Huh?

[MC Just]

Celibacy had nothing to do with the Shortages..That is a LIE. It's all out in the open and easy to see what caused them.

[MC Just]

EMITTE LUCEM

THE PEDOPHILE PRIEST SCANDAL

By: Phil Brennan

A lot of people are assuming that the current pedophile priest scandal is thrusting a dagger into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. Obviously, they don't know much about history. Over the last 2000 years, the Church has endured far worse upheavals and it's still around and thriving, just as Christ promised his apostles it would be.

When I was a youngster in parochial school, I was often reminded that the Church is never stronger than it is when it's under attack. In times of persecution, the Church grows muscular and thrives. Catholics under relentless attack and persecution retreat into the holiness Christ demands from all of us. And the Church emerges strengthened in its spirituality and more fully aware that the Kingdom is not of this world.

Conversely, when things appear to be going smoothly and the Church is largely free of persecution and attacks from outside, its muscles tend to atrophy and it loses much of its missionary fervor. This is especially true in secular societies such as the United States where the temptation to avoid rocking the boat proves stronger than the obligation to defend truth and justice and the Faith.

This is one of those times. A Church which has always seen itself divided into the Church here on earth - the Church Militant, and the Church beyond the world , the Church Triumphant - has abandoned its militancy, lost its muscle, and become a timid version of the Church that withstood centuries of violent persecution under the Roman empire.

The Church that stood in heroic opposition to the evil empire in Moscow and does so now in the face of vicious persecution in China and elsewhere, has, in this nation given in to a host of malcontents, perverts, heretics and radical feminists.

The motto of the Catholic hierarchy in America seems to be "go along to get along," even if it means kowtowing to militant homosexuals, toning down their opposition to abortion, and accepting Caesar's coin at the price of its independence.

At a time when the Church needs warriors to carry the fight against a virulent form of out-of-control paganism, it has produced a confederation of ecclesiastical wimps willing to stand mute in the face of the rampant depravity sapping the nation's moral strength.

What is behind the inexcusable silence and failure to act in the face of what appears to be decades of sexual misconduct among the clergy by many members of the American hierarchy is fear of exposure of the fact that the Church of sinners, actually has sinners in its midst. And fear is Satan's best weapon.

Rather than act as shepherds guarding their flocks against the wolves, they have sheltered the predators, and as result, turned them loose among the sheep.

Rather than face the demonstrable fact that by allowing a coven of radical feminists to occupy positions that gave them the right to accept or reject candidates for entry into some seminaries - a practice so abused that homosexuals were actually given preference - bishops allowed the practice to continue out of fear of offending militant homosexual pressure groups both inside and outside the priesthood.

The result: a priesthood with an unknown number of sexually active homosexuals, many of them attracted to the youngsters among their congregations and unable to resist the temptation to seek them out for their sexual pleasure.

Moreover, the hierarchy is reluctant to offend the militant homosexual lobby by admitting what is patently obvious - that the pedophile priest problem is a homosexual problem - without the presence of homosexuals in the priesthood there would be no pedophile priest problem.

For years the American hierarchy continued to support liturgical translators who were distorting liturgical texts to curry favor of the tiny minority of women wedded to the unnatural tenets of radical feminism. Time after time the Holy See rejected these deliberate mistranslations which in many cases changed the very meaning of the texts, and time after time the bishops continued to submit the faulty work of these revisionists back to Rome.

For two thousand years it has been an article of our faith that the destiny of the Roman Catholic faith is in the hands of the Holy Spirit. That being so, it is hard to dismiss the idea that a violent shakeup within the Church is not only needed, but overdue.

If the media is to be believed, Catholics are "reeling" "in trauma,"and fleeing the Church in disillusionment. They are not. As a beloved friend, a deacon, once said to me, "the Church is in the pews." That Church is rock solid. Those few who abandon the Church in the face of the scandal were merely looking for an excuse to flee a discipline they could not accept. Without their diluting presence, the Church will be stronger

The scandal has opened the Church to bitter criticism and a mounting number of assaults, many of them launched by a paganistic media which despises the Roman Catholic Church and all that it stands for. A mainstream media dominated by homosexuals, pro-abortion fanatics, atheists and disciples of Karl Marx is now wallowing in the mud and mire of the pedophile priest scandal. They will not let up.

Great. Bring them on. It may not be fun to endure what lies in store for Catholics as a result of the scandal, but when it's all over Roman Catholicism in America will emerge from the darkness and be stronger, more vibrant, and, undeterred by fear of offending the offenders, once again a courageous force for truth in a world dominated, as it has always been, by the lie.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 24 2005, 01:23 PM'] [quote name='Apotheoun']Deaconesses have never been ordained, rather, they were set aside to assist at the baptism of women, i.e., when baptism was still done in the nude.[/quote]
Then how do you account for the fact that the ordination rites used for the ordination of deaconesses is identical, in most cases, to the rites used for the ordination of deacons; and how do you account for the fact that the matter and form of holy orders is always present in these rites? [/quote]
The deaconesses in the Eastern Church were never given a sacerdotal function in the Eucharistic liturgy; instead, their function was to assist a priest in those situations where a man could not go, e.g., women's sections in a hospital, places where women lived in groups and where it would be unbecoming for a man to be alone with a woman, widows and virgins convents, etc.; moreover, deaconesses would assist priests in baptizing women in order to prevent any offense against modesty.

Deaconesses, as the first ecumenical council stated, were not numbered among the clergy, but were instead numbered among the laity; and as the Council of Laodicea insisted, "Women may not go to the altar." [Canon 44] In addition, the Western Church never instituted the office of deaconess; instead, the West had the orders of widows and virgins act in the role assumed by deaconesses in the East. A deaconess had no power to bless, nor could she perform any function proper to a priest or a deacon; instead, her role was ". . . to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency." [[u]Apostolic Constitution of St. Hippolytus[/u], 7, 28]

For more information on this topic I recommend reading the book [u]Deaconesses: An Historical Study[/u] by Aime Georges Martimort.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 24 2005, 01:23 PM'] [quote name='Apotheoun']Deaconesses have never been ordained, rather, they were set aside to assist at the baptism of women, i.e., when baptism was still done in the nude.[/quote]
[. . .] and how do you account for the fact that the matter and form of holy orders is always present in these rites? [/quote]
What is missing in these rites is the intention to ordain. Without the proper intention, there is no sacrament. Moreover, as the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] teaches, only a baptized man (vir) can receive sacred orders. [cf. CCC no. 1577; CIC canon 1024; CCEO canon 754]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 23 2005, 11:54 PM'] What's wrong with drinking beer? (I'm drinking a beer at this very moment! LOL!) [/quote]
I was thinking of drinking to excess...should have clarified.

[corban711]

peace be with you all!

i always think it is rather interesting about how different people think about the priestly shortage. i often see anger-filled articles written by people who disagree with the Church's teachings...they see the problem and attempt to fix it by changing the Church. on the other hand, i have seen many articles written by people who are faithful to all the Church's teachings, they see a problem and want to fix it through adhering to the Church's traditions and teachings. Many religious orders and seminaries which adhere to the teaching and practice of the Church have a different kind of vocation problem...they can't stop people from flocking to them. a year or so ago, The Tidings (which by the way isn't a traditional publication by any standards) ran an article citing information that vocations have been up 78% since the beginning of JPII's pontificate. Take a religious congregation like the Legionaries of Christ...they are only about 60 years old and have over 500 priests and 2,500 seminarians around the world. The Community of St. John, founded in 1975, already has over 700 brothers in the congregation with about 150-200 of those already ordained to the priesthood. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, just 15 years old, already is present in over 50 dioceses in over 15 countries on 4 continents with its 170 priests and 120 seminarians. These orders all have the same problem...more applicants than there is space to hold them. I could name several other religious orders with the same problem, but that is not necessary.

This isn't just true of good religious orders, but in diocesan seminaries too. Dioceses with awesome Catholic Bishops who encourage faithfulness, like Denver, Peoria, Omaha, Lincoln, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Newark,etc....these seminaries are full of awesome Catholic men who desire the priesthood and will start being ordained over the next several years.

So yes...there is a vocation crisis....but it is not what people make it out to be. If people who complained about it, instead made an effort to really pray and stay faithful to the Church this problem would not exist. Different Christian denominations that do have married clergy still have a problem with needing more ministers as well and many honest ones even say that it will not fix the problem for us. Fr. Ray Ryland, a priest who is associated with Catholic Answers is a convert to the faith and a married priest has written an article talking from his experience how hard it is to do both and that he thinks the Church's discipline should not be changed. It is too difficult...and he was saying this from HIS experience. He knows, and says the Church is wise in her decision.

[Winchester]

The Roman Rite. Let's make sure we know there are fully Catholic Rites with married priests.

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Jan 24 2005, 05:08 PM'] I was thinking of drinking to excess...should have clarified. [/quote]
I know. I just thought it was amusing and ironic that I happened to be drinking a Killian's at the moment I was reading this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Jan 25 2005, 12:08 AM'] The Roman Rite. Let's make sure we know there are fully Catholic Rites with married priests. [/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by this post, but the Eastern Rites are "fully Catholic" and Catholics who belong to these Rites are in full communion with Rome. (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox, whose liturgies are similar, but who are in schism with Rome.)
In Eastern Rites, married men may become priests under certain circumstances, but men may not marry after being ordained priests.

[Oik]

Todd and I spoke about the subject of ordaining married men into the Priesthood in the Western Church.

What everyone I have ever talked to (with the exception of Todd) has failed to mention is that even when married men were ordained to the priesthood in the Western Rite, the ordaination had to be agreed to by the wife and the couple had to practice continence, meaning the could no longer be any sexual relation between the couple.

Ordaining married men again in the Western rite would require those ordained to no longer have sexual relations with thier wife.

Furthermore, in the eastern Church, Todd made mention of a difference in that while married men may be ordained, they do not have to practice this continence which would be require in the West.

Consequently, this effectively does a way with the practice of performing daily mass, because it is required that the priest, who had had sexual relations with his wife, to undertake a three day purification before saying Mass.

In the unlikely event that the West did steal this married priesthood without continence from the East, the same purification would apply to the West.

This would effectively end a consistant daily Mass and reduce it to a sporadic schedule during the week.

Also, this would put added strain on the couple to only have sexual relations (by ordaination) to only reserve the sexual act for certain days or to refrain for the sexual act entirely.

Not exactly what most people have in mind when they favor ordaining married men to the priesthood.

[traichuoi]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' date='Jan 22 2005, 06:13 PM'] I don't see anyone discouraging these young men, I don't even see where anyone has endorsed women priests. I certainly don't discourage young men from the priesthood, we're (my sister and I) paying one's way through the seminary! lol [/quote]
actually i see alot...ALOT of people discouraging them. mothers are the number one deterrents to the priesthood...they want their boys to get married and give them grandchildren. as a youth minister, i see it over and over again with guys whom i have worked hard in trying to cultivate a culture of vocations.

Bishop Olmsted, the current Bishop of Phoenix was the Bishop of Kansas before he came here. In Kansas, he had over 30 men in the seminary. He said that it was because of the people's participation in a culture of stewardship.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Oik']Consequently, this effectively does a way with the practice of performing daily mass, because it is required that the priest, who had had sexual relations with his wife, to undertake a three day purification before saying Mass.[/quote]
The continence requirement and the three day purification requirements are also discipline rather than doctrine, and thus could be changed. They can't be seen as anything other than discipline, because calling them doctrine would imply that there is something unclean and/or sinful about marital sexuality -- something that God created and commanded us to do. The Church, especially in recent times, has been keen to emphasize that there is simply nothing unclean or sinful about marital sexuality. Therefore, there would be no reason to keep the purification requirement, which was no doubt a result of the Church Fathers' disdain for human sexuality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 25 2005, 01:04 PM'] [quote name='Oik']Consequently, this effectively does a way with the practice of performing daily mass, because it is required that the priest, who had had sexual relations with his wife, to undertake a three day purification before saying Mass.[/quote]
The continence requirement and the three day purification requirements are also discipline rather than doctrine, and thus could be changed. They can't be seen as anything other than discipline, because calling them doctrine would imply that there is something unclean and/or sinful about marital sexuality -- something that God created and commanded us to do. The Church, especially in recent times, has been keen to emphasize that there is simply nothing unclean or sinful about marital sexuality. Therefore, there would be no reason to keep the purification requirement, which was no doubt a result of the Church Fathers' disdain for human sexuality. [/quote]
Why do you presume to have more wisdom than the Church Fathers and two thousand years of Church tradition in this matter?

The Church has thrived in times in which her disciplines were much stricter than those today.
Relaxing disciplines to make religion easier and "more convenient" has not shown any signs of solving the basic problem of apathy towards religion and general lukewarmness of Faith which is at the heart of the vocations problem and other troubles in the Church.
For years, we have been making disciplines less demanding - eliminating Holy Days or moving them to Sundays, greatly decreasing the Eucharist fast, etc. Has any of this caused an increase in devotion and religious activity? I think not.

Discipline reinforces a sense of the Sacred.

The Church did not institute the "purification" requirements out of disdain for sexual activity, but to show the great and exceptional Holiness of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

The celibacy requirements do not mean that marital activity is sinful or "unclean" any more than the Eucharist fast means that the Church considers food or eating to be unclean and sinful.

[Q the Ninja]

All I have to say is that the Priesthood shortage isn't because God isn't calling people.

Married Priests will not change the crisis at all.

Does anyone even know when the practice changed for Priests not to get married? It seems this could be important.



The answer, by the way, is in the 1020's.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Socrates']Why do you presume to have more wisdom than the Church Fathers and two thousand years of Church tradition in this matter?[/quote]
I don't presume to have more wisdom than the Church Fathers -- but the Church's magisterium itself has repudiated the Church Fathers' opinions on human sexuality. Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body is almost antithetical to some of what the Fathers taught about human sexuality.

I'm not saying the Church Fathers were idiots; I'm saying they were wrong on some things and that human sexuality was one of them. All humans are wrong on some things, and the Church Fathers did not have the charism of infallibility.

[quote name='Socrates']The Church did not institute the "purification" requirements out of disdain for sexual activity, but to show the great and exceptional Holiness of the Sacrifice of the Mass.[/quote]
But isn't the implication of abstaining from sex because of the "great and exceptional Holiness of the Sacrifice of the Mass" that sex itself is somehow unholy?

In any event, my point was that the discipline of the purification requirement could be changed -- but now that I've thought about it, I'm not sure that it should be, because it could be a hindrance to our ecumenical relationship with the Orthodox, who would not appreciate our alteration of an ancient canonical law. I nevertheless maintain that it [b]could be changed[/b], but perhaps it would not be prudentially wise to change it.