Half Of Priest And Bishops Are Gay

[superblue]

the topic of married priests is really nothing to compare to the topic of homosexual clergy who have abused and covered up crimes against minors. or did the topic just spin n that direction ?

The Church did suffered major from the beginning of the exposing of the crimes to now the loss of trust.

I would be interested to know how the state of Rome, handles statute of limitations in regards to crimes as there are limits in the USA, VS how Cannon Law and who can hold those involved still accountable for their actions, be it directly or indirectly. How there was never in Rome on a public scale, is weird. It would have been a trial on the scale of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. The church can still try, but won't, to rebuild the trust loss, but having such a trial. Naming names, and at the very least if jail or prison time is not possible, to strip each person of every rank and title ever held. An stop financially supporting all involved. To just ignore this part of history, to see it swept under the rug and forgotten by the church, and ignored to the point that the church hopes that one day people will forget, and that now is the time to focus on prevention, instead of acting with justice is sick.  It does boggle my mind how the church is just thankful that they legally maneuvered to wait out the statue of limitations in America, and fear of smudging the good that JPII has done. If there was any hope and trust left in the world it was in the leaders of the Church. That they were not as corrupted and as big of slime balls as our modern politicians are . An now they leave it up to rest of the catholics in the world to defend why they still stay with the church, when in reality it should be those leaders doing the heavy lifting and cleaning up the mess that they refused to acknowledge. An to claim being naïve and wanting to treat the issue as a sin and not a crime as being the reason why these leaders did what they did, is merely nothing more than deluding oneself to the truth. It would be as if someone who makes cakes for a living, decided to put rat poison in the mix, only to later say, woops I thought it was just a new brand of flour and I am sorry, I would have admitted it earlier but I didn't want to lose my license and my freedom and so I just prayed that people didn't get sick or die and I prayed that I wouldn't make that mistake again.

The church can make right this topic, but won't; ever. Because it would mean having to be able to make the right and brutally hard decisions and weak men can not do that, they can only turn a blind eye and pray that someone else will do the hard work for them. An until every living person involved, that holds rank in the church is held accountable, the issue will not be resolved.

 

[little2add]

There is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders, but there are three levels.  Once a man has been ordained, he is spiritually changed, however even the greatest apostle (priest) of all time faltered.   

IE:   But Jesus said, “Peter, let me tell you something. Before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me.”

[superblue]

50 minutes ago, little2add said:

There is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders, but there are three levels.  Once a man has been ordained, he is spiritually changed, however even the greatest apostle (priest) of all time faltered.   

IE:   But Jesus said, “Peter, let me tell you something. Before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me.”

That is nothing but an excuse and trying to justify the crimes committed by those who are clergy, and the ranks of the clergy who covered everything up and continue to ignore the issue.

AN comparatively , Peters' denial is nothing compared to the absolute destruction of trust those who committed those crimes have done to the church that has devastated millions of the faithful.

Edited January 14, 2016 by superblue

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

There is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders, but there are three levels.  Once a man has been ordained, he is spiritually changed, however even the greatest apostle (priest) of all time faltered.   

IE:   But Jesus said, “Peter, let me tell you something. Before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me.”

Ouch. You need a better Bible translation, friendo.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Ouch. You need a better Bible translation, friendo.

Translation?! Tisk. Tisk.

One cannot be holy if one does not read Greek, my friend.

1 hour ago, superblue said:

That is nothing but an excuse and trying to justify the crimes committed by those who are clergy, and the ranks of the clergy who covered everything up and continue to ignore the issue.

AN comparatively , Peters' denial is nothing compared to the absolute destruction of trust those who committed those crimes have done to the church that has devastated millions of the faithful.

I dunno about all that Bro. Denying Jesus 3 times is pretty high up there on my list of things that shouldn't be done.

[Credo in Deum]

9 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Papist, 

I'm not sure if you're trolling...

The early Chuch had married priests.  Peter was thought to be married.  Eastern Catholic priests can marry (EC, unlike Eastern OTHODOX Catholic) are in communion with Rome.   Some Anglican priests have converted to Catholicism, are still married and are valid priests.  

Celibacy is a preferred discipline, but it is not understood to be a theological requirement like male only priests.  Even Cam would concur.   

This is a discussion on prudential reasons why or why not married priests.   It is NOT a non-starter, such as female priests which is "theologically impossible".

Eastern Catholic priests cannot get married once ordained.  They have to be married prior to ordination and if they are married they cannot be Bishops or monks.  So celibacy, while a discipline, is one which is revered in both Eastern and Western Rites.

If Josh is proposing that ordained men be allowed to marry, then he is proposing something which neither Rite would accept.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[CatherineM]

Since I'm descended from several priests and a couple of bishops (were elevated after their wives died), I'm rather glad priests used to be allowed to marry. 

[Anomaly]

7 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Eastern Catholic priests cannot get married once ordained.  They have to be married prior to ordination and if they are married they cannot be Bishops or monks.  So celibacy, while a discipline, is one which is revered in both Eastern and Western Rites.

If Josh is proposing that ordained men be allowed to marry, then he is proposing something which neither Rite would accept.

Usually I ignore your posts, but since you quoted me...

The Eastern Catholic Church currently DOES ordain married men to the priesthood.  

But if you, Credo, are personally are in charge of defining and administrating Disciplines (not Doctrine) in the Catholic Church and Rites in communion with Rome, then I accept your claim that neither  Rite would accept married priests.  Obviously, since you are embarrassingly wrong in this matter, Credo is not the person in charge.  

Its reasonable to debate reasons for and against married priests.   But the fundamental criteria are NOT Doctrine or Dogma and they should not be used (or alluded to) in order to quash discussion and debate.  That is inaccurate and diminishes the integrity of actual Doctrine (although it's a common technique of armchair Religion "authorities"). 

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Usually I ignore your posts, but since you quoted me...

The Eastern Catholic Church currently DOES ordain married men to the priesthood.  

But if you, Credo, are personally are in charge of defining and administrating Disciplines (not Doctrine) in the Catholic Church and Rites in communion with Rome, then I accept your claim that neither  Rite would accept married priests.  Obviously, since you are embarrassingly wrong in this matter, Credo is not the person in charge.  

Its reasonable to debate reasons for and against married priests.   But the fundamental criteria are NOT Doctrine or Dogma and they should not be used (or alluded to) in order to quash discussion and debate.  That is inaccurate and diminishes the integrity of actual Doctrine (although it's a common technique of armchair Religion "authorities"). 

It seems that everything he wrote was correct, if you take it at face value without reading additional things into it . . . He is only saying that the Eastern Rite does not allow marriage, after a person has been ordained (I think the rule is the same for deacons in the US).

Edited January 14, 2016 by Peace

[Anomaly]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

It seems that everything he wrote was correct, if you take it at face value without reading additional things into it . . . He is only saying that the Eastern Rite does not allow marriage, after a person has been ordained (I think the rule is the same for deacons in the US).

Peace, 

Use Google and visit Byzantine and other Eastern Rites' sites.  

Yes they do ordain married men to priesthood. In the 1920's, Rome established a Rule that disallowed it.  That was rescinded relatively recently by Pope Francis.  

The fact is, it IS done, and can be done.  Debate reasons why it should or shouldn't be, not debate why it couldn't be possible.  Claiming it CAN'T BE is easily refuted and the reasons why it CAN'T are then ignored if you think it is the same theological basis why women canno be ordained, that's all I am saying (outside of my personal bias). 

[KnightofChrist]

9 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Peace, 

Use Google and visit Byzantine and other Eastern Rites' sites.  

Yes they do ordain married men to priesthood. In the 1920's, Rome established a Rule that disallowed it.  That was rescinded relatively recently by Pope Francis.  

The fact is, it IS done, and can be done.  Debate reasons why it should or shouldn't be, not debate why it couldn't be possible.  Claiming it CAN'T BE is easily refuted and the reasons why it CAN'T are then ignored if you think it is the same theological basis why women canno be ordained, that's all I am saying (outside of my personal bias). 

Married men in the Eastern Rite can become priests, unmarried priests in the Eastern Rite cannot marry. Priests who are married are not elevated to the Bishopric. Also the Eastern Rite is not the Western Rite, in a way you're comparing apples and pears. Lastly celibacy of priests is less than dogma but more than a mere discipline that can be thrown out.

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Peace, 

Use Google and visit Byzantine and other Eastern Rites' sites.  

Yes they do ordain married men to priesthood. In the 1920's, Rome established a Rule that disallowed it.  That was rescinded relatively recently by Pope Francis.  

The fact is, it IS done, and can be done.  Debate reasons why it should or shouldn't be, not debate why it couldn't be possible.  Claiming it CAN'T BE is easily refuted and the reasons why it CAN'T are then ignored if you think it is the same theological basis why women canno be ordained, that's all I am saying (outside of my personal bias). 

My response has nothing to do with married men becoming ordained. I was saying men who are already ordained cannot get married, in both Eastern or Western Rites, without a dispensation under extraordinary circumstances. This was in response to your remark that "Eastern priest can marry" which was incorrect.  

A link that helps explaine the position:

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry

Ps. My armchair is very comfy. 

[superblue]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Translation?! Tisk. Tisk.

One cannot be holy if one does not read Greek, my friend.

I dunno about all that Bro. Denying Jesus 3 times is pretty high up there on my list of things that shouldn't be done.

I'm not your bro, and no your list is worthless.

[Anomaly]

You are wrong on ordained men getting married as well.  Read the entire link you provided.  There are cirumstances when dispensation is given by the Holy See.  

Unlikelyhood, rarity, preference not to, are not the same as cannot, does not, or impossible.

 

Seriously. I like Josh and want him to get an accurate answer.  The gist of the posts by Josh was suggesting that married priests may counter a perceived culture of homosexuality or abnormal sexual proclivities within the Catholic Clergy.   His supposition cannot be dismissed that there cannot be married priests, but refuted as to why that may or may not be prudent or effective.   It's a different situation than if someone were to suggest women priests may also be an effective response to the "gay priest problem".

 

PSS: Deleted my very witty repose about the armchair somewhat reluctantly.

[Peace]

27 minutes ago, superblue said:

I'mｉｔot your bro, and no your list is worthless.

Will you please be my friend, Superblue? I so very much desire it.