While reporting on a popular Miami priest, Father Alberto Cutie, getting caught on a beach with a woman, on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez spoke with CBS religion analyst Father Thomas Williams and criticized the Catholic Church for requiring a vow of celibacy for priests: "The Catholic Church, as you know, has been criticized, and you and I have talked about this, for being outdated and losing both parishioners and people who may want to serve, because it is so rigid. Do you think it's time for the Catholic Church to reconsider the vow of celibacy that it requires of its priests?" Williams replied: "Well, I'm not really sure. I think you can't attribute an act of unfaithfulness to the institution itself. It would be kind of like saying that adultery is caused by marriage. It doesn't really make sense."
Just before talking to Williams, Rodriguez admitted: "I should, in the interest of full disclosure, say that Father Albert is a family friend whom I've known for many, many years." At the end of the segment, Rodriguez added: "Yeah, just a couple of weeks ago he [Father Cutie] officiated my niece's wedding. I haven't talked to her about how she feels about this. But yeah, we've known him for many, many years. And he wants to continue serving God." Instead of taking Rodriguez off the story because of this personal connection, its appears CBS kept her on it because they thought it added an interesting angle, even if it made objectivity impossible.
After asking Father Williams if the Catholic Church should eliminate the vow of celibacy, Rodriguez later asked him: "I guess what people might be curious about is why this vow of celibacy is so important. Isn't it almost setting a nearly impossible standard? You, as a man, as a human being, isn't that a difficult vow to keep?" Williams explained: "Well, personally, Maggie, I really think that it's no more difficult than to be faithful -- to be faithful to one's celibacy -- than it is to be faithful to one woman or to one man. I don't think that married people really have a huge advantage there."
Rodriguez continued to press him on the issue: "But why is it required?" Williams replied: "Well, really, the idea is, a closer following of Christ, who himself was celibate, and really to be able to dedicate yourself fully to your parish, to your people, to be able to be -- to move around without the worries of, you know, a wife and children and simply be able to give yourself to that."
The Thursday segment was the second time the Early Show went after the Catholic Church this week. On Tuesday, correspondent Allen Pizzey reported from Rome on the premiere of the movie "Angels & Demons," a sequel to the anti-Catholic film "The Da Vinci Code." Pizzey explained: "The Vatican spokesman said there will be no comment on 'Angels & Demons,' because, quote, 'we don't want to give these people any more publicity.' Publicity is confined mostly to buses, the Vatican denies it asked that no posters be put up near churches. But director Ron Howard claimed the Church used its influence to impede filming." A clip of Ron Howard was played: "Well, it's always been unofficial, you know. And so, you know, it's possible it could be my paranoia in a way. But if so, it's a group paranoia."
Media Research Center President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell, recently wrote a column about Howard’s continual bashing of the Church.
Pizzey concluded his report by exclaiming: "Many of the scenes had to be shot as recreations, which some critics have called miraculous...But it is, after all, just a movie, no matter what the Church may see."
Here is the full transcript of the Thursday segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: A scandal engulfs Miami's archdiocese after a well-known priest is caught in a compromising position with a young woman. We'll tell you why it has a community divided.
7:13AM TEASE:
HARRY SMITH: And it's being called the real-life 'Thorn Birds.' We'll tell you about the TV star priest who lost his job due to some scandalous photos.
7:30AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: But first, it's being called the real-life 'Thorn Birds.' A celebrity priest in south Florida has left his parish, and his popular radio show, after steamy photos emerged of him with a woman on the beach. CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella has the story.
ALBERTO CUTIE: If you don't have a solid foundation, it's impossible to have a lasting marriage.
KELLY COBIELLA: To those who know him, Father Alberto Cutie is much more than a parish priest. He's 'Father Oprah.' A charismatic TV talk show host, radio personality, and newspaper columnist, dispensing advice just about everywhere to anyone. This is him on the NBC show 'Mama's Boy.'
CUTIE: You're the only one that can cut the umbilical cord.
COBIELLA: Now it's Cutie who's in need of counsel, because of a cover story in a Mexican celebrity magazine, TV Notas. Two dozen pictures in this week's issue show the handsome priest in a swimsuit, lying on the sand in Miami beach, striking an intimate pose with a woman. The Archbishop of Miami removed him from his church, and took him off the air.
MARY ROSS AGOSTA [ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI]: It's not what, when you're ordained a priest, the behavior that would be considered appropriate.
COBIELLA: Yet many of his parishioners disagree, saying it's time for the Catholic Church to change.
VANESSA LORIGA [PARISHIONER]: He's human, just like why can pastors have a wife, and you know, and teach people the word of God and everything. Why can't they do it? What's so abnormal about them?
COBIELLA: Father Cutie isn't weighing in just yet. In a statement, he admitted nothing, asked for forgiveness, and vowed to continue serving God. Kelly Cobiella, CBS News, Miami Beach.
RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Rome is CBS News faith and religion analyst Father Thomas Williams. Good morning, Father Thomas.
THOMAS WILLIAMS: Hi, Maggie.
RODRIGUEZ: I should, in the interest of full disclosure, say that Father Albert is a family friend whom I've known for many, many years. Father Williams, I would like to ask you if you believe that the archdiocese has reacted appropriately to this, or have they been too harsh?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think the first thing you have to do is get him back settled on his feet. They're certainly not excommunicating him or stripping him of his ministry. They're simply saying that now's not a good time to continue with a very public face or to be running a parish. And I think that makes good sense. And it doesn't mean that he won't have further ministry in the future, it's just kind of to temporarily quell the problem.
RODRIGUEZ: The Catholic Church, as you know, has been criticized, and you and I have talked about this, for being outdated and losing both parishioners and people who may want to serve, because it is so rigid. Do you think it's time for the Catholic Church to reconsider the vow of celibacy that it requires of its priests? Because other arms of Christianity, and certainly many other faiths, do not require that?
WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not really sure. I think you can't attribute an act of unfaithfulness to the institution itself. It would be kind of like saying that adultery is caused by marriage. It doesn't really make sense. Or malpractice is caused by medicine. In the sense that we all make commitments. Sometimes we fail at those commitments. It doesn't mean the commitments in themselves are bad, it just means that we are human and to paraphrase a bumper sticker, 'sin happens.' And it happens in all of our lives, it's something we know, we try to repent, we try to get back on our feet again, we ask God's forgiveness, and we try to keep going.
RODRIGUEZ: I guess what people might be curious about is why this vow of celibacy is so important. Isn't it almost setting a nearly impossible standard? You, as a man, as a human being, isn't that a difficult vow to keep?
WILLIAMS: Well, personally, Maggie, I really think that it's no more difficult than to be faithful -- to be faithful to one's celibacy -- than it is to be faithful to one woman or to one man. I don't think that married people really have a huge advantage there. And a lot of married people are unfaithful to their husbands or wives in the same way that priests sometimes are. And I don't think that it's something unique to the priesthood that people have a hard time being chaste or having a hard time being, you know, faithful to whatever vows they might have.
RODRIGUEZ: But why is it required?
WILLIAMS: Well, really, the idea is, a closer following of Christ, who himself was celibate, and really to be able to dedicate yourself fully to your parish, to your people, to be able to be -- to move around without the worries of, you know, a wife and children and simply be able to give yourself to that. And also to set kind of a -- people have an easier time sometimes, they tell me this anyway, speaking to someone who's given himself to God, than they do to someone who kind of lives in the same milieu that they do.
RODRIGUEZ: In the last seconds, Father, what do you say to parishioners who may feel betrayed by Father Albert?
WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I'm sorry. And it always is a sad thing when someone's unfaithful to their responsibilities, especially a big public figure like this. But we have to recognize that sin is part of our human nature. And we have to make room for people's -- for people's foibles and for people's errors. Remember the case in the Gospel where someone commits adultery and Jesus says, 'well the one who never committed a sin throw the first stone.' All of us, you know, all of us are sinful. All of us need forgiveness and we should be, you know, forgiving of others, as well.
RODRIGUEZ: Father Thomas Williams, as always, thank you. Nice speaking with you this morning.
WILLIAMS: Thank you. You too, Maggie.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright, It's an interesting debate.
SMITH: And you've known him. You've known this Father in question?
RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, just a couple of weeks ago he officiated my niece's wedding. I haven't talked to her about how she feels about this. But yeah, we've known him for many, many years. And he wants to continue serving God.
SMITH: Let's get some weather this morning. Dave is back with no excuses.
DAVE PRICE: Although I'm big into forgiveness for errors made (pointing to weather map).
[LAUGHTER]
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
if you don't want to be a
May 7, 2009 - 11:35 ET by seaniepif you don't want to be a Catholic don't be one - easy
I hate the New York Times more than it hates the US Military
And if you don't want to be
May 7, 2009 - 20:52 ET by motherbeltAnd if you don't want to be a priest, don't become one!
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
It never ceases to amaze me
May 7, 2009 - 11:36 ET by Paul Atreidesat how many of these leftists will crow about keeping religion out of government and everyday life (such as the bedroom), yet, will do story after story on how they want churches to change.
Do you remember when Pope
May 7, 2009 - 12:06 ET by MrSnugglesDo you remember when Pope John Paul II passed away? The crowing from the left about how the Catholic Church needed a more "moderate" pope never ceased, I even had to deal with it in my college classes from non-Catholics (I myself am Catholic, go to church every sunday).
"Are they stupid?"
May 7, 2009 - 15:03 ET by lotrWhy is this so difficult to understand for today's mass-media-programmed liberals: The Pope ain't a politician subject to transient pop-sentiments. Pope JPII (as well as the majority of "good" popes before him) was neither liberal nor conservative -- he was merely faithful that which he professed. Like that woman at the TEA party said to the CNN partisan-reporter: "Are you stupid?"
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
The relationship between a
May 7, 2009 - 11:43 ET by moderncommentaries83The relationship between a husband and wife, or a priest and the Church (i.e., his parish) is really one in the same, based on the relationship between Christ and His Church.
Priests make a vow to be in service to the Church the way a husband and wife vow to be in service to one another through marriage. A husband and wife are expected to be faithful and chaste (which isn't the same thing as celibate) in their marriage, and a priest is expected to remain celibate out of faithfulness to his duties as a priest.
That being said, it is a discipline rather than a die-hard doctrine (like abortion, for example). It is possible that the Church would one day allow married priests; permanent deacons can be married and there ARE married priests - specifically clergy from other denominations that converted to Catholicism. But I know that my husband, who wants to be a deacon, would have to take a vow not to remarry if he's ordained and I pass away. This discipline has to do with an imitation of the actions of Christ, and I don't know if the discipline will be changed any time soon.
And have they talked to priests about it? My priest loves his
vocation and doesn't feel he's missing out on something by not being
able to marry - and a lot of priests share that point of view. It's
not as if men who go into seminary don't know this discipline
exists. No one has, in my recollection, died from celibacy. Yet the
left acts as if this is the WORST. THING. EVER.
But it's ironic how the chattering, anti-religious classes always seem to think if the Church "modernized" and allowed married priests, gay priests, women priests, it'd somehow boost our attendance.
It doesn't. In fact, the Episcopal Church has embraced all those things and is seeing massive schism, infighting, and discontent amongst the liberal and conservative parishes.
More over - why don't they let us worship the way we believe? I know a Baptist who comments on my blog who said his Baptist denomination doesn't ordain women - but I don't see Baptist ministers hauled on TV forced to defend their beliefs.
It is the conservative diocese, the conservative parishes, and the conservative religious orders that are getting the seminarians, the parishioners, the vocations in far greater numbers than the liberal parishes.
Under Milwaukee's previous archbishop, the liberal Rembert Weakland, seminary numbers were down significantly. Until his move to New York last month, Archbishop Timothy Dolan increased the seminary numbers greatly - the first six seminarians will be ordained soon because of Dolan's guidance and orthodoxy.
So when the chattering classes say this is "bad" for the Church, they know the exact opposite to be true - they want us to "modernize" so they feel better about themselves and their lives. That's it.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Busybodies
May 7, 2009 - 11:57 ET by Red JeepIsn’t it odd how the liberals are always trying to tell Christianity and now the Republicans how to become more popular? Pain in the neck busybodies, the liberals.
Wasn't she insulting Little Palin on abstinence?
May 7, 2009 - 11:47 ET by sevenWhat is it with her and sex?
Question Rodriguez. If you go to a store and put merchandise on layaway, what does that mean? Who gets laid?
What is it with her and
May 7, 2009 - 11:53 ET by moderncommentaries83Fix that...what is it with liberals and sex? They all act as if it's the end all, be all of human existence. That the more you have, the better. The more "mature" and "enlightened" you are. And - hey - if you happen to transmit an STD to your partner(s), be it chronic (like herpes) or fatal (like HIV/AIDS), or if you abort a child conceived from a one-night stand, no one can question or criticize you when you get it on with whoever, whatever, whenever and wherever you please! It's your body - screw away! Yipeee!
Time was that people who couldn't control themselves, who recklessly endangered their health and the health of others, who put self-pleasure above personal responsibility were considered immature, irresponsible, and childish. They still are.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
what is it with liberals and sex?
May 7, 2009 - 14:15 ET by danebramageSimple. Sex is the biggest point of moral vulnerability for most people. It is thus the most useful tool for corrupting human beings and dragging them away from the light. If men could say no to seeing naked women paraded around in front of them as easily as they can say no to a cheeseburger, this emphasis on sex wouldn't exist.
"More souls go to Hell
May 7, 2009 - 14:34 ET by tater"More
souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other
reason.”
-Virgin Mary in an appearance to Jacinta at Fatima
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
I happen to like...
May 7, 2009 - 15:08 ET by ontheright...cheeseburgers. And I've seen my fair share of naked cheesburgers...I must apologize to all women out there...
This is about a much more nefarious goal - to demonize the "sanctity" of a relationship between a man and a woman, or even worse (from a liberal's point of view) a man and/or woman and his/her God.
It's not about "right" or "wrong" it's about bludgeoning those of us who believe in a "higher power" (read: God) with our own beliefs and attempting to drag us to the Godless side of life. Only to make the liberal haters feel better about themselves. Only my humble opinion, of course.
Yep
May 7, 2009 - 18:41 ET by doug1950If the church would just get rid of all that "religous stuff" more liberals would participate in going to church. They fail to understand even the most fundamental (no pun intended) premises of being a Christian. I personally know "christians" who voted for Clinton twice, all the pro-choice candidates since and Obama. They do not see a conflict. I do not know why not but.........
I can has..?
May 7, 2009 - 17:45 ET by UndercoverConservativeDamn, I should hope my resistance to nekkid women was better than to a cheeseburger...don't think I've ever met a cheeseburger I didn't turn down.
Might haveta go for one after work, actually:)
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
damned if we do damned if we don't.
May 7, 2009 - 17:48 ET by UndercoverConservativeFirst ya get libs doing everything they can to entice or enable or force sex between everyone and everything. Sex, if I remember my public school biology properly, is mostly about breeding, creating children.
Then they start whispering of euthanasia in their Hollywood klatches and say we're breeeding Holy Gaia to death.
Which one is it? (Nevermind that First World nations are at a *negative* internal population growth, sustained by immigration both legal and illegal.)
WWW.GS2AC.COM. 2nd Amendment Grass Roots Action in the Bay Area, CA. We're not all "Breakfast Cereal" folks here! :)
Priests and Marriage
May 7, 2009 - 11:54 ET by merlin61The media just doesn't get it. God gave us the
10 Commandments. According to the MSM, we
should just obey those commandments we choose.
Either you believe in God, your church and your
religion, or you don't. We don't need the media to
tell us how to live our lives. They surely are no
examples of how to live. I'll take God's rules over
theirs any time. Thanks!!!
Being celibate is an
May 7, 2009 - 11:55 ET by taterBeing celibate is an impossible standard to a lib...because they feel that you should have sex when you want, how you want, with whomever you want...and to spleck with you if you want to control what I do in the bedroom.
It is entirely possible to be celibate...you can look at any of the saints, many priests, bishops, and popes, and Christ himself as examples. In fact with those examples...you could see how great a thing celibacy can be.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Hey, Maggie, instead of
May 7, 2009 - 11:56 ET by motherbeltHey, Maggie, instead of just asking priests and others what they think, why don't you just send a letter to the Holy Father, suggesting this?
You know, it probably never occurred to him, and if you explained how popular you think the idea might be, you just might have an effect on him!
\sarcoff
Just what purpose does it serve for Rodriguez and CBS to do another story on how some disagree with the Church's requirement of priestly celibacy?
Oh, I forgot...it gives them another chance to criticize it!
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
mb... Gives them another
May 7, 2009 - 12:03 ET by bigtimermb...
Gives them another chance indeed...and they are never, ever going to stop.
It is disgraceful as far as I am concerned...I am sick of it.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Celibacy
May 7, 2009 - 11:59 ET by lareeHas she heard of Deacons, and the Catholic Lay Ministries?
http://en.wikipedia....
You don't have to become an ordained Priest if you don't want to. They are not being held hostage.
...
May 7, 2009 - 11:59 ET by EugeniaDon't remember the name of the book, but I believe it was Philip Jenkins, a non-Catholic professor, who shortly after the priest-homosexual scandal came to light in 2002, wrote a book documenting statistics that show that there is more infidelity in married clergy than there is in celibate priests who break their vows of celibacy.
So Rodriguez's unsurprising simpleton "solution" of allowing priests to be married doesn't hold water. It's another example of lazy thinking and yet another obvious angle in attacking the Catholic Church. It's like saying, well, spouses are going to cheat so we might as well toss monogomy and legalize bigamy and polygamy since it's too much to expect a spouse to be monogomous. It's stupid. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Yeah, well liberals are
May 7, 2009 - 12:14 ET by moderncommentaries83Yeah, well liberals are also the folk who blame the all-male, celibate clergy for being the cause of the sex-abuse scandal. "If only priests could marry! If only women could be priests!" they cry, asserting that would resolve the problem.
You know, because no one outside of Catholic priests abused children because school teachers, swim coaches, and other professions are open to women and people who have sex - ergo it's a safe conclusion that no abuse should exist outside the Catholic Church, according to liberal logic.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
This is the same group
May 7, 2009 - 12:09 ET by Delsawho think the Constitution should change with the times. The document means nothing
ergo the Catholic Church should just forget , the Bible, forget Doctorine, go all out for gay priests, screw celibacy (pun intended), and go for the killing of womb dwelling babies.
Hell, forget priests. Who needs them? Level Churches and build housing developments......
Give me a f'n break.
This beach going priest turned to the dark side long ago. Get rid of him.
I want my chruch represented by those who believe and live the teachings.
So because a priest friend of the talking head
May 7, 2009 - 12:13 ET by katiejanecan't adhere to his vows, the RCC shouldn't be so strict? It isn't like there aren't ways to "serve God" other than being a priest. Celibacy is part of the job - deal with it.
i love how the media thinks
May 7, 2009 - 12:31 ET by Calypso Jonesthat they should be making Catholic Church policy.
doctrine is such a harsh word, after all
May 7, 2009 - 12:34 ET by katainkentits more like a rough guideline right?
/sarc
I don't get it. Don't like the rules? Don't join.
Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall
Funny definition of impossible
May 7, 2009 - 12:43 ET by freecitizenThe standard is so impossible that the vast majority of Catholic priests (and nuns) are able to meet it every year.
Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.
The left
May 7, 2009 - 13:06 ET by sam12663will never understand what faith is all about. All they care about is being able to give into your desires, and having no limits on behavior. This is part of what is wrong with a large portion of our nation; no cares or worries about personal responsibilties. How else can you explain the fast track toward a total nanny state.
President Obama is nothing more than a lying empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.
WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!
Well.....
May 7, 2009 - 13:18 ET by StogieGuyI have to admit that, when I first read the story, I was relieved that he was caught with a woman. Too often, priests go the other way (if you know what I mean). As much as I hate doing so, I have to give a little defense to the normally biased, clearly left wing, Rodriguez on this one. Celibacy is a fair question.
The Catholic church has had a lot of problems in this area over recent decades, between pedophile priests and a shortage of new priests, celibacy has been a root cause of many issues within the church. There's nothing in scripture that requires it, only tradition does. When the policy was enacted centuries ago, being a priest was equavent to being the most respected, affluent man in town. It was worth the trade off. That actually continued to be the case up until the 1950s-1960s. Even then, dalliances between priests and women were not unknown - they were just not spoken of.
Gradually, the various societal incentives to join the priesthood have faded a bit and we have far too many people with sexual "issues" who end up in seminaries. Look, generally I am the conservative "Attila the Hun" in the room on most things, but on this issue we need to be pragmatic. I'd rather have Father latin-lover-on-the-beach as my priest than some repressed perv. And they are out there, believe me.
So no, this is the one question in 100 that Maggie asks that is valid.
I can see where you're
May 7, 2009 - 13:40 ET by moderncommentaries83I can see where you're coming from, but you also fall back on the argument that celibacy leads to weird sexual proclivities.
That's tantamount to saying abstaining from drinking makes you a raging alcoholic.
The pedophile priests were not, by and large, heterosexual. They were homosexual and - in addition to that - often hostile toward Church teaching (theologically liberal) and encouraged by other theologically liberal types to attemp to remake the Church in their image. In the process, they blacklisted and harrassed a lot of good, faithful, ORTHODOX men out of seminaries and the priesthood.
The problem is not the teaching on celibacy. The problem was, and still is, heterodox policies foisted on the Church by theologically liberal "spirit of Vatican 2" types.
As in my previous post, I can show numbers - hard, verifiable numbers - that show conservative, orthodox seminaries, diocese, parishes and religious orders get more vocations than their liberal counterparts - without compromising the teachings.
That doesn't make them right, moral, or acceptable. Or in any way justify changing a belief system.
This is where you lose me. The priesthood is not about "societal incentives"...it is about service to Christ and His Church. Too many people forget that, including some priests. Men have died because they were practicing and preaching the faith illegally - including as recently as the 1930s and 40s, where many Catholics were persecuted and martyred in Mexico and a many were killed in Nazi concentration camps. We cannot and should not reduce the priesthood to the "incentives" from society the priests may or may not receive.
I don't disagree, but the answer to this question is not to encourage further sexualization, but to hold those who enter the seminary up to a higher standard.
Many priests do have no problem with the celibacy issue and if culling the herd, so to speak, means fewer - but stronger, more faithful - parishes, so be it.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Absolutely right
May 7, 2009 - 14:43 ET by danebramageWhat people need to understand is that, while homosexuals have no doubt always been present in the clergy, the veritable explosion of homosexual activity (the vast, vast majority of supposed "pedophile" cases in the Church involved priests and adolescent boys, not infants and/or girls) that occurred in the wake of Vatican II was the result of a deliberate campaign to "modernize" (i.e. destroy) the Church from within.
In the past, homosexual priests would have largely refrained from acting on their passions, just as heterosexual priests did, out of a genuine fear of Hell and, hopefully, love of God. But after Vatican II, a general loss, and in many cases rejection, of faith occurred which has transformed many priests' self-image from that of a sacramental minister mystically united to Christ into a mere social worker or guidance counselor. This breakdown of psychological barriers to self-gratification, combined with the deliberate recruiting of homosexuals into Catholic seminaries (often to the exclusion of heterosexuals), made the abuse inevitable. It basically invited it. But it's not something endemic to the Church. It's peculiar to the times in which we live, at least in its extent.
"There's nothing in
May 7, 2009 - 14:48 ET by tater"There's nothing in scripture that requires it, only tradition does."
Yup and when it comes to the doctrines of the Catholic Church it is three pronged...based off Scripture, based off Sacred Tradition, and based off the Magisterium.
So while it may not say in the Bible itself that priests are supposed to be celibate...the apostles made it that way through the tradition of how Jesus lived his life. Same reason why only men are priests...because Jesus was a man.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
It goes beyond that Jesus
May 7, 2009 - 14:51 ET by moderncommentaries83It goes beyond that Jesus was a man.
The first priests were his apostles...and they were all men, chosen by Christ, for that specific vocation.
I got into this argument on another thread with someone about women priests. Christ said and did a lot of things in his age that were controversial (the notion of the Eucharist, for example) and turned off quite a few people from following Him. His teachings, ultimately, led to His persecution and crucifixion. So the notion that He only conferred men to the priesthood because he was bound by the social mores of His age is a non-starter. Christ would have ordained women had He wanted to.
And, seeing as Catholics believe you're either going to Heaven or Hell at the end of your life, it's rather silly to risk our salvation (and the salvation of millions) on preserving the "patriarchy".
So the argument for the all-male priesthood goes beyond the fact that Christ was a man, although it is important because the priest acts in persona Christi during the Mass and only a validly ordained male priest can consecrate the bread & wine into the Body & Blood of Christ.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
...
May 7, 2009 - 15:05 ET by EugeniaExactly, modern. How silly to think that the Creator of the universe couldn't ordain women because, well, it just wasn't socially acceptable. He did a lot of scandulous things on earth. Uh, in fact that's what got Him crucified.
Priestly celibacy is not a
May 7, 2009 - 15:28 ET by lotrPriestly celibacy is not a doctrine, it's a discipline, so theoretically it could be relaxed (incidentally, the same does not hold for "women priests" -- that is a settled doctrine not subject to debate). That said, however, there is good scriptural basis for the discipline, beginning with Christ himself (enter the DVC propaganda), as well as the Apostle Paul, and thus I cannot foresee any change to this discipline before the end of time.
The question has been answered time and again by the popes themselves. "Are they stupid?"
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
...
May 7, 2009 - 15:35 ET by EugeniaLotr, I think you missed my point and that's because I wasn't clear, looking back at my post. My remark was aimed at the silly notion that Christ was confined to the social limitations of the time and that that's the only reason why he didn't pick women as apostles. I do know that male priests is doctrine and that celibacy is discipline.
Eugenia
May 7, 2009 - 21:36 ET by lotrDidn't mean to suggest that you didn't know that (very glad to hear that you do) -- was just using your post as a launching pad for making clear the distinction, as the pop-media certainly does not know it.
Yes, you are correct that the old line that "the Son of God was 'constrained' by the sexists" is quite silly (that's putting it mildly). Of course, there are other passages from scripture that make it clear as well, including the Epistles of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the Pentateuch, and the Book of Revelation.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
...
May 7, 2009 - 15:09 ET by EugeniaStogieGuy, There's no "repressed perv," just pervs, "repressed" or not. And celibacy, if you understand Catholic teaching, is a complete gift to God, not a repression. It's dedicating ALL of one's self to Him, that's why we have:
1 Cor 7:33: The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
[33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided." (And what about the stress on the wife with children who has a part-time "priest-husband" with a large flock.) That's not good for marriage. Married priests aren't going to solve the priest shortage, but men full of faith will.
paul and marraige
May 8, 2009 - 05:48 ET by m1xramHere is Paul's practical teaching. It would be wonderful if you could devote your life to God and not be distracted by certain desires. If not, then get married so it won't be a stumbling block to your life. Balance 1 Cor 7:1-9 with 1 Cor 7:33-34.
1 Corinthians 7:1-9
As our world becomes more secular, noticeable improvements...
May 7, 2009 - 13:31 ET by ThalpyAs our world becomes more secular, noticeable improvements are evident everywhere. Of particular importance is the notion that it's ok now to believe in nothing. Gone are those days when it was important to believe in something; now we can believe in nothing or, if we wish, we can believe in anything since there are no absolutes. Now our press can report on nothing, something, or anything--truth is lost to them now anyway.
Yes, the Catholic Church is outdated. Once we've dispensed with celibate priests, G-d's next.
I can't tell if you're
May 7, 2009 - 13:45 ET by moderncommentaries83I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I don't mean to be frivolous...
May 7, 2009 - 20:15 ET by ThalpyI don't mean to be frivolous. I was being sarcastic. A few years ago many in the press were hoping for a "liberal" pope who would represent the current will of the people-a liberal pope is not unlike the partially pregnant woman, I suppose. It seems to me that either you is or you ain't and the church can't take a poll every time a decision must be made-irrespective of what CBS suggests.
In the beginning, priests married and had children until church wealth shifted to families of the priests. So...
Thanks for clarifying
May 8, 2009 - 11:59 ET by moderncommentaries83It sounded like a silly question, but I couldn't tell because I have heard arguments about how undermining Catholic teaching will get rid of God from folks who desire both and are serious about it.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy, for which I'm really glad.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Una Vez Mas
May 7, 2009 - 15:36 ET byThe reason that this priest fell is because he WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE CELIBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. He was SUPPOSED to be MARRIED to a WOMAN as is ever "BISHOP". The Catholic CHurch is the temple of false doctrine, PROPHESIED by the Apostle Paul to Timothy. Paul told Timothy that one of the ways you would KNOW THE FALSE CHURCH WHICH HAS HEEDED THE DOCTRINES OF DEMONS, is that they would FORBID PEOPLE TO MARRY and ABSTAIN FROM CERTAIN MEATS. Both of which the Catholic church has done, it does not matter that they have softened the restriction against eating meat on Friday, THEY HAD IT. These TWO SIGNS were SPECIFICALLY heralded as the markings of SATAN'S church! When you read the following scripture pay close attention to the "whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron". This explains the plethora of priests who knew that other priests were god forsaken SODOMITES and did nothing about it. This also explains APOSTATES like Cardinal Mahoney in Cali. This man has worked OVERTIME to PROTECT PEDOPHILES by moving them from parish to parish in order to escape prosecution. They protect the buggerers because their conscience has been seared. More on the false Bishops in a moment.
1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
So the celibacy that the Catholic CHurch adopted was listed by the apostle Paul as one of the TWO signs of the FALSE CHURCH, they then promptly adopted the other! This goes a long way towards explaining
1. Why the Catholics pray to Mary, Peter and just about anyone else who will listen DESPITE it being a VIOLATION THIRD COMMANDMENT.....
EX 20: 5
5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me
2. It also explains why they feel free to make a danged STATUE out of ANYONE and pray to it DESPITE THAT being a violation of the SECOND commandment.
...Ex 20:4
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Since ANY STATUE is indeed a subset of the phrase "ANY GRAVEN IMAGE", well, hopefully you get the point.
The same WARNING that Paul gave Timothy, also goes a long way to explaining why they call their "priests" FATHER despite Jesus Christ himself telling them NOT TO! See, the demon that runs the doctrine of the false church desires to pervert the creation of GOD with homosexuality and child rape and it want's to cause the people who are honestly seeking Christ, the parishioners, to BLASPHEME.
Matthew 23:9 (New International Version)
9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
What does the word ANYONE mean to you? Are priests a "subset" of ANYONE? Is the pope included in "Anyone" ? Yeppers. So, if Christ SPECIFICALLY said that the HONOR of being called "father" BELONGS TO GOD AND GOD ALONE, what do you call a man who takes God's honor as his own?
Then of course another act of a false church would be to elevate people to high office who are completely ignorant of the Laws of God and who themselves by their very status are UNFIT for the office! This is called the BLIND leading the BLIND!
The "BISHOPS" of the Catholic Church are unqualified to hold their office because they fail to meet the REQUIREMENTS.
1 Timothy 3
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
They are robbers and thieves. Liars to be avoided. They are the ones you were warned about here. 1Tim 4:1-4,
Are the Bishops in the Catholic Church MARRIED because the WORD OF GOD says they HAVE TO BE!!!
These are the REQUIREMENTS for the OFFICE OF BISHOP. What do the word's MUST BE, mean to you? They are neither my "interpretation" nor are they my churches "interpretation", they are the APOSTLES UNDERSTANDING of what Christ TOLD THEM!
The demon that runs this church would like to PREVENT souls from being saved. What's the quickest way to do that? Well, to NOT teach them what Christ said ABOUT SALVATION! Jesus himself said that proper BAPTISM was ESSENTIAL to salvation.
Mark 16:16
6He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Since Jesus also COMBINED the WATER RE-BIRTH (baptism) with SPIRITUAL re-birth ( reception of the Holy Ghost , here...John 3:1-8.. you must be born of the water and of the Spirit.....you can best believe that the devil would like to disrupt your understanding of this process.
The first thing Satan did was to send emissaries pretending to be priests to the Council of Nicea approx 250 AD. This satanically inspired priests were spoken of by Paul here...2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Most of you didn't even know that Satan truly has MINISTERS! So in desiring to disrupt the method of salvation the devil sent "priests" to the council to CHANGE THE METHOD OF BAPTISM! Now why would they do that? Jesus SPECIFICALLY SAID that BAPTISM was CRUCIAL for SALVATION that 's why! Since Acts 4:12 tells us that there is NO NAME OTHER THAN THAT OF JESUS CHRIST through which we can be saved, you now have your answer! Satan doesn't care if you jump and shout and feed the poor, he cares that you MISS THE MARK. The devil knows full well what the requirements for salvation are. And the devil knows that those requirements are NARROW as opposed to being "BROAD" or "liberal" ( MATTHEW 7: 13-14)On the DAY OF PENTECOST PETER who the catholics falsely believe to have been their first "pope", a word that doesn't exist in scripture, received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. (Acts 2:1-4) So did ALL OF THE OTHER apostles and disciples. Exit question: if 3,120 people ALL had the SAME EXPERIENCE of getting the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues, and if JESUS in fact TOLD THEM that they WOULD speak in tongues, ( Mark 16:15-20) WHERE WOULD THE IDEA THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT COME FROM ? hmmmmm. If you guessed SATAN, you win the fridge!
These two areas of the doctrine of Christ ( john 3:1-8) that Christ deemed NECESSARY for salvation, the Catholic church has CHANGED.
How can you explain following a church that then violates the Law of God on just about every point?
Tradition won't save you.
When I say these things about the C. Church , they are TRUE I am not trying to condemn the "laity" they are honest folk who have been misled by satanic deceivers. I know hundreds of "Ex-Catholics" who read the N.T. for themselves with an open heart whom God has filled with His Spirt as a result, WITH the appropriate evidence. However that same Spirit then leads them out of Catholicism so they can be BAPTIZED properly in JESUS NAME ( ACTS 2:38), thus COMPLETING the newbirth.
All attacks are against a demonic buggering homosexual hiding and supporting clergy and them alone. I realize I will be called names and called "intolerant" and called a "hater" blah, blah, blah,. I realize that I will be hated for the plainly printed truth as we say in Spanish "No me interesa" or I could care less. I realize that my "TONE" is a bit snarky. But the Lord doesn't care if you like my ways. He cares that I printed the TRUTH for you . TRUTH which you are NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR. Do the research. Prove me wrong FACTUALLY if you can. In any case you are now responsible for the knowledge. It's up to you to follow it up. See, if I'm telling the truth because none of you, having read this, will ever be able in the Day of Judgement to say, "I didn't know". Find an Apostolic Church that will baptize you according to the Bible in Jesus' name and who will pray with you afterwards until you speak in the tongues of "Men and Angels". You have been told.
...
May 7, 2009 - 15:44 ET by Eugenia"On the DAY OF PENTECOST PETER who the catholics falsely believe to
have been their first "pope", a word that doesn't exist in scripture..."
Acts, let me know when you find the word "trinity" in the bible.
So...in your opinion, which
May 7, 2009 - 17:18 ET by taterSo...in your opinion, which is the true church? Because I could use the bible to discredit just about every religion out there. And if you are Christian which it sounds like you are...keep in mind all the Protestant churches are splinterings from the Catholic church.
And also keep in mind that the Catholic church traces it's way all the way to Peter and in the end Jesus.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Here we go again
May 7, 2009 - 20:41 ET by moderncommentaries83You're not Catholic, you clearly neither care to know or understand Catholic teaching and Tradition (big "T"), so why do you bother?
In the Nicene Creed, which Catholics recite at every Mass, we proclaim our belief in the "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church" and at baptisms, we follow a strict Trinitarian format, namely, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - just as it was written in the Bible. Catholics cannot receive any other sacrament until they can prove they've been baptized in that format and with the proper matter (water).
That passage doesn't say he has to be married, just that if he is he cannot practice polygamy.
And how can you, knowing that the writers of the Bible either knew Christ directly or knew those who followed Christ, claim that they are wrong and that the Catholic Church - which can trace its apostolic line back to the first apostles and whose Mass clearly resembles the first Catholic worship described in historical documents from the earliest days of Christianity - is wrong?
Here's a tidbit for you: Without Catholics, you wouldn't have the Bible and you wouldn't have Christianity. Period. End of discussion.
As for the rest, it's the usual Protestant blather about how we pray to idols (we don't), and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. How we're wrong on everything, except there's a Scriptural basis for everything that we do, and how we're going to Hell because we follow the faith that Christ founded 2,000 years ago.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
ModComm... Just wanted
May 7, 2009 - 21:06 ET by celatorModComm...
Just wanted to thank you for your cogent explanation of the discipline of celibacy for priests. Very well done.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
denominations
May 8, 2009 - 06:22 ET by m1xramDiscussing different denominations can be very counter-prodcutive. This is why all the branches split in the first place, differences in the details. And there are different Biblical problems with each denomination which would require a very lengthy response which I'm not going to write. Just read your Bible and see if it agrees with what is being taught. If it doesn't get out of there. Balance these scriptures...
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
Matthew 7:1-2
I take these to mean, in balance, that we should evaluate everything but not beat people over the head about it. It's a friendly more Christ like way of handling things.
Bless The Hooker
May 7, 2009 - 16:12 ET by melpolSex is not dirty and religious leader should allow priests to have fun. The prostitute must be uplifted by the church. Her occupation should be blessed.
High priced call girls and high salaried female executives deserve equal status. They both work in an upbeat environment that offers the best of material comfort. But expensive call girls are more independent than the female executive that answers to a boss. Beautiful and talented hookers have their own cliental and do not need anyone exploiting them. The low end of prostitution is not as glamorous. Very few of its ladies are able to break away from their pimp and enjoy the luxury of becoming a high priced and independent hooker.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/melpol
...
May 7, 2009 - 19:00 ET by Eugenia"Beautiful and talented hookers have their own cliental and do not need anyone exploiting them."
That's true, because they're already exploiting themselves.
how refreshing to hear of a
May 7, 2009 - 22:38 ET by nadadhimmihow refreshing to hear of a priest that is actually doing a woman.
How about celibate Buddhist monks?
May 8, 2009 - 08:41 ET by ekslibWhen will Rodriguez decry their celibacy?