U.S. Bishop daddy X 2. Not good.
#11
I fearl a book is about to appear attacking the Church in regards to priesthood and celibacy/marriage.

Reply
#12
(01-04-2012, 01:01 PM)Tapatio Wrote: I fearl a book is about to appear attacking the Church in regards to priesthood and celibacy/marriage.

Well, if they do attack it they will attack it from the foundation of a sort of "free sex" mentality- that is, that priests out to be able to get some lovin' too sort of thing.  But remember that the celibacy of the priesthood is a discipline, not a dogma- it's by not means arbitrary-- there are good reasons for a celibate priesthood, but it's not like having married priests would be sinful, provided a change in the discipline.  I like the idea of married priests (that is, married men being able to become priests-- not necessarily priests being able to get married) and I think it's worth discussion.

But from a secular viewpoint it wouldn't be "oh, the priests don't get to get married" it would be "that miserable catholic church and her silly rules, always keeping people from having sex- shame on them!  they need to get with the times!"
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#13
(01-04-2012, 01:04 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(01-04-2012, 01:01 PM)Tapatio Wrote: I fearl a book is about to appear attacking the Church in regards to priesthood and celibacy/marriage.

Well, if they do attack it they will attack it from the foundation of a sort of "free sex" mentality- that is, that priests out to be able to get some lovin' too sort of thing.  But remember that the celibacy of the priesthood is a discipline, not a dogma- it's by not means arbitrary-- there are good reasons for a celibate priesthood, but it's not like having married priests would be sinful, provided a change in the discipline.  I like the idea of married priests (that is, married men being able to become priests-- not necessarily priests being able to get married) and I think it's worth discussion.

But from a secular viewpoint it wouldn't be "oh, the priests don't get to get married" it would be "that miserable catholic church and her silly rules, always keeping people from having sex- shame on them!  they need to get with the times!"

I think they should make it optional. Of course I agree that once you're a priest, if you are not married, you are not allowed to get married, but how do the orthodox manage to be married and be a priest? sure they get part-time jobs and don't dedicate 100% to the priestly ministries, but if celibacy is made optional it would also mean more people who feel the calling but are bound to reject it due to their unwillingness to avow to perfect chastity (and I know a few) would accede and there would be more priests who attend the flock. Well, I'm just thinking out loud, it may not be as easy as I put it out to be.

On the other hand, those who defend celibacy will argue from an economical and theological factor: married priests suppose expenses that the Church can't afford or the priest is married to the Church (I thought it was Christ who was married to the Church, but I disgress), and I respect their position.
Reply
#14
Bishop Gabino Zavala (b. September 7, 1951 in Guerrero, Mexico) currently serves as the Auxiliary Bishop of the San Gabriel Pastoral Region in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and is considered by some to be one of the most powerful and influential Latinos in the Church in the United States today. Born in Mexico, Zavala grew up in Los Angeles and was ordained a priest on May 28, 1977. Bishop Zavala opposes the death penalty, supports young people, and is a long-time supporter of immigration reform, and although he is sometimes considered orthodox in his beliefs he has a long history of supporting controversial positions on homosexuality. He was honored in 2004 by Death Penalty Focus for his efforts in reforming the criminal justice system and working to abolish the death penalty.

Zavala is involved with a number of organizations: he is the bishop president of the U.S. section of Pax Christi, the international Catholic peace movement; the Co-President of Interfaith Worker Justice, an organization committed to educating, mobilizing, and organizing the religious community to advocate for better wages and working conditions for low-wage workers; and he serves as the Episcopal advisor to the International Commission of Catholic Prison Pastoral Care (ICCPPC). Formerly rector of St. John's Seminary in Camarillo, CA, he also is an adjunct professor of Canon Law and Pastoral Theology in the graduate programs of Theology and Pastoral Theology at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
Reply
#15
Did you ever notice that people in the times being don't look scandalized when one speaks about the Renaissance popes with their mistresses and many bastards (not speaking of minions sometimes) while they refuse to accept or they downplay the evidence of the ongoing sexual scandals in the priesthood and in higher levels of the hierarchy (Bp Weakland, Card. Bernardin, etc...)
Do they truly believe that the post conciliar clergy is holier than that of the Middle Ages?
Reply
#16
There are some differences.

They fought to hide it and keep it secret.

When it came out they went off to a hole somewhere and lived in shame.  They didn't attempt to tell the rest of the Church that they were not keeping up with the times.

They slept around because they were sinners.  Not because they thought they were monkeys programmed by a million years of evolutionary "urges".  If you think you are a sinner you can confess your sin.  If you think you are a monkey following your urges then what is the point of confessing it?

The general Catholic population was not whoring around to anything like the same degree.

Most marriages lasted till death.  Women and men both put up with a load of shit from one spouse rather than a lot of shit from multiple "partners".  This is far better for the children.
Reply
#17
(01-04-2012, 12:38 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-04-2012, 12:34 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: What is much, much worse is the fact that we're getting so used to these things that it's actually scary. It's not only "not good"... it's TERRIBLE... the fact that it doesn't involve sex abuse is not relevant, he's a consecrated bishop who was/is a priest, of course child abuse is much worse, but this is nonetheless scandalous.

Bishops siring bastards was a very common thing during the middle ages.  

Heck, a number of Popes sired bastards.  

Not good, but not new either.  

And gave them red hats!  Nepotism in the Church added to the immoral ambience.

People sin.  Priests/bishops/popes are people.  Priests/bishops/popes sin.

The sins of most clergy, like those of most people, don't make the news, are not scandalous enough to make the news.





Reply
#18
(01-05-2012, 08:51 AM)ggreg Wrote: They slept around because they were sinners.  Not because they thought they were monkeys programmed by a million years of evolutionary "urges".  If you think you are a sinner you can confess your sin.  If you think you are a monkey following your urges then what is the point of confessing it?

That has nothing to do with it.  Whether the urges are the result of evolution or directly placed there by God, they are still urges (and still placed there by God, for that matter).  In either case, it is a natural tendency conflicting with a moral principle we must nevertheless adhere to.

No, I don't think people expect modern clergy to be holier than medieval clergy, but I think they expect to see better behavior from them on the grounds that the temporal power of the clergy is diminished and information is more available and travels faster, making it much harder for clergy to get away with it.
Reply
#19
At least he wasn't butt-raping altar boys.

I, for one, am in favour of married clergy: deacons, priests and bishops. The whole lot.
Reply
#20
(01-05-2012, 08:51 AM)ggreg Wrote: There are some differences.

They fought to hide it and keep it secret.

When it came out they went off to a hole somewhere and lived in shame.  They didn't attempt to tell the rest of the Church that they were not keeping up with the times.

No one tried to change Church teaching, true. But clerical bastards were considered normal until the Counter-Reformation, and even afterward to a lesser degree. It was well known that Cardinal Wolsey, for example, had a mistress and two children. It didn't stop him from rising the ranks to Archbishop of York, cardinal, Lord Chancellor, etc.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)