| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2006 04:01:03 PM |
| Object: |
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can’t get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering a child
today claimed.
Fr Maurice Dillane, a curate in the Woodford-Looscaun parish in east Co
Galway quit the Clonfert diocese after he was confronted by his bishop.
The 73-year-old cleric is believed to have had a two-year relationship
with a Dublin-based teacher, 31 whom he first met in a previous parish
in the Co Galway area.
The child was born at the end of last year.
Broadcaster Fr Brian D’Arcy and well-known Manchester priest Fr Denis
Maher today both backed Fr Dillane and warned the Catholic Church that
it was losing its best priests because they weren’t allowed to marry.
“The compulsory celibacy issue has to be addressed. I’m not saying what
the conclusions will be but at least it is time that we discussed it,”
Fr D’Arcy said.
“I really think that some of the absolute cream of the priesthood have
been lost and I think it’s one of the reasons we are in the huge mess
we’re in at the moment,” he noted.
He estimated that over 110,000 priests have left around the world, of
which 70,000 would have been leaders in the Catholic Church today.
Fr Maher, who rose to media prominence in 1998 during the police
investigation into the Dr Harold Shipman murders in his Manchester
parish, also supported Fr Dillane.
“Any priest who doesn’t fall in love is only half a priest,” he said.
The Tipperary-born cleric said he had 14 married priests in his parish
who were very successful in their jobs.
He also revealed that he once fell in love with a woman but overcame it
to continue as a priest.
“We remain the best of friends. It’s a very nice relationship. There’s
nothing bad taking place,” he told Liveline.
The Bishop of Clonfert, Dr John Kirby earlier confirmed in a statement
that a priest had admitted to him on January 6 that he had recently
fathered a baby.
Fr Dillane’s parish priest Fr Pat Naughten was unavailable for comment
today.
Fr D’Arcy said he hoped mother and baby were healthy and Fr Dillane was
happy.
“I hope they’re given room to enjoy the joy of parenthood because we
have to assume that it is a loving relationship in a good context and if
both of them are happy about it, who are we to make a judgment about
it?”
“The man has given over 40 years to the priesthood and if he wants to
move in different directions, then that’s okay with me.
“It is breaking the rules, but that doesn’t mean that everything about
it is bad and sinful and dirty and tainted.
“I would like to think that somebody, whatever age they are, if they
fall in love with somebody who falls in love with them, and they want to
have a relationship, I would not stand in the way of that.”
Chairman of Fr Dillane’s local pastoral council, Justin O’Byrne said
rumours about the baby had been circulating for a few days when he
brought the matter to parish priest Fr Naughten last Friday afternoon.
Mr O’Byrne believed the incident wasn’t as shocking as the revelations
involving Bishop Eamon Casey and his secret teenage son in 1992.
“I’m quite happy that the diocese and the bishop are dealing with it in
an understanding and caring fashion. It is not being swept under the
carpet or ignored or denied by anybody,” Mr O’Byrne added.
Dr Kirby said in a statement that he hoped the priest would be given
time and space to plan for the future of the baby and mother.
He said: “On 6th January a priest on loan to the Clonfert Diocese
confirmed to me that he had recently fathered a baby with an adult
woman.
“Since then, I have met both the priest and the mother.
“I hope that the priest, who has ceased to work in the diocese, the
mother, and all those involved, be given appropriate time and space to
plan for their respective futures.
“I consider this to be a private matter and as such I will make no
further comment.”
© Thomas Crosbie Media, 2006.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
26 Jan 2006 11:17:33 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:1ppdt1lov24evutmgjtv395g8on1p76dfc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:10:30 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7crct1p4o7lfsfik3a6qrkj3pe53p8p771@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:15:48 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:18:14 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nt3at1hmkbfs6e28ddi5mjm1qqcrp4c2cv@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:03:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:55:09 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3tk7t1dgfltp1k04t3hma8gvm27dt9mma2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote
in
alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can't
get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering a
child
today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
Believe it, or not, I agree with you. He did break the faith. I
don't
see anything which said the Church was wrong. I see him indicating
the
ramifications and reprecussions of Church policy is causing hefty
problems. I also understand why the celibacy policy was crafted in
the
first place.
Either saying with or changing the policy has it's ramifications and
reprecussions.
That's two of us now who've agreed with him.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR DUKE? You heartless fiend!
eyes glow read....you just noticed? ;)
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
26 Jan 2006 08:27:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:1ppdt1lov24evutmgjtv395g8on1p76dfc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:10:30 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7crct1p4o7lfsfik3a6qrkj3pe53p8p771@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:15:48 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:18:14 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nt3at1hmkbfs6e28ddi5mjm1qqcrp4c2cv@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:03:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:55:09 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3tk7t1dgfltp1k04t3hma8gvm27dt9mma2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote
in
alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can't
get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering a
child
today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
Believe it, or not, I agree with you. He did break the faith. I
don't
see anything which said the Church was wrong. I see him indicating
the
ramifications and reprecussions of Church policy is causing hefty
problems. I also understand why the celibacy policy was crafted in
the
first place.
Either saying with or changing the policy has it's ramifications and
reprecussions.
That's two of us now who've agreed with him.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR DUKE? You heartless fiend!
eyes glow read....you just noticed? ;)
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
27 Jan 2006 10:53:14 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:g61jt1lvgqmatgfd3ed3sk78ur7m7ntrlj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:1ppdt1lov24evutmgjtv395g8on1p76dfc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:10:30 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7crct1p4o7lfsfik3a6qrkj3pe53p8p771@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:15:48 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:18:14 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nt3at1hmkbfs6e28ddi5mjm1qqcrp4c2cv@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:03:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:55:09 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3tk7t1dgfltp1k04t3hma8gvm27dt9mma2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote
in
alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they
can't
get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering
a
child
today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
Believe it, or not, I agree with you. He did break the faith. I
don't
see anything which said the Church was wrong. I see him
indicating
the
ramifications and reprecussions of Church policy is causing hefty
problems. I also understand why the celibacy policy was crafted
in
the
first place.
Either saying with or changing the policy has it's ramifications
and
reprecussions.
That's two of us now who've agreed with him.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR DUKE? You heartless fiend!
eyes glow read....you just noticed? ;)
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Right! ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
27 Jan 2006 07:36:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:53:14 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43v1cpF1psqniU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:g61jt1lvgqmatgfd3ed3sk78ur7m7ntrlj@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:1ppdt1lov24evutmgjtv395g8on1p76dfc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:10:30 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7crct1p4o7lfsfik3a6qrkj3pe53p8p771@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:15:48 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:18:14 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nt3at1hmkbfs6e28ddi5mjm1qqcrp4c2cv@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:03:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:55:09 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3tk7t1dgfltp1k04t3hma8gvm27dt9mma2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote
in
alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net>
wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they
can't
get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering
a
child
today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
Believe it, or not, I agree with you. He did break the faith. I
don't
see anything which said the Church was wrong. I see him
indicating
the
ramifications and reprecussions of Church policy is causing hefty
problems. I also understand why the celibacy policy was crafted
in
the
first place.
Either saying with or changing the policy has it's ramifications
and
reprecussions.
That's two of us now who've agreed with him.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR DUKE? You heartless fiend!
eyes glow read....you just noticed? ;)
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Right! ;)
Glad to meet a W.I.B. at last.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
27 Jan 2006 10:20:05 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
[]
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Nope. The proper response is;
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
27 Jan 2006 10:53:39 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:d0ikt1dvkoa0g6ci6e8q7c1v7naj6mnsmb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
[]
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your
direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his
face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Nope. The proper response is;
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"
Did you step on a barking spider again?!?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
28 Jan 2006 09:54:19 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:53:39 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:d0ikt1dvkoa0g6ci6e8q7c1v7naj6mnsmb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
[]
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your
direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his
face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Nope. The proper response is;
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"
Did you step on a barking spider again?!?
No. That would be
"ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt"
followed by a floral scent......
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
27 Jan 2006 07:35:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:20:05 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <d0ikt1dvkoa0g6ci6e8q7c1v7naj6mnsmb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
[]
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Nope. The proper response is;
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"
Where am I?
How did I get here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
28 Jan 2006 09:54:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:05:45 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:20:05 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <d0ikt1dvkoa0g6ci6e8q7c1v7naj6mnsmb@4ax.com>
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:03 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:17:33 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43seecF1pcbppU1@individual.net>
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:bfhgt1l15noiab9abm6j03tcslagf7fcpk@4ax.com...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:30:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43pjqhF1oikrcU1@individual.net>
[]
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touch?with a change of pace!
Why do I suddenly feel out of place?
It's secret men's business.
If I told you, I'd have to neuralize you.
(Slides cool shades on, and reaches for top pocket)
<Flips on cooler shades and produces own Neuralizer>
You were saying? ;)
Erm, "Snap"?
Nope. The proper response is;
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP"
Where am I?
How did I get here?
[silence]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
25 Jan 2006 12:07:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:22:30 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:10:30 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <7crct1p4o7lfsfik3a6qrkj3pe53p8p771@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:15:48 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:18:14 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nt3at1hmkbfs6e28ddi5mjm1qqcrp4c2cv@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:03:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:55:09 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3tk7t1dgfltp1k04t3hma8gvm27dt9mma2@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can’t get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering a child
today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
Believe it, or not, I agree with you. He did break the faith. I don't
see anything which said the Church was wrong. I see him indicating the
ramifications and reprecussions of Church policy is causing hefty
problems. I also understand why the celibacy policy was crafted in the
first place.
Either saying with or changing the policy has it's ramifications and
reprecussions.
That's two of us now who've agreed with him.
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH OUR DUKE? You heartless fiend!
eyes glow read....you just noticed? ;)
I bet when he got "taken", he did not expect to go in your direction,
oh mighty Prince of Darkness!
Did one of your demons manage to get a photo of the look on his face?
It was captured on a mace....
Touché, with a change of pace!
But there's not enough space
for the race.....
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
19 Jan 2006 08:35:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ds90t15vdp5env9k8t98glv9eqhl7ivs1e@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can’t get
married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after fathering a child
today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
What is the world coming to?
I actually agree with duke here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
19 Jan 2006 09:55:14 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ds90t15vdp5env9k8t98glv9eqhl7ivs1e@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can't
get married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after
fathering a child today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
What is the world coming to?
I actually agree with duke here.
Titus 1:5-6 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in
order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every
city, as I also appointed thee:
1:6. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife having faithful
children, not accused of riot or unruly.
The celibacy rule wasn't enacted until 1139 and certainly is not a matter of
faith.
"When one looks at the history of celibacy in the Catholic Church, it soon
becomes apparent that this state of life became mandatory due to financial
considerations, not because priests were supposed to emulate Christ by
remaining single. When one focuses more specifically upon the medieval
period, we can clearly see that church property was donated by kings and
princes in exchange for faithful service. A controversy arose when married
priests in turn left this property to their heirs. To make a long story
short, celibacy soon followed as a requirement for ordination, so as to
prevent such property transactions between heirs. (There was nothing
theological in the celibacy directive.) As a side note to this history, it
is interesting to note that the imposition of celibacy in 1139 was not the
end of married priests. We now know that secret marriages took place after
1139, whereby married priests continued to serve. Unfortunately, the Council
of Trent and the infamous Inquisition sought out such marriages, whereupon
Trent served as a catalyst for several centuries of mandatory celibacy. (A
sad commentary indeed!)
http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/religious/celibacy.html
The priest broke a rule which is meaningless in today's economy when priests
aren't exactly on the high end of the income scale.
It made sense to the church at the time just as not eating meat on Fridays
made sense at one time.
When I was a kid touching the host with anything but your mouth and the
thumb and index finger of the right hand was a mortal sin. Those rules have
been changed.
I'm betting that married priests and birth control within the marriage will
come with the first pope who is not ultra conservative
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
20 Jan 2006 04:17:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ds90t15vdp5env9k8t98glv9eqhl7ivs1e@4ax.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:01:03 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j=103105431&p=yx3yx586x&n=103105870
Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest
18/01/2006 - 16:56:39
The Catholic Church is losing its best priests because they can't
get married, supporters of a cleric forced to retire after
fathering a child today claimed.
We are?? Wow, didn't know that.
This priest broke the faith, and "HE" says we are wrong?
What is the world coming to?
I actually agree with duke here.
Titus 1:5-6 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in
order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every
city, as I also appointed thee:
1:6. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife having faithful
children, not accused of riot or unruly.
The celibacy rule wasn't enacted until 1139 and certainly is not a matter of
faith.
"When one looks at the history of celibacy in the Catholic Church, it soon
becomes apparent that this state of life became mandatory due to financial
considerations, not because priests were supposed to emulate Christ by
remaining single. When one focuses more specifically upon the medieval
period, we can clearly see that church property was donated by kings and
princes in exchange for faithful service. A controversy arose when married
priests in turn left this property to their heirs. To make a long story
short, celibacy soon followed as a requirement for ordination, so as to
prevent such property transactions between heirs. (There was nothing
theological in the celibacy directive.) As a side note to this history, it
is interesting to note that the imposition of celibacy in 1139 was not the
end of married priests. We now know that secret marriages took place after
1139, whereby married priests continued to serve. Unfortunately, the Council
of Trent and the infamous Inquisition sought out such marriages, whereupon
Trent served as a catalyst for several centuries of mandatory celibacy. (A
sad commentary indeed!)
http://www.angelfire.com/ga2/religious/celibacy.html
The priest broke a rule which is meaningless in today's economy when priests
aren't exactly on the high end of the income scale.
It made sense to the church at the time just as not eating meat on Fridays
made sense at one time.
When I was a kid touching the host with anything but your mouth and the
thumb and index finger of the right hand was a mortal sin. Those rules have
been changed.
I'm betting that married priests and birth control within the marriage will
come with the first pope who is not ultra conservative
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
22 Jan 2006 12:57:29 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 04:31:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 05:43:45 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:c3c9t19lbhhu0br837ggv175quvm8i8jtb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
No, no, no. Renouncing the priesthood is quite easy and then they can move
on with their lives and live like normal people - at least that's what the
priest who performed my wedding ceremony did, and he was certainly no spring
chicken. Good for him! He'd apparently been in love with the local
librarian for years ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 11:17:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:43:45 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:c3c9t19lbhhu0br837ggv175quvm8i8jtb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
No, no, no. Renouncing the priesthood is quite easy and then they can move
on with their lives and live like normal people - at least that's what the
priest who performed my wedding ceremony did, and he was certainly no spring
chicken. Good for him! He'd apparently been in love with the local
librarian for years ;)
No harm and no foul then. I didn't think there would be, but I didn't
know for sure.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 11:45:09 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:cr3at1p5srttqd507cutnqgrkvnoeo7h4o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:43:45 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:c3c9t19lbhhu0br837ggv175quvm8i8jtb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
No, no, no. Renouncing the priesthood is quite easy and then they can
move
on with their lives and live like normal people - at least that's what the
priest who performed my wedding ceremony did, and he was certainly no
spring
chicken. Good for him! He'd apparently been in love with the local
librarian for years ;)
No harm and no foul then. I didn't think there would be, but I didn't
know for sure.
I'm sure there are many people out there who think what he did is absolutely
terrible, but what can you do?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
24 Jan 2006 12:08:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:09 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:cr3at1p5srttqd507cutnqgrkvnoeo7h4o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:43:45 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
[]
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
No, no, no. Renouncing the priesthood is quite easy and then they can
move
on with their lives and live like normal people - at least that's what the
priest who performed my wedding ceremony did, and he was certainly no
spring
chicken. Good for him! He'd apparently been in love with the local
librarian for years ;)
No harm and no foul then. I didn't think there would be, but I didn't
know for sure.
I'm sure there are many people out there who think what he did is absolutely
terrible, but what can you do?
They could lovingly burn him at the steak.......
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 09:39:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:09 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43kiu6F1nqgiuU1@individual.net>
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:cr3at1p5srttqd507cutnqgrkvnoeo7h4o@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:43:45 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:c3c9t19lbhhu0br837ggv175quvm8i8jtb@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
No, no, no. Renouncing the priesthood is quite easy and then they can
move
on with their lives and live like normal people - at least that's what the
priest who performed my wedding ceremony did, and he was certainly no
spring
chicken. Good for him! He'd apparently been in love with the local
librarian for years ;)
No harm and no foul then. I didn't think there would be, but I didn't
know for sure.
I'm sure there are many people out there who think what he did is absolutely
terrible...
Especially the choir-boy that he dumped for a '*****'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
24 Jan 2006 10:57:37 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:cb8bt1pkfm0poajl8fpvhda0goac3rv9qt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:45:09 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <43kiu6F1nqgiuU1@individual.net>
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
dsnip
No harm and no foul then. I didn't think there would be, but I didn't
know for sure.
I'm sure there are many people out there who think what he did is
absolutely
terrible...
Especially the choir-boy that he dumped for a '*****'.
Hey!! He was a very nice man! Watch it! >:(
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 02:52:39 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
No, no, no. Renouncing the priesthood is quite easy and then they
can move
on with their lives and live like normal people - at least that's
what the priest who performed my wedding ceremony did, and he was
certainly no spring
chicken. Good for him! He'd apparently been in love with the local
librarian for years ;)
No harm and no foul then. I didn't think there would be, but I
didn't know for sure.
I'm sure there are many people out there who think what he did is
absolutely terrible, but what can you do?
The priests take a vow and it is considered a mortal sin to break it.
That people not see there may be exceptions leads to:
Judges.
11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt
without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my
house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall
surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
....
11:34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter
came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only
child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
....
11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto
her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and
she knew no man.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 11:16:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:01:36 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
But what about having proper diction?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
23 Jan 2006 09:43:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:16:12 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dq3at1tgjqqi9rc9ej568md1qj2ij5f27v@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:01:36 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
But what about having proper diction?
Monkey Island?
You Pirates only fight in Fiction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
24 Jan 2006 12:09:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:13:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:16:12 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dq3at1tgjqqi9rc9ej568md1qj2ij5f27v@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:01:36 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
But what about having proper diction?
Monkey Island?
You Pirates only fight in Fiction.
/pyrats
Yeah, but we're great at interdiction!
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
24 Jan 2006 08:48:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:09:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <garct1pf8g96h05mm4q8k6jifc952kphic@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:13:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:16:12 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dq3at1tgjqqi9rc9ej568md1qj2ij5f27v@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:01:36 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
But what about having proper diction?
Monkey Island?
You Pirates only fight in Fiction.
/pyrats
Yeah, but we're great at interdiction!
Oh dear, all I have is:
I am rubber, you are glue.
Dang, I lose!
I never could get the hang of "insult swordfighting".
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
25 Jan 2006 12:07:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:18:45 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:09:46 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <garct1pf8g96h05mm4q8k6jifc952kphic@4ax.com>
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:13:02 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:16:12 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <dq3at1tgjqqi9rc9ej568md1qj2ij5f27v@4ax.com>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:01:36 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:57:29 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <89l7t1trv94807kjfuoo9vo31ujkr0pj10@4ax.com>
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <CaZzf.17695$dW3.3488@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
[]
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
A contract with themselves, when they made the choice to enter the
priesthood.
It is themselves that they are breaking their promise with, history or
no, laws or not.
They went into their career, in the full knowledge that celibacy is an
absolute, and lifetime requirement, and promised to uphold that.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
I don't recall if priests have actual outs. I understand they can
resign, but what effect does it have on their oath?
They must undergo instant crucifixion.
But what about having proper diction?
Monkey Island?
You Pirates only fight in Fiction.
/pyrats
Yeah, but we're great at interdiction!
Oh dear, all I have is:
I am rubber, you are glue.
Dang, I lose!
I never could get the hang of "insult swordfighting".
Go fish..... ;)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
20 Jan 2006 04:35:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:47:25 +1030, Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com>
wrote:
Historical stuff is all well and good, but quite irellevant to the
matter.
The priests made a commitment. A promise.
Don't mention such a thing to mikey. He can't relate to it.
This is a clear case of breach of promise, and dukey-boy is right to
say that it sucks that the priest is now behaving
Why, thank you.
That is not a good thing to do, in my book, and I look on people who
break promises as being a lower form of life.
Even if the promises are to themselves.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
20 Jan 2006 04:34:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 03:55:14 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
The celibacy rule wasn't enacted until 1139 and certainly is not a matter of
faith.
No rule. Agreement. This priest broke his vow.
The priest broke a rule which is meaningless in today's economy when priests
aren't exactly on the high end of the income scale.
Priests don't pay for sex like you do, mikey.
It made sense to the church at the time just as not eating meat on Fridays
made sense at one time.
Celebacy still is the norm and the desire, mikey.
When I was a kid touching the host with anything but your mouth and the
thumb and index finger of the right hand was a mortal sin. Those rules have
been changed.
I'm betting that married priests and birth control within the marriage will
come with the first pope who is not ultra conservative
Not a chance, mikey. Definitely not biblical.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Jones Says \Drink More Koolaid" |
|
| Title: Re: Celibacy rule must go, claim supporters of priest |
20 Jan 2006 05:59:56 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:g6p2t19a2ana0v2qoh7b9cufimic1mfdv4@4ax.com...
Priests don't pay for sex like you do, mikey.
But they sometimes take the altar boy to McDonalds afterward.
--
******************************************
Rev. Mercutio Jones
http://dayofthesick.oklahomapunkscene.com
http://www.myspace.com/therightreverendjones
http://www.myspace.com/dayofthesick
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
