feel it is not in the best interest of the Catholic church to
allow priests to marry.


Flyersfan...one more thing....having priests not marry is a "discipline?"....what about the 1000's of priests that seemed to have failed that discipline and have molested altar boys? Do you agree that this situation has been handled properly by the Catholic Mafia? Do you think Don John Paul has been doing his job by turning his back to this problem for decades?? and all the other Popes before him??

And....why, in your obvious well educated opinion, is it not in the best interest of the Catholic Church? For what reason could it not be in their best interest? It would stop attracting so many pedophiles and other perverts, more men would join the priesthood because they could marry and have a normal family life(I understand there is a shortage of Catholic priests....because men just aren't having that "calling" like they used to).

Seriously, why do YOU feel it's not in the Catholic Churches best interest?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Check this out (seems that not only does the church allow married priests, but they allow them to have children as well - due to the priest shortage, they are allowing married Protestant clergy to enter seminary):

Married Priests



BOB ABERNETHY (anchor): Last year, just over 500 men were ordained as Catholic priests in this country -- about half the number ordained in 1965. One of the reasons for the current shortage of priests is that so many men have left the priesthood to get married. Because of that, some have suggested that the Church consider making priestly celibacy optional.

To average Catholics, it may be hard to imagine their priest with a wife and children. But, to a limited extent, it is already happening. Judy Valente reports.

JUDY VALENTE: Most Catholics have never seen this before: their priest, at Mass, wearing a wedding ring -- with his wife and children looking on from the pews.

His name is David Medow. And until 10 days earlier, he had been a Lutheran minister.

(to Father Medow): Did you grow up with much knowledge of Catholics?

FATHER DAVID MEDOW (St. Mary Immaculate Church, Illinois): I grew up with no knowledge of Catholics, other than seeing these exotic blue-dressed figures walking in the streets of my neighborhood in Chicago going to a local parochial school.

VALENTE: Before he could be ordained, Medow had to spend two and a half years in Catholic seminary. He represents a small but potentially significant phenomenon in the Catholic Church: the ordination of former Protestant clergymen -- who are married.

FATHER MEDOW: I loved being Lutheran. But God has called me into this community, and I really had grown into being Catholic in many ways. Not only spiritually but theologically.

VALENTE: (to Mrs. Jane Medow): How have you been welcomed in the parish?

MS. JANE MEDOW (Wife): People have been very accepting, they're very excited about David coming here.

HANNAH MEDOW (Daughter): A lot of kids have come up to me and gone, like, "Whoa, your Dad's gonna be a priest." And they were really surprised.

More



I think we are going to continue to see more and more of this. Perhaps this is the begining of a change in the Catholic church? If they are going to allow clergy from other religions to enter seminary while married (and with families), then where do they draw the line? Young single men who enter seminary should be afforded the same.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
Dah...when did I say this?
You aren't very bright ...


Duh, you DID say it (as my quote of your original post shows.)
However after both Nygdan and I caught you,
you reworded your original post to delete that you said it. YOU SAID
that because these men weren't married, they took out their sexual
frustrations by molesting boys. That's what you said. No amount
of editing of the original post will change that. (you edited it twice).
My quote of your original post is there.

And actually YOU are the one that isn't very bright here.
Looks like you are just looking for a thread to piss anti-Catholic
garbage around ... you really don't want to learn anything do you?

www.catholic.com...
This will tell you about the Catholic priesthood.

The previous site I posted will tell you about the early church
documents and that the early church was indeed the Catholic
Church.

As far as your rants and WHINES about 'why does the Catholic
church do it, no one else does, so they must be wrong waaa waaaa
waaaaaa' ... so frign' what? Each church interprets the bible,
WHICH WAS PUT TOGETHER BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, differently.
Deal with it.

Obviously this thread isn't sincere and there is no questions to be
discussed ... only rants and whines to listen to. I have better
things to do with my time. Read what i have posted and get
educated.


[edit on 2/9/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
having priests not marry is a "discipline?"....what about the 1000's of
priests that seemed to have failed that discipline and have molested
altar boys


READ THE LINKS. Discipline is different from theology and dogma.
Disciplines are a way of doing things based on biblical reasons or
on reasons that those in charge of the church feel are best.

Also - DUH ... those perverts that entered the church and molested
did indeed fail in that discipline. That doesn't mean the discipline is
wrong. It means those men failed ... perhaps (probably) because
they never intended to follow the discipline to begin with.



Seriously, why do YOU feel it's not in the Catholic Churches best interest?

Seriously, it's not up to me and I have no feelings about if priests
should be allowed to marry or not. The feelings I DO have are that
people who don't understand why the church has that discipline really
are silly to complain about it. READ UP and educate yourself on why
the church does what it does. Celebate priests are based on St. Pauls
advice in the bible that if someone is going to be in the service of
God, then it's best if they remain unmarried so that they can devote
their full attention to doing God's work.

For outsiders to complain about married priests, or for those who
haven't bothered to read why the church does what it does ....
....


Now I'm off this thread. Like I said .. it's not educational ... it's
just a bunch of blah blah Catholic church is wrong blah blah.
Bu-bye now.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Ok, Jesus was married according to the books the catholic church removed for giving women power. They also removed the books that had Mary Magdeline as the wife/love of Jesus and the LEADER of the 7 female disciples. Also, Mary wasn't a prostittute until the church wrote that part in, she was Jesus's wife, the leader of the female disciples, and Jesus taught her things that he didn't teach the others. But the church can't allow a woman to have power, so they edited/banned books from the bible.

Also, funny, Roman Empire going strong being "sinful" but the century they are "saved" they fall.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
This is the only thing I could find in the Bible which mentions any restrictions on Priests and marriage (I have a 'Where To Find It In The Bible' Book)



Ezekiel 44:22 - 'Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.'


Anyone care to comment on it's meaning, especially "but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel"?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
All the religions use the same basic bible, so why is it the Catholics are the only ones that deduced that their holy men and women are supposed to be celebate?

Why are so many of the others wrong about the celibacy issue? What does it matter since you have already said its not supposed to be about religion anyway?


Why do all the other religions that read the same bible allow their leaders to marry??

The Catholic church is not the only christian group that prohibits marriage of preists. The Orthodox church does this also. The Assyrian Church does not allow its preists to marry.Only protestants allow their preists to marry. Therefore, by your reasoning, the protestants are the ones that are wrongly interpreting scripture, since everyone else prohibits it.


That was the point of this thread! And it's funny, but while Peter and whoever else you talk about created this Catholic Church (that wasn't called Catholic at the time),

What is with the fixation on it being called the catholic church? Why would 'The Church' call itself catholic or orthodox where there were no parochial or heterodoxic churches to distinguish itself from?


they were MARRIED!!

Before, or after becomming apostles?


When did they decide that the next generation of leaders cuold no longer procreate??

Looks like it was decided very early on in the early christian community.


and why???

Apparently they felt that marriage and sex was a distraction from a high and holy life. Even protestants advise against extramaritial sex.

Why the great concern over allowing preists to marry? What difference does it make? It won't prevent pedophiles from joing the church any more than it prevents it in other religions, or would you pretend that this is only somethign that happens in the catholic church? True, the RCC, at least at the level of, what, archbishops, has taken the stance of not reporting pedophile preists and even protecting them in court cases from the victims, even when it knew, via confessionals, that these guys were pedophiles. Agreed, thats a disgusting thing to do. And? Whats your point? Demonstrate that the pope is legally responsible and demand that your local authorities arrest the old man, or for the extradition of Law from the Vatican. What does marriage have to do with it?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   


Duh, you DID say it (as my quote of your original post shows.)
However after both Nygdan and I caught you,
you reworded your original post to delete that you said it. YOU SAID
that because these men weren't married, they took out their sexual
frustrations by molesting boys. That's what you said. No amount
of editing of the original post will change that. (you edited it twice).
My quote of your original post is there.



Once again Flyersfan...you are wrong I didn't say this and it appears you are the instigator and the child here. You want everyone to follow your rules or you're going to take your ball home. You feel you are losing this argument so you make up bs that I didn't say and decide you've had enough of this thread. This thread has had enough of you.

Don't argue with me based on bs you made up. Argue with me on the facts I've presented and the ones you've presented. Argue the point like a man...not like a little boy that doesn't get his way and goes home crying to his mommy!


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Zabilgy]





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join