Name something weird you heard in a homily

[phil8888]

I am sure it is a temptation for many priests and for many single and married people as well. I would be lying if I said it is a sin I’ve never committed:blush: , I’m married, but even when I was single it wasn’t much of a temptation for me most of the time.

I don’t know if it is true that women have a lesser sex drive than men as a generality, but I think I personally have a much lower sex drive than most people of either gender. For me the emotional aspects of sex arouse me much more than physical and I have somewhat negative body image so self-gratification doesn’t really get me there and is more frustrating than it is worth, not to mention sinful, so I honestly am not usually that tempted.

I get your point about priests, but as ordination is a sacramental vocation rather than a job post it makes it harder. Married people don’t just get married for a few years (well OK actually with the divorce rate a lot do just that but it isn’t how it is intended ) I’m sure many priests would not want to quit after a few years. I think there have been some priests who have received a dispensation from their vows allowing them freedom to marry.

I’m not necessarily opposed to the concept of married priests (or female priests for that matter), but the current rules of the church, including celibacy, should be followed if a person wants to become a priest.

female priesthood is impossible.

 

[kaws]

female priesthood is impossible.

Yes I know that it is not allowed in the church, and as such should be followed. I have never personally been convinced on the arguments against female ordination.

 

[phil8888]

Yes I know that it is not allowed in the church, and as such should be followed. I have never personally been convinced on the arguments against female ordination.

what argument would convince you?

 

[kaws]

what argument would convince you?

I’m not sure what argument would convince me, as none of the arguments I’ve heard so far have convinced me (and I’ve heard several). This used to be a real road block for me that the Catholic Church does not allow female priests - enough that it was a large part (but not the entire reason) of why I left the Catholic Church for several years. While I am still not convinced that there couldn’t be a place for female priests in the Catholic Church in the future I no longer harbor resentment against the Church for its current stance.

 

[phil8888]

I’m not sure what argument would convince me, as none of the arguments I’ve heard so far have convinced me (and I’ve heard several). This used to be a real road block for me that the Catholic Church does not allow female priests - enough that it was a large part (but not the entire reason) of why I left the Catholic Church for several years. While I am still not convinced that there couldn’t be a place for female priests in the Catholic Church in the future I no longer harbor resentment against the Church for its current stance.

Well, it seems there needs to be a level of understanding. Like GK Chesterton said I think, you wouldn’t tear something down unless you understood why it’s there. I’ve spoken to people who think women should be allowed to be priests, but normally they decide that first and no matter how many good reasons they are presented with, they keep thinking the same thing.

The reason I asked you what would change your mind is that if you decide up front that you are in favour of female priests regardless of what the church teaches or the reasons behind it, then you are not being open to the Truth.

I got the exact same reaction for a friend of mine. She said she thought women should be allowed to be priests, but then after I showed her all the arguments, she said that’s nice but I still think they should.

If you think the Catholic Church is correct about its dogmas, then how can you disagree with this one? I think it’s mainly a cultural thing really.

 

[tkdnick]

Our priest was talking about saints this past Sunday and made this comment that really left me puzzled & kinda laughing…

“And there’s another of my favorite saints…oh what’s his name? Saint, Saint Something Or Other. I can’t remember right now.”

 

[kaws]

Well, it seems there needs to be a level of understanding. Like GK Chesterton said I think, you wouldn’t tear something down unless you understood why it’s there. I’ve spoken to people who think women should be allowed to be priests, but normally they decide that first and no matter how many good reasons they are presented with, they keep thinking the same thing.

The reason I asked you what would change your mind is that if you decide up front that you are in favour of female priests regardless of what the church teaches or the reasons behind it, then you are not being open to the Truth.

I got the exact same reaction for a friend of mine. She said she thought women should be allowed to be priests, but then after I showed her all the arguments, she said that’s nice but I still think they should.

If you think the Catholic Church is correct about its dogmas, then how can you disagree with this one? I think it’s mainly a cultural thing really.

I’m not tearing the Church down over the issue (at least not anymore). I’m not suggesting and would never condone illicit ordination against the current disapproval of Rome. I’m not saying I will never change my mind no matter what. As I stated I have never been convinced by any arguments I have heard, but if I hear an argument that I find convincing I might change my mind. The Catholic Church, guided by God, has made changes in the past. I would be lying to myself and to God if I said that I personally didn’t have doubts about that one aspect of Catholicism as it currently stands.

 

[distracted]

II’m not necessarily opposed to the concept of married priests (or female priests for that matter), but the current rules of the church, including celibacy, should be followed if a person wants to become a priest.

are you Catholic??

do you think women should be ordained???

because to be Catholic (in my view) requires accepting all that the Church teaches…

When man fell, it was the female who was deceived… I am not saying she should be punished by not being allowed to be a priest… but… one thing’s for sure… Women have never been priests throughout history and Jesus did not choose a woman for an Apostle…

I don’t think its a good idea to “argue” with Jesus…

 

[distracted]

I’m not sure what argument would convince me, as none of the arguments I’ve heard so far have convinced me (and I’ve heard several). This used to be a real road block for me that the Catholic Church does not allow female priests - enough that it was a large part (but not the entire reason) of why I left the Catholic Church for several years. While I am still not convinced that there couldn’t be a place for female priests in the Catholic Church in the future I no longer harbor resentment against the Church for its current stance.

God doesn’t allow men to become mothers either…

(science may change that in the future… but the Church does not follow science, particularly when it interferes with morality… causes moral confusion… meaning that even if men were to be rendered capable of having children… the Church would be against it).

The RC Church will not allow what God does not… therefore women will never be allowed to become priests…

 

[kaws]

I’m not going to get into an argument over whether the church should or should not ordain women as priests. That is material for a different thread (If you want to start a new thread I may discuss why I believe as I do. I haven’t searched specifically but I would guess that the topic has probably been discussed at great length in several threads here on this forum). In response to a post about whether priesthood should be for a limited time I made an offhand remark that the concept of women priests in the future would not offend me. It wouldn’t offend me, speaking for myself and myself only. I personally have not been convinced by the Church’s arguments, but would never promote ordination of women priests in direct defiance to current rules. You can form your own opinions and beliefs. I’m not trying to sway anyone else here just stating that the evidence I have had presented to justify it seems weak at best to me and if the Church’s position were to change I wouldn’t be offended.

 

[distracted]

Another time, a different priest got REALLY fired up about purity and ended up yelling at the congregation and banging on the podium while discussing the subjects of homosexuality, illicit sexual union, and masturbation. His face started turning red with anger and he looked like he was going to tell the entire church to go to hell.

I envy anyone who has a priest like this!!!

God bless his soul… I pray for thousands more like him… No, make that millions more…

 

[distracted]

I’m not going to get into an argument over whether the church should or should not ordain women as priests. That is material for a different thread (If you want to start a new thread I may discuss why I believe as I do. I haven’t searched specifically but I would guess that the topic has probably been discussed at great length in several threads here on this forum). In response to a post about whether priesthood should be for a limited time I made an offhand remark that the concept of women priests in the future would not offend me. It wouldn’t offend me, speaking for myself and myself only. I personally have not been convinced by the Church’s arguments, but would never promote ordination of women priests in direct defiance to current rules. You can form your own opinions and beliefs. I’m not trying to sway anyone else here just stating that the evidence I have had presented to justify it seems weak at best to me and if the Church’s position were to change I wouldn’t be offended.

you remind me of someone i once knew who questioned and studied and pondered and thought about (etc etc) everything spiritual until, well, until i was sick of it, quite frankly… I realize he wasn’t raised Catholic much less catechized in the RCC… but after awhile… i mean…

(No, i am NOT comparing you to him. I don’t even know you… but the thought finally occurred to me how fortunate i am that i do not have to question and investigate any longer… [the only reason i once felt the need to question was because, though raised Catholic, i was NOT catechized… Thank God i am now…])…

Anyway… i try to appreciate where a given person is coming from. But sometimes that is downright difficult… because even if one is not sure of the fact that God established only one Church… well… i don’t know… What am i saying??? I guess i am saying that, speaking for myself, i find it very uncomfortable living with constant uncertainty about spriitual matters…

and no, that is not why i accept Catholicism… I accept it because it is true… I have learned from the catechism and from that best of all teachers, Experience, just how absolutely true it is…

God bless…

 

[Elizabeth502]

I guess i am saying that, speaking for myself, i find it very uncomfortable living with constant uncertainty about spiritual matters…

I’m happy that you’re comfortable. For the most part, I am, and I think that vast majority of practicing Catholics are similarly “on board” with the catechism. But I think it’s equally natural to have intellectual doubts now and then. If even the saints can have (many did have) spiritual doubts, I doubt that God looks with horror on members of his church who occasionally question, wonder, feel uncomfortable about a teaching here or there.

One can conform without suspending one’s intellect entirely.

 

[kaws]

you remind me of someone i once knew who questioned and studied and pondered and thought about (etc etc) everything spiritual until, well, until i was sick of it, quite frankly… I realize he wasn’t raised Catholic much less catechized in the RCC… but after awhile… i mean…

(No, i am NOT comparing you to him. I don’t even know you… but the thought finally occurred to me how fortunate i am that i do not have to question and investigate any longer… [the only reason i once felt the need to question was because, though raised Catholic, i was NOT catechized… Thank God i am now…])…

Anyway… i try to appreciate where a given person is coming from. But sometimes that is downright difficult… because even if one is not sure of the fact that God established only one Church… well… i don’t know… What am i saying??? I guess i am saying that, speaking for myself, i find it very uncomfortable living with constant uncertainty about spriitual matters…

and no, that is not why i accept Catholicism… I accept it because it is true… I have learned from the catechism and from that best of all teachers, Experience, just how absolutely true it is…

God bless…

Oh wait. It wasn’t to another poster- it was to you that I made my original comment. Sorry about my confusion there

My background is that my Dad is Catholic and my Mom is Presbyterian. I grew up exposed to and was pretty much raised as a member of both denominations.

I was very angry with the Catholic Church and fell away from the Catholic Church for several years when I was in college. Several years ago my husband decided to go through RCIA and to join the Catholic Church and we had our marriage convalidated. That was my sign to reconcile my anger with the Catholic Church and rejoin. I agree with probably 95% or more of Catholicism. Should I reject the entire Church and continue to stay away because I have not been convinced on the remaining 5% or so? Should I leave the Church again? . I’m glad to be back in the Church actually.

Maybe it was growing up in a mixed denomination that made me look more deeply at what I believe and why. If you have faith without question that’s great. I’m not sure that if you believe something just because you are told to believe it that you can claim it is really your belief unless you genuinely accept it of your own accord for yourself through faith.

I’m a bit confused though. You criticize me for not being convinced about the reasons given for female priesthood but you yourself questioned whether the position should be a lifelong commitment. Isn’t that having doubts too?

Anyway I’m not trying to attack or start a fight.

God Bless.

 

[distracted]

I’m happy that you’re comfortable. For the most part, I am, and I think that vast majority of practicing Catholics are similarly “on board” with the catechism. But I think it’s equally natural to have intellectual doubts now and then. If even the saints can have (many did have) spiritual doubts, I doubt that God looks with horror on members of his church who occasionally question, wonder, feel uncomfortable about a teaching here or there.

One can conform without suspending one’s intellect entirely.

i have doubts about things… but fewer & fewer as the yrs go by… because life itself teaches how true the Church’s teachings are… (the awful conseq of disobeying those truths )

 

[Augustine]

i have doubts about things… but fewer & fewer as the yrs go by… because life itself teaches how true the Church’s teachings are… (the awful conseq of disobeying those truths )

Hear, hear! Not one major aspect in which I wronged God has brought joy in my life.

 

[stuart12]

The priest told this joke . . .

“Someone asked me once if it’s OK to have sex before Mass. I told them yes, as long as they don’t block the isle.”

That, along w/ many other off the wall comments, helped us decide to find another parish.

i actually laughed at that lol

 

[kaws]

i have doubts about things… but fewer & fewer as the yrs go by… because life itself teaches how true the Church’s teachings are… (the awful conseq of disobeying those truths )

There is a difference between directly disobeying and not being convinced. Wouldn’t it be less sinful to be honest about doubts than to lie about belief?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

There is a difference between directly disobeying and not being convinced. Wouldn’t it be less sinful to be honest about doubts than to lie about belief?

Difficulty with a particular belief is entirely different from doubts which is to question the veracity or truth of any proclaimed truth. And a thousand difficulties cannot add up to one doubt.

As long as I might be struggling with difficulties, I am holding to my belief although under stress. When I doubt my belief, then I no longer hold to its wholeness or unity, and belief or faith itself is undermined.

To struggle with difficulties re a belief or to strive to understand it can only strengthen. After all, truth is truth no matter the light it is placed under. Hence, yes it is better to struggle with difficulties than to hold one does not have them…and better to undermine belief itself than to state falsely that one does believe.

Honesty and truth walk hand in hand.

Barb

 

[Elizabeth502]

A lot of people have a very simple faith which neither understands nor explains many assertions of Catholicism, yet they practice & believe in the essentials. They might not even know much about dogma or doctrine, but are “core” followers. It’s not important to them to believe (or not) certain things, which is not to say that they oppose anything intellectually; it’s just not part of their “world.”

They do not visit forums like this, analyze exhaustively their own beliefs, or concern themselves with who is or isn’t being ‘thoroughly’ Catholic down to the letter. If questioned, they might reveal that they have more doubts than they realize, but the doubts don’t bother them or interfere with their practice.