I don't see a problem with it. It's a silly rule anyways. And as they say, rules are meant to be broken. ;)

It's better that he is diddling a consenting adult woman than an altar boy. Just my opinion.

@Give it a rest!, I had actually expected to read that he had married a 10-year-old boy, although she only looks slightly older than that.

It is neither natural to expect a whole bunch of people to be single. It certainly is not something God wants. Families are important, and yes, even sacred. If a church wants to keep its own leaders from joining in one of the most sacred and important institutions we have here, then it needs to change. How in the world can you say that you value families, when you teach the highest way to live is without them? It is not.If the leaders were married, they would certainly understand things better to help their flocks. I am married. I would never have learned anywhere near as much about life and families if I had not. Both with kids and relationships, you just do not understand as much if you always remain single. That is not anything to be proud of, and certainly nothing good to force upon the leaders of your church.

The idea that allowing the priests to get married would solve the pedophilia issue is completely bogus. Per that reasoning, there should be no pedophiles outside the Catholic church since everybody else is allowed to get married. And, as everybody knows, incest does not exist.

Thanks Give it a rest! I was going to mention that the Catholic church should be happy he's diddling an adult woman instead of a small child. This is actually in favor of the Church, they're just too dumb to realize it.

Centuries ago, when they started with this nonsense of celibacy, it was nothing but an effort by the church to avoid having to support large families (of priests). Many priests continued to have women on the side. Read the history of the popes (the Borgias are a prime example) and you'll learn all about "celibacy." If priests and nuns were allowed to marry, the job would undoubtedly attract fewer deviates, such as, child molesters.

The consequences of this man's act go far beyond the need for sexual contact. At some point along the way this man and others like him decided what they want is more important than what they believed was their calling to the Catholic priesthood. While one "relationship" may have been started and hidden, the relationship with God was destroyed. While the people this priest served over the years have received the sacraments validly, this priest has been living a lie and misrepresenting himself to the public. He may have been able to live the lie and receive acceptance from the public, but not from the God and the Church he claims to love and serve. "I want what I want" is the philosophy he has been preaching and that goes against everything that Christ taught in his own life. Good luck when you stand before the judgement seat. I hope you like it hot.

You're right on all counts Vegas, and I'll add that the male gender (nor the female gender for that matter) is not meant to be celibate. You can try all you want, but it isn't natural. If the Catholic church would wake up and allow this natural, loving process to be encouraged like it is in other religions, then maybe all the abuse would stop. And it's not bogus truthseeker, priests are primarily around their own gender, so their sexual tendencies are bound to be taken out on the same. It's ridiculous they haven't gotten with the modern world.

If you want an interesting read regarding this entire issue, I suggest you check out the book Sex Lives of the Popes by Nigel Cawthorne.

The Catholics are the last people on Earth who should be judging who gets to Heaven and who doesn't. Freaking whackjobs, the whole lot of them.

We all need a little lovin'... all the best to you, priest dude...

Good day to you mate from Florida, keep on doing what your doing.........just don't turn Morman on us.

wow, he found a small boy named Josephina, how odd.

Celibacy like everything else in the Catholic Church comes down to money. If priests marry the church have to do the following: 1. Pay for the healthcare of the wives and children, 2. pay the priests more so they can support their families, 3. Pay for the children's college, 4. deal with priest's divorces, 5. house the families, and 6. it's either birth control or huge families for priests.

I have NEVER been able to understand how a "person of the cloth" can provide viable advise to those about to get married. Yes from the perspective of academia and theory they can parrot their books. BUT after 44 years of marriage I KNOW they can not understand the emotional nuances of a good and active marriage, this has to be gained from actual experience.

Yet one more example of how out of touch most man made religion really is with reality.

If anyone out there can provide a rational response without rants I would like very much to here from them.

His relationship with God was not "destoyed." It was merely changed. I'm sure he is aware that the Catholic Church will not allow him to remain a Catholic Priest. If he still has a calling the Anglican Church of Australia may have a place for him. He will have to go through a period of contemplation and discernment and will have to meet many times with counselors and a Bishop in the Anglican Church before he would allow to be a priest. However, if his calling is still true, he can find a new way to minister.

As for the Catholic Church's requirement of celibacy, this was not required into well into the Middle Ages. Most historians agree that the purpose was to releave the church of the burden of supporting wives and children. Since most of the Apostles were married and Christ never made an pronouncement against marriage - only saying that in heaven men and women did not marry - there is no biblical basis for not allowing priest to marry.

However, having said all of this, this priest has clearly broken not only his vows to the church, but he has abused the trust of his congregation. It would have been better for him to resign from the church and then marry. The way he's done this is not very ethical.

Devil's Son, it is also about inheritance. All you "own" goes back to the Church.

sandiego, you are clearly dedicated to the rules made up by the Church of Rome. That does make not make you a good person or even a good Christian. Christianity is a way of life, a way of expressing one's relationship to God and others. There is no room in that way of life, if lived honestly and in good spirit, to assault another as you have assaulted Fr. Lee. This may come as a shock to you but neither you nor any other person has the right to judge others. And to make allusions that you know the fate of their soul is sheer hubris.

It wasnt secret from God and he didnt strike this guy down. I guess God is ok with it afterall. ;) Now google "pope joan". lol.

Not quite, DEVIL. The rule about priests is from the beginning of Christianity, because judgement day was supposed to accrue any minute, so spend all your time and energy spreading the word, don't waste any time on wives and children. I BELIEVE Christ said it, one of the 12 (Paul) said it, and it has been said every since, up to and including today.

I wonder, if clerics break this rule, does it mean they don't believe in their own religion, because it would mean they broke the laws of their church and they go to hell if they marry? And commit some of the other sins they most certainly shouldn't commit?

Well, luckily, it's not MY problem, it's the church's problem, and the problem of the people who go to them.

Finally, a Catholic priest who I might actually trust around my children and he's excommunicated. Catholicism is almost as outdated and horrific as Islam.

@Sandiego: "Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone." Recognize the words? His relationship with God wasn't destroyed. In fact, the requirements that the leadership of the Catholic church should be celibate is NOT a Biblical rule. By getting married, he did NOT committ a sin, and by confessing his lie that he has been hiding his marriage, he actually restored himself in God's eyes. And since when has it ever been a requirement that a priest should be perfect? Paul talks about his PERSONAL choice of remaining celibate within the Bible, but he also gave his reason: he didn't want a family to distract him from his ministry. That is honorable, but it was his personal choice. No priest, no nun, no bishop, no cardinal should be forced to be celibate, because, quite simply, it isn't what's written in the Bible. On the contrary, the only rule of marriage for church leaders found (and it was for deacons, because the position of pastor wasn't around at that time), was that they should have only one wife. This priest took a stand against the teachings of the Catholic church that have zero Biblical basis, much like Martin Luther did. My respect for this brave man.

Nightwalker, there are a multitude of problems with your contention, but the biggest is that Paul was NEVER one of the 12 Apostles. *sigh* How could people say they know about Christianity and make this kind of error. Paul also told slaves to obey their masters and for hundreds of years that was used as a justification for slavery. And let's not go into his attitudes towards women. Being a biblican is dangerous. It makes the Bible your God and not God your God. A literal understanding of the bible is a very brittle foundation for faith - easily broken.

Better open marriage than closeted pederasty.

By the way, celibacy is not the rule in Christianity, it's specific to RC church. Protestants and Anglicans allow their priests to marry. Orthodox churches (by the way, unlike Protestants and Anglicans, the Orthodox are recognized by RC as true churches in their own rights, and just as ancient as RC) have a combined approach, with celibacy required for top levels of church hierarchy, while parish priests are allowed and, in fact, required to marry, unless they opt for monkhood.

The RC church needs to revise their position to stay relevant in 21st century and beyond.

@sandiego, living single and celibate is not a higher law than caring for a family. If you want to get closer to God, change diapers, wipe boogers, wake up at 3 am day after day to care for kids who are too young to feed themselves, and yes even clean poo off of baby clothing day after day. If you want to be closer to God, learn to treat your spouse in a kind loving way, even when they are very hard to deal with.

A rule made by the Catholic church is NOT the same thing as a rule made by God. There have been more than enough clearly bad decisions made by the church to show that clearly not everything they do is inspired and of God. This is NOT a rule from God. If you do want to be closer to God, like I said, clean baby poo and with hard work and dedication, get closer to your spouse.

@Differnet: Correction: An incomplete understanding of the Bible is dangerous. Something people tend to forget: yes, Paul did in fact instruct slaves to obey their masters; but he also told the masters to treat their slaves justly and humanely. Yes, slavery was a LEGAL thing for the Jews, but there wasn't any involuntary slavery for life. Slaves were required by law to be set free after 7 years. If the slave decided he wanted to serve his master for the rest of his life, he was required to nail his ear to the gate post as a sign and "contract" of sorts to that master. There is, in effect, nothing wrong with slavery, IF the slave is treated as a true human, with respect, courtesy, and love. But then, that's not really "slavery" as we know it, is it? Times were different back then, and slaves and servants weren't necessarily what we think they were back during the founding of this nation.

Last thing: The Bible equates itself to both being God, and Jesus is also equated with being the Word of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and dwelt among men." (John 1:1, 14) Now, I'm not saying that the Bible itself, or even the book itself should be elevated as God, cause that would be idolatry. I'm just offering that up as a bit of food for thought.

Any one of you aloft Catholics that argue celibacy is not a major factor in the PLAGUE of child molestations that is literally destroying your faith, churches, and private schools should go read a couple books about prison.

The acts men go to when denied sexual contact with a woman are extreme. If a full grown male that has been denied this will attempt to rape another full grown male that is actively fighting, what will a priest do to a lone choir boy that trusts him?

Does 'Happily Ever After' apply to this priest?

@D.Man, if the Catholic Church is continuing to hold close to something like forced celibacy of its priests, then maybe it should be destroyed. Celibacy for priests is not from God, and it does look like it causes or makes worse some serious problems. So, maybe the church should implode from the crushing weight of debt and trouble caused by its own evil actions. A church is supposed to bring you CLOSER to God, NOT fears of young boys being abused.

If you cannot trust a church to get the fundamental doctrine of marriage and family right, then maybe it should just shrivel and go.

Anyone who truly has cared for young kids, and who has truly worked hard to bring a family close together in love knows that it is undeniably a very good thing. A lot happens when you do not follow God. Denying not just sexual urges, but the responsibility to love and care for families, will only bring bad. It is not just using sexuality the right way with a loving and caring companion that tempers desires which could be bad. It is also the loving and caring for wife and family that helps.

Celibacy, is not from God, and can only do harm. Families are from God. If the church does not listen and get this most fundamental doctrine right, then why should it be fiscally sound? It should not. If they cannot change so that the plague of molestations gets better, then they should implode as a church. They should never be in a position of trust, if they cannot do what it takes to get better.

I am so happy not to be a member of this asinine religion anymore.

If you're not Catholic, you have no say in this whatsoever and you are making yourselves look like idiot monkeys by commenting. It is NOT okay that he got married and has been lying about it to his congregation. Had he decided to disavow the cloth, AND THEN GET MARRIED, this would not even be news, as it happens regularly. If he felt continually convicted to Parrish a congregation AND be married, well that's what the protestant religions are for, take your pick. By stating that you believe the church should change this rule and you feel he did nothing "That Bad", you are stating that fraud and a severe lack of moral aptitude is valued to you and you're okay with being lying scum yourself.

Imagine for a second that Tony Stewart decided that he wanted to start making right turns around the track instead of lefts. What's the big deal? Still going around the track, right? NO. The rules of Nascar require that all drivers follow the same path and direction, which is LEFT, most of the time. If you want to turn right while you race, you are free to do that, just not in Nascar.

So, the bible as we know it was created in 392 AD at the Council of Carthage. There were many books circulating that were left out and many translations that were edited down to what we know today. It is NOT just the word of God; it is the work of men. And men continue to abuse it by trying to apply 2000 year old reasoning to our life circumstances. Oh you Pharisees, you put millstones around your brother's necks to justify yourself. And worse of all, you use his book as the largest millstone. You want everyone to live by the letter of the law, but you ignore the very spirit of it. We all will have much to explain when we see the face of God, but I fear for you the most since you created hell here on earth for your neighbor.

Truth:

"The idea that allowing the priests to get married would solve the pedophilia issue is completely bogus. Per that reasoning, there should be no pedophiles outside the Catholic church since everybody else is allowed to get married."

"Solve it"? No, you're right, however you are dismissing the fact that young men who are Catholic and are confused about their sexuality may believe that the priesthood is an option for them. So they may already be predisposed to sexual deviancy. That podeophelia is an issue in the Catholic church is undeniable. Perhaps if the priesthood was open to married men, or marrying men, the field of candidates would be closer to the average American male, as it is in churches where clergy marry

There is nothing in The Bible that warrants denying priests or clergy from marrying, its a non-sensical dictate the Catholic church would be wise to abolish.

There is also an elephant in the room that no one wnats to talk about; How many homosexual or pedophiles were molested themselves as children?

Diferent;

I would suggest you do some research: "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" would be a good start.

I'll try and say this as gently as I can; you really shouldn't parrot what some goofy professor told you, cause honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

Good for him, Nowhere in the Bible does it say and Preacher or Priest cannot marry. The High Priests of long ago were married.

Tod I just read all of your post. You are so correct. Nothing in the Bible that warrants denying priest or clergy from marrying.

He should look up The Old Roman Catholic Church. They follow all of the doctrines of Catholicism but they allow their priest to marry. Not recognized by the Pope but who gives a sh*t?

Kevin C-752389 -

Your mind is pre-disposed to the rankest filth.

Alien,

"If you're not Catholic, you have no say in this whatsoever and you are making yourselves look like idiot monkeys by commenting."

Wow!!! Really? Do you have any idea how dopey that sounds? Catholics are a denomination within the church, they are not "the" church. It is the silly Catholic dogma (tradition, not Bibblical) that has caused this mess, and it effects all Christians because we have to spend our time appologizing for you instead of sharing truth.

Dif,

Just read some of your prior posts. And what I said before, double it. Gadz so many easily researched fallacies flopping around in your head. Get to studying, please. You can start with the actual relevance of Carthage, and Paul's apostleship (who have you been listening too?).

Todd -

Go sit in your own pew in your own church. Leave the others alone. You don't get a vote.

Alien - If non-Catholics should not have a say on this issue, why is it that the Catholic Church has so much to say about homosexuality, abortion, and contraception when only 25% in America are Catholic. And actually a number of that 25% are not even Americans because of the increase of undocumented Latinos in this country.

Not being able to Marry is the churches philosophy that you would give 110 % to God and the congregation, I think you could be married and still do that, it needs to be, enlightened of present day.

The rule never should have existed. You are asking them to no longer be human and that's a bit much when your main job description is to just spread the word.

How do you expect someone to go to a priest for relationship or family counseling when he knows nothing about it except for what the church teaches him?

It is stories like these that remind me why I stopped being a Catholic and learned to think for myself.

Fairy tales, all of them. The people might have been real but until there is some actual definitive proof that anything written in the Bible actually happened or a quick look in from the actual man in the sky I will continue being as good a person as I can be without the church trying to scare the hell into me.

The original 12 Apostles were: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, James the Lesser, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Jude (sometimes identified as Thaddeus), Simon and Judas Iscariot. Judas was replaced by Matthias.

Council of Carthage - also known as the Synods of Carthage - in particular the one called by Denzinger issued a canon on August 28, 397 that created the bible as we know it today. The following is the list of books as issued by the Council; "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra,^[5] 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

Tod, you need to go back to Sunday School. I didn't even have to google the names of the Apostles. As far as Paul goes, everyone who theoretically calls themselves a Christian should know that Paul was Saul who was persecuting the Christians until his conversion. How do you people not know this? If you had read up the thread Tod, you would know that Nightwalker listed Paul among the original 12 Apostles. Thanks for sticking your nose in without actually bothering to follow the entire threat.

"Solve it"? No, you're right, however you are dismissing the fact that young men who are Catholic and are confused about their sexuality may believe that the priesthood is an option for them. So they may already be predisposed to sexual deviancy. That podeophelia is an issue in the Catholic church is undeniable. Perhaps if the priesthood was open to married men, or marrying men, the field of candidates would be closer to the average American male,

Pedophilia happens where a child is most vulnerable where as children are unattended or most often have no parents and sometimes parents arent in tune with their children..Scout leaders Teachers Coaches and yes priests and churches where most of the unwanted are a part of throughout the years.

This is one doctrine of the Catholic church which has no scriptural basis. Like the sale of indulgences which lead to the protestant reformation, this too has always been and still is about money.

This aberation of normal life will eventually end when there are not enought priests to lead the churches.

differnet, you are exactly correct. Half of the New Testament is purported letters from a person who NEVER met Christ and persecuted his followers. The Christian religion is not so much about CHRIST'S words as it is about PAUL'S purported words. What's more, there is increasing evidence that the four gospels were not written by the authors they are purported to have been written by, that over half of Paul's letters were not written by him, that Revelation was not written by who it is supposed to been written by AND that people mistake the purpose of Revelation. In addition, there are Gospels purportedly written by other Apostles that a group of men in the fourth century (325 to be exact) decided were not "fit" because they did not conform to each other. The Council of Nicea happened because CONSTANTINE wanted to regiment the church like a Roman legion. Women were not allowed during the ROMAN EMPIRE to have positions of power and influence so any writings or traditions that allowed Christian women to be in positions to teach and spread the "good news" (as it was referred to back then) was quashed so that Christianity could conform to ROMAN EMPIRE ideals, laws and norms.

People hate that a non-Christian knows so much more about their religion than they do. I have engaged in MANY years of comparative religious study (partly because of my Minor in college of Sociology which is an offshoot of Anthropology) which includes an in-depth study of Christianity and it's roots and branches. My first husband was RAISED Catholic so his search for his own spirituality spurred me to continue my own as a young adult. I have been engaged in this study for over half my life at this point and it will never stop because there is so much to learn and know.

Dif,

You're digging yourself a deeper ignorant hole, Paul was and apostle, (original, no) and was recognised by the other apostles as such. He wrote a majority of the New Testament and declares himself to be an apostle. Mathias was hastely/wrongly voted in but never heard from again. Paul was. The New testament was written between 45-100 AD. The Council of Carthage is a joke the Catholic church pretends cannonizes their Bible. The New Testament was fully quoted and recognized by scores of church fathers in the 2nd century. The Old Testament was extensively quoted by New Testament writers and clearly understood as inspired. Maccabees and Tobiah are strictly Catholic and argueably not inspired or consistant with Biblical theology.

Google, wikopedia are really not sufficient when researching origins and authenticity of the Bible. You have mixed Catholic tradition/dogma with sound Biblical teaching/history.

As an addition ... Revelation was not written about the end of the world far in the future from Christ's time. It was written about N E R O and the pagan Roman empire in its persecution of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Jesus was supposed to return in the lifetimes of the Apostles. It was never about Jesus returning MILLENIA after he died. Armageddon was in reference to a real place called Mageddo which was on the outskirts of Jerusalem and was a GARBAGE DUMP which was constantly on fire to burn the trash of the city.

I know I'm going to get some Evangelicals all in an uproar, but this IS the truth about the book that they cling to. In addition, the tradition of the Messiah and his "second coming" is a Jewish tradition contained outside of the Torah and Talmud. Now, considering that in Jewish tradition the Messiah has NOT yet come ... I guess we're not even CLOSE to the end of the world.

cat:

"People hate that a non-Christian knows so much more about their religion than they do"

Seriously? About the only thing you wrote that has any basis in reality is Constatine's influence on the "Catholic" church, the rest is the same jibberish being taught in most college liberal philosophy/religion departments by tenured, unchallenged, one-sided, Biblically/historically illiterate professors.

Cat,

Revelation is almost entirely quotes and expansions of Old Testament Prophets (Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, etc.) all written centuries before Nero? No scriptures states that the 2nd comming would be in the lifetime of the Apostles, as a matter of fact the only scriptures that give a time frame are Jesus' words (Mathew 24, also many Old Testament passages) where he makes clear that it would only happen after the nation of Israel would be regathered from the corners of the earth. And only after 1st having been dispersed. Dispersion happened in 70 AD under Titus, and the regathering began in the early 20th century with the Zionist movement, and was excellerated after the holocaust and the Iron Curtain fell.

Your goofy comments about Meggido are so off base I'm not sure where you came up with them. The Meggido valley is a huge, long fertile valley far north of Jeruslaem towards the Lebonon border (Iv'e been there, it provides fruit for all of Europe, hardly a trash heap). The burning trash heap (you refer to) outside Jerusalem in Biblical times was know as gehenna, hates, hell. If your going to pretend you are so well informed, its probably a good idea not to let your ignorance show.

This rule by the Catholic Church is absurd.

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthinians 5:9

Tod, your the one who needs religious education. You don't even know the history of the bible. Ridiculous. You've read a few books and now think your an expert. LOL...

Ok dif,

Let me have it. Blast me with even one thing I said wrong. Bring in your "I'm stating the truth" buddy cat, maybe between the both of you I will be meaningfully instructed on Revelation, apostleship, slavery, Armageddon, cannon, the difference between the Torah the Talmud and the Prophets, Paul's woman hating, apocryphal books, Gnostic gospels, Jesus being married (one of cat's lower posts) and on and on and on and on: sheesh. Anyway, just one thing.

P.S. Nightwatcher's goofy twist on theology and Church history aside, this was your original quote I responded to:

"Nightwalker, there are a multitude of problems with your contention, but the biggest is that Paul was NEVER one of the 12 Apostles. *sigh* How could people say they know about Christianity and make this kind of error?"

Your words and ""NEVER (emphasis/capitalization yours). Defend that first please.

Cat, your silliness continues below, I can't even begin to describe how skewed your reading/listening must be. Get out and read something else, you're embarrassing yourself.

For the both of you: I have been fortunate enough to have extensively read (probably in the range of 300+ books) on the subject, from multiple perspectives (even the goofy ones your professor's read from). So I am very well aware of some of the dopey arguments there are out there. Sorry to say, for the most part, yours are not even among the debatable ones.

@sandiego1969, I'm sorry but a relationship with God can never be destroyed from one human mistake. If it could and did then what would the point of Christianity be?

Jennifer you are so right he is only one year married in secret I am 20 years and a monsignor

Why is nothing sacred any longer. Why exactly are rules that have been in place for centuries, now looked at as outdated and un-evolved. It is called tradition folks and believe it or not, Tradition is a good thing. The rules of pristhood have been well established for a long time. Just because you think the rules are outdated doesn't discount the fact that this priest broke the rules of the church and hid these facts from his congregation. He knew what he did was wrong. And really, a philipino wife... nice. that is very surprising to me because most philipino women are heavily into religion. I wonder how she can live with that fact. As far as the folks spinning child molester stories regarding the clergy, i havent heard of any major molestion cases recently. why do you continue to spout that as if one happens daily? It would be nice if you remembered 911 as much as you remember molesting priests. The world has moved away from religion and we are now seeing a society that is almost faithless in any belief system and is turning, unfortunately, into a Liberalized, anything goes world. God help us all. Maybe the prophecy is right. the world is certainly ripe for satan to get all you church haters on his side.

smilingphoebs

Alien - If non-Catholics should not have a say on this issue, why is it that the Catholic Church has so much to say about homosexuality, abortion, and contraception when only 25% in America are Catholic. And actually a number of that 25% are not even Americans because of the increase of undocumented Latinos in this country.

Yeah Pretty much THIS: Oh and btw Alien I am a baptized, first holy communion, confirmed, EX-Catholic so now what?

Dom,

Catholics are Christians yes? The authority for Christians is the Bible, yes? Sure some traditions are ok, but they don't get to go against the standard, again the Bible. Lets be clear; the Bible never commands or even suggests that a church leader (pastor, priest, Bishop elder, deacon, whatever you want to label them) refrain from marrying.

The Bible does however warn against those who foolishly try and rule over people "forbidding them to marry" 1st Timothy 4:3.

But hey, you keep right on following that tradition of yours.

P.S. There was really only one group that Jesus got upset with (understatement), that was the Pharisees. His number one complaint; they heaped unnecessary burdens (in the form of un-Biblical traditions) on those they pretended to rule over. Not a good ides.

Actually that is not entirely correct Tod.. Leviticus clearly indicates priests not marry certain people..

Granted I still think it's silly not to marry.

"priests not marry certain people.."

Not quite sure what your point is? The conversation is about Catholic tradition and marriage (New Testament Church). The context is forbiding to marry, period! The Old Testament (and to some extent the New) have clear dictates about who someone should not marry, but that's a different discussion all together, is it not?

Tod, Catholics have nothing to due with Christianity. The word Catholic literally means "Universal". The church was started by the Roman government, hence the name, The Roman Catholic Church, or Roman Universal Church, in order to consolidate all of the different religions under the Roman domain, and stop the infighting between them.

The celibacy rule is a prime example. never appears in the Bible. Period. Just the opposite, and Tod pointed out.

Not to mention Halloween, Easter, Christmas, etc. all had roots in Pagan celebrations, and have nothing to due with Christianity.

The Bible is Christianity. Catholicism isn't. Don't confuse the two. I'm on this guys side, but the hiding it thing was weak. He should have come forward before getting married and done it honestly.

Cat-1200657

Hey cat , you really need to get your information straight about how the bible came to be, its authors, dates, and the whole history in the first few centuries. I thinking that most people dont even know about it, and they come here and read what you just said above and believe it. Ill be back later on today when I have time to give a good run down of how everything came to be .

How was the Bible Formed?
The New Testament Canon in the Second Century
The earliest non-New Testament Christian documents (Barnabas, 1 Clement, and The Shepherd of Hermas) cite the Old Testament as "scripture" and only make allusions to New Testament texts. Ignatius of Antioch (107-120 AD) is full of allusions to, and paraphrases of, New Testament texts, but it is only when we come to the second century apologists that verified quotations from what we now call New Testament texts begin to be common.

In the 140's Marcion (who was deemed a heretic) constructed his own canon of the Bible - Marcion's Bible was only the New Testament, included most of Paul's letters in edited form, along with Luke's gospel. Marcion rejected the other gospels as having been tainted by the Jews. This list by Marcion is the first known listing of what is called a New Testament canon and helped to push the early church to develop an authoritative list of inspired writings. Second century church father Justin Martyr does not cite any New Testament writing by name, but he designates his several New Testament citations with "it is recorded," or the "memoirs of the apostles." He does, however, refer to the "Gospels,"

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me..." First Apology 66

Around 170-175 AD Tatian, a disciple of Justin, created a harmony of the four orthodox gospels known as the Diatessaron. This text was accepted in some circles, even being used to replace the four gospels, but this success was short lived. What this harmony reveals, however, is that the church was beginning to recognize only four gospels.

The four gospels are confirmed by Irenaeus of Lyons in Against the Heresies (cir. 175),

From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. A.H. III,11.8

Irenaeus also quotes from, or alludes to, almost all the documents that become the orthodox NT. These citations are mostly from Pauline works (25+ occurrences from each of these: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians). His Pauline citations/allusions include all three "Pastoral" epistles. The other general NT letters get scant recognition and a few are totally absent (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude). He also refers to a few non-New Testament documents as “inspired” (1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas).

By the time we come to the end of the second century and look at the citations of Clement of Alexandria (writings cir. 195-202) and Tertullian (writings cir. 205-225) we find hundreds of references from almost every NT document. The NT writings that are excluded by these two men are very similar to that of Irenaeus, but Clement then includes many writings as “scripture” that did not get final acceptance. One can take the citations from Clement and Tertullian and reconstruct the entire NT excluding the 4 or 5 small epistles which they neglect. Indeed, this is a very important factor from this point forward - “Did Clement/Tertullian cite from it?” These are the first two prolific Christian writers. From this point forward we find an increasing number of fathers writings great numbers of documents filled with biblical citations.

How was the Bible [New Testament] Formed?
The Muratorian Canon
The Muratorian canon is a manuscript fragment that represents the oldest known orthodox list (or canon) of the New Testament. The beginning and ending of the MS is missing. The document is dated by most scholars to have been written around 170-200 AD. This document was discovered in an Italian library by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, a famous historian of the time. This list includes the following:
- Matthew and Mark (we assume these were named in the beginning of the fragment which is missing - the writer mentions "four gospels")
- Luke and John
- Acts
- all 13 Pauline letters (including the Pastoral epistles)
- 1 and 2 John is assumed since the writer only names two letters of John
- Jude
- the Revelation of John

This listing omits Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also names a few documents that do NOT appear in the orthodox NT.

By the end of the second century most of the 27 documents in the orthodox New Testament canon had already gained widespread acceptance, especially the four gospels and the Pauline writings. It is critical to understand why only four gospels were accepted. These early fathers were very familiar with the other gospels that were floating around - Marcion's gospel of Luke, the various gnostic gospels, and other "proto-orthodox" gospels that were not well accepted - they wanted to make it clear that these "other" gospels were NOT acceptable. There was, however, another very important reason - the Gnostics.

Gnosticism
Gnosticism was at its zenith during the second century, especially in Egypt. The various Gnostic texts were rejected by the orthodox. Most of these Gnostic writings were rejected because they had too many bizarre passages and thus were not able to develop and keep a large audience. One important factor for any document to be affirmed as "orthodox" and "inspired" was how much acceptance it received among the churches in the various regions. This acceptance is typically reflected by if, and how often, the church fathers cited the document. The development of the New Testament in the second century necessitates some discussion of Gnostic texts. The proliferation of Gnostic texts forced church leaders to address these texts and to explain why the church rejected them.
[For more on Gnosticism, see the discussion on The Initial Heresies and Heretics. You can also read An Introduction to Gnostic Texts.]
To illustrate, we will briefly focus on the bizarre nature of these Gnostic texts.

It is important to understand that many ancient texts have some strange passages, including the New Testament documents. One must be ready to admit this before launching an attack against strange gnostic texts. For our purpose one example will be enough,

"I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left."
"Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather." Luke 17:34-37

AND

Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-19

I know there are many who have given explanation for these passages - I have recently read 2-3 explanations for both of these, and none satisfy me 100% - my point is simply that we must admit to some strange passages in our NT documents that cannot be easily explained. I could list many more. And if you read the early fathers you will find many strange passages as well.

One can give some explanation for the strange gnostic passages, but even with the proper historical context bizarre is...well, bizarre. This is the critical difference between the New Testament gospels and the Gnostic gospels - the gospel contained in the New Testament is powerful because it is profound - taking the complicated and making it exceedingly simple to understand. These gnostic texts are just not easy to grasp.

Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas is a good work to cite for this purpose - it does contain New Testament-like passages and those who criticize early Christianity like to use Thomas.

Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which the man shall eat, and the lion become man; and cursed is the man whom the lion shall eat, and the lion become man." Thomas 7

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper side as the lower; and when you make the male and the female into a single one, that the male be not male and the female female; when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom]." Thomas 22

These two sayings clearly illustrate why Thomas is not accepted in the early church. This gospel has many bizarre Gnostic-like sayings like these two. Many scholars who attack the integrity of the New Testament find it easy to criticize the male-orientation and domination of the early church. These scholars use various passages from Thomas, yet typically they will avoid Saying 114:

Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life." Jesus said: "Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Thomas 114

The point here is that Gnostic writings contain many bizarre passages. The ratio of "normal" to "bizarre" is far different from the orthodox New Testament writings. In addition, the degree of bizarre is far more acute in these Gnostic writings. Read my paper, An Introduction to Gnostic Texts.

How was the Bible [New Testament] Formed?
The NT Canon in the Third and Fourth Centuries
By the third century there is a noticeable increase in citations from the "inspired" writings that eventually become the New Testament, and far less citations from works that do not make it into the New Testament. The most prolific third century writers are Tertullian (already mentioned), Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria and Cyprian of Carthage.

An explosion of Christian literature comes in the fourth century with Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, and the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus), John Chrysostom, Jerome, Rufinus, and the great Augustine of Hippo (his Confessions was written in 396-97 AD). All of these writers illustrate how the New Testament had become settled with thousands of citations from the 27 "inspired" writings and fewer citations outside that list.

The Official Canon
Many people think the New Testament writings were agreed upon at the Council of Nicea. There were 20 canons (church rules) voted on at Nicea - none dealt with sacred writings. The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of "inspired" writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council - we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not "list" every single document. For example, it reads, "the gospels, four books…" The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are "sacred" and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon.

[Added - January 2010]
The Apocrypha
The Apocrypha was NOT in the original listings of the New Testament, but were first added to editions of sacred writings by Jerome in the 5th century. These are works written during the inter-testamental time, between OT and NT. These writings were never in the Hebrew OT, but were included in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT.

Jerome included these writings in his edition of the Bible in between the OT and NT and he called it "apocrypha," or "hidden" writings. The term "apocrypha" was used in the ancient world to indicate something either orginating from oral tradition, or containing "secret" material, not suitable for a general audience.

As Jerome's Vulgate version of the Bible was copied some monasteries/copyists were not as careful to designate it as "apocrypha" and thus these writings began to be used by some in the Catholic Church and some doctrinal concepts were affected by these texts.

------------
From Wiki on 2 Maccabees in The Apocrypha
Doctrinal issues that are raised in 2 Maccabees include:
- Prayer for the dead and sacrificial offerings, both to free the dead from sin
- Merits of the martyrs
- Intercession of the saints (15:11-17) (at least as seen from a Christian viewpoint)
- Resurrection from the dead
-----------

Interestingly, none of the NT writers quote any of these writings, although there are a few quotes from non-OT "apocryphal" works. Many of the second century church fathers make citations from "The Apocrypha" as inspired text. These writings were accorded "scriptural" status in the OT, not the NT, prior to Jerome at a few synods.

Luther and other Protestants did reject The Apocrypha as biblical text and it may indeed have had something to do with purgatory and prayers for the dead (something Luther really disagreed with). Luther and the other Reformers also demanded that the biblical text should be translated directly from the original languages and NOT from Jerome's Latin which was a less than satisfactory translation of the Greek and a very poor translation of the Hebrew OT. The Reformers were scholars and knew that The Apocrypha had not been included in the Hebrew OT - this probably affected their view of the writings as well.

It was only AFTER the Reformation, at the Council of Trent in 1546, that the Catholic officially stated that these writings were included in the inspired text of the Bible.
======================

Conclusion
The New Testament developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history. No one particular person made the decision. The decision was not made at a church council. The particular writings that became those of the New Testament gradually came into focus and became the most trusted and beneficial of all the early Christian writings.

Also if you have time swing by here This is a 30 minute video , if that, from a theologian and philosopher who goes into detail about the formation of the bible and its authority.

So please before you go on with so much mis -information , listen to the entire video because it all links together.

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/inspiration-canon-scripture-/

What do you say to a church that excommunicates a married priest, kicks him out of the church, but protects and defends priests who are child molesters. Certainly not a church for the whole family!!

The vow of poverty and the vow of celibacy are tied in history. The church wanted their priests to be totally dedicated to the church and to give all benefits from thier work to the church. If they were allowed to marry they would be wanting to provide for thier families instead of the church. Time for that to end, the church has plenty of gold finery and it would prevent a lot of the problems they have had in thier midst.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, they allow their priests to be married. The Celibacy requirement did not come about until the dark ages. Previously, you had Monk Priests who took a vow of celibacy and married priests who mostly administered to congregations. The Catholic Church just needs to admit they made a mistake and allow parish priests to marry. I would reduce the problems with abuse, make he priests more understanding and relate-able to the couples they counsel and attract more young men to enter the priesthood.

Thank you damon,

Did'nt have time to read all your post, but what I did rings true. There a scores of great, extremely well referenced books on the subject of the cannon scripture and its veracity. I mentioned an older one above (Evidence The Demands a Verdict). With the internet its tough though (lots of goofy unreferenced, or gnostic referenced opinion). I've posted with cat before, hers is basically a Divinci code theology wrapped up in a supposed scholarly package. it would be helpful for her to read outside her bubble. Much of the New Testament was written against the gnostic philosophy (she esposes) that was attempting to infiltrate the early church. Thanks again for spending the time.

Travis:

Your basic premise concerning the Roman origins of the church (though actually Baylonian in nature) is true but way overstated. To proclaim the entire church to be pagan, is, I beleive, overstepping. Was Constantine Christian? Possibly. Were the priests who "converted" to Christianity for political reasons Christian? Doubtful for most. Were the doctrines and practices of the Catholic church supsect? Absolutely (I would say a 1300 year nightmare). But here's my point; has the Catholic church improved in the past 2-3 centuries? I would say yes. Do they (for the most part) adhere to the basic tenents of the Christian faith? I would say yes. Are there still serious lingering heresies within especially the leadership of the Catholic church? Absolutely! (priests, saints, and Mary mediation. Goofy traditions. The pope, the authoritarian/unquestionable rule of its leaders, Priests turnin wine into Jesus blood, bay baptism, its total disreguarding of scripture for tradition and on and on and on. I believe when Jesus addresses the church of Thyratira in the book of Revealtion chap 3 I think, he is speaking to the whole history of the Catholic church. My point, they are part of the church and he basically states about them; your end is better than your begining , but you are still found wanting. My problem with your post is this:

"Tod, Catholics have nothing to due with Christianity"

Again, a way overstated, unneccessary, untrue generalization.

Barlow; you ask a legitimate question.

Spyder: The whole monk thing is from the pagan preists joining (forced) of the church due to Constantine's supposed conversion. Pagan preists often placed themselves in solitude on hilltop monestarys above populated areas where people could come up to see/support their supposed closeness to God. Pagan preists were the common people's only mediators between them and the gods. Unfortunately, the catholic church has allowed that notion to continue. Probably the most unfortunate heresy within the catholic church.

Shaking:

"The church wanted their priests to be totally dedicated to the church and to give all benefits from thier work to the church"

And how did that work out for them? It is highly likely that all of the Apostles were married (even Paul, due to his Jewish status prior to conversion, though his wife does not seem to be in the picture, possibly because of his conversion).

There really is no justification for the catholic church's position on preists marrying. Actually there really is no justification for the Priesthood/heiarchy/Pope period; priest implys mediator "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus".

P.S. there are a lot of references above where people refer to the catholic church's leadership as "celibate". History assures us that many of its historical leaders, (yes popes included) were anything but.

Catholic Priests used to be married, and even had concubines, etc. One Pope knew he couldn't get divorced because of the rules, so he decreed that all Priests had to give up their families and become celibate. So he had to get rid of his wife and family. Martin Luther wrote his how many thesis and nailed it on the Catholic Door, and began the offshoot called Lutheran.

I actually went to confession once, in a new small town in the Mountains. The Priest was very nice, and personable. He said, "Obviously you are here because you feel regrets and want to be released from your sins, so I will do so. It is not necessary to tell me of your sins." Wha???? Its kind of lukewarm when you don't even have to tell the Priest what your sins are. Then I found out that he was a Priest in this small town, and lived at the Church on Saturday and Sunday. He spent the rest of the week with his " male friend" in Buffalo NY. I personally didn't care one way or the other. but I bet his Bishop would.

give it a rest, look at it for what it is. there isnt a religion, government position, job profession, anything that doesnt include some sort of closet sex bullsh!t. part of the reason the top level of the catholic ranks tried to keep a secret, to protect the holy name. i thought back in the 80's or 90's priests were able to marry... so much to how i follow my religion, lol.

this is a 2 edged sword, he lied, breking one of the 10 commandments. a most of all simple commandment. if you cant follow the non breaking laws of your religion and the hole time keep a strait face, and look at it as no big deal comes with a price.

but being the concern where little kids were molested, and keeping them under wing is beyond me.

Oh Sheesh, Jesus was probably married??? ROFL!!! Give me a break. This priest made a shameful decision by SECRETLY marrying someone. If he "fell in love", he should have done the honorable thing and left the priesthood and not lived a lie.

"Huzzah?"

How'd you get internet access all the way back there in 1865?

Linda,

It was expected for ALL Jewish men to get married back in the first centuries BCE and CE. It was a REQUIREMENT for leaders/teachers (Rabbis) to be married. If Jesus was 30 when he started his teaching of the Apostles, HE WAS MARRIED. It would have been expected of him and his JEWISH FOLLOWERS would never have allowed a man who was not married to teach them and they would never have called him Rabbi if he hadn't been married. In fact, if you read "between the lines" of the Resurrection accounts, you'll even find out WHO he was married to, since the cleaning of a man's body after death was relegated to either his mother (if he was too young to be MARRIED) or HIS WIFE by Jewish religious law ... and who was the woman who went to clean his body in the tomb? Mary called Magdalene, who was certainly NOT his mother. His mother WAS present in Jerusalem according to the Crucifixion accounts, so if he had been unmarried SHE would have had the religious DUTY to clean his body for burial (there was not enough time after his death due to the Sabbath).

It was EXACTLY the reason that rainlady states that caused the decision for the priests in the Catholic church to remain celibate. The same church also set about to deliberately smear the reputation of "the Apostle to the Apostles" - which the Catholic Church has admitted in a roundabout way by declaring recently that Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute - NEVER was.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. I'm pretty sure he did whatever he wanted.

The one thing we're reasonably sure of was that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who lived in the first century BC. Cat wrote it perfectly. No need to restate. Any belief of his divinity is an individual thing and is fine and dandy, but it's really most likely, in a historical sense, that he was married and (gasp) had children. Growing up in the Catholic Church, my priest was the most wonderful man. I always thought how horrible it was that he couldn't be married or be a dad. I only found out as an adult, that he had a long-term relationship with a woman. I can't tell you how happy that made me! He deserved it! And how better to counsel married or soon-to-be-married couples? The Catholic Church needs to change and grow. Otherwise it shall die. The flocks, like me, are leaving in droves.

The "no marriage" rule is so bishops wouldnt have legitimate sons who they could favor for positions of power and eventually takeover the "church" power structure. I do believe in the olden days, priests where REQUIRED to be married and church power became de facto hereditary.

Linda-------He should have done the honorable thing and quit the priesthood?????

Let's talk about honor here. How many of you holier than thou Christians live a christian lifestyle? Most of the people I know go to confession and hours later commit a sin whether using the Lord's name in vain, having a few too many to drink, sex with their unmarried partner but hey, just lather rinse and repeat. Sin--confess, sin--confess------it's okay for you but a priest desides to act on human emotion and some will berate him for it. Newsflash-----Not getting married isn't God's rule it is the churches rule. Just another example of how Catholics have rewritten the Bible to suit their needs for centuries.

Becoming a priest.....rule number one, stop being a man. Rule number two.....irrelevant after acting on rule number one.

It was expected for ALL Jewish men to get married back in the first centuries BCE and CE. It was a REQUIREMENT for leaders/teachers (Rabbis) to be married. If Jesus was 30 when he started his teaching of the Apostles, HE WAS MARRIED. It would have been expected of him and his JEWISH FOLLOWERS would never have allowed a man who was not married to teach them and they would never have called him Rabbi if he hadn't been married.

Cat: First of all men didn't get married until they were at least in their 30's. He wouldn't have been expected to marry before that time. Jewish girls however got married in their teens and the person was usually picked out by the parents. For you to say that all Rabbis(teachers) had to be married is absurd. No where does it state it as a prerequisite. Paul himself was not married. If you look closely at each of his letters it would state he was a rabbi(teacher) except in the book of Hebrews. Yet he went around preaching about Christ. John the Baptist was not married, yet he went about teaching about Christ. Just where do you get your information from?

Red Rogers, I believe he said he was the Son of Man, I don't think he claimed to be the Son of God.

Unhappy -, I imagine Cat got her information from reading a variety of books other than the Bible, and from doing some critical thinking about what she'd read.

A book many of you might like, if you can find a copy, is The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by the late Hyam Macoby. This book is not for those with closed minds, but is excellent for those who seek Truth from wherever it comes.

rainlady- I took a religious studies course many moons ago and I agree this book is amazing in fact I think I'll go read it again

He should've done the religious thing, lived in sin and begged forgiveness.

You would also see an increase in the number of men joining the priesthood.

If the priests who married have children, the pedos will be swept away like yesterday's garbage. Can you imagine a married priest who is also a father overlooking a pedophiliac priest?

I am amazed at the stupidity some of you voice about sexuality.

I'd bet money that if you let priests get their freak on with the ladies like normal men, we'd see a big drop in instances of kiddie diddlers in the Church.

First of all most of the priest's involved in scandalous sexual behaviour were not pedophiles. There were some that truely were but actually a smaller percentage of them than other groups such as teachers, coaches and other occupations that predators intentionally enter to prey on the young. The TRUE nature of the vast majority of the priest involved in deviant behaviour were involved in what is termed ephobophlia. This is a complicated issue because the vast majority of people do not understand that there is a difference.

A fixated ephebophile possesses a primary sexual desire toward children between 14 and 17, with the adolescent victim being at least five years younger than the perpetrator. This category becomes especially complicated when the victim is a 14- to 17-year-old boy, and the adult male’s attraction might be one of homosexuality rather than ephebophilia.

The reason this FACT was dismissed in our media was due to the current attitudes toward homosexuality, but I don't want to digress. My point is that celibacy does NOT cause pedophilia, ephebophilia, or homosexuality. What happened in the Church to cause this was in fact a rather well meaning but disasterous response by parents in the Middle Ages regarding "unusual behavour" in their young boys.

When a parent suspected gay tendencies in their boys they would ship them off to the seminary. Over time what you had was a bunch of underaged homosexual boys that grew up to be administrators of these seminaries. The environment was that of gay men that were cloistered from society and therefore atrophied in there social and developemental behaviour. There are hundreds of stories (Although rarely reported in the media) of heterosexual men who were "bullied" by these deviants in the seminary.

Yes I think the church needs to begin to allow priests to marry but not because of this foolishness about celibacy causing "kiddie diddlers", that's utter hogwash.

Wow, a Church apologist blaming everything on the gays. There's a f--king shocker.

Your logic holds absolutely no water whatsoever. There's nothing preventing any allegedly gay priests from having sexual affairs with men of legal age in private and without the knowledge of the Church. If they're banging their altar boys, they're pedophiles. No amount of parsing words will change that.

Case in point: Let's say I'm a high school teacher. I'm straight. Does it make it me any less culpable for my behavior if I bang a 14-year-old female student just because I'm surrounded by them and had a sh-tty childhood? No. It doesn't. And the priests also have no excuse.

Chris,

When was the last documented case of child molestation by a priest that came across the news wire?. Got any stories about the roaring 20's while your at it. Man, talk about rehashing OLD news. You probably blame george bush for all the countries problems too huh?. Typical liberal brainwashing. Liberals make me sick and will be the downfall of all society. kinda makes the middle East, China & communist russia seem like they understand the problems with the world which is why they quell all dissent. Don't see all these social activists prancing about in those areas of the world. Oh well, China will soon be our masters anyhow, enjoy your twisted lifestyles until they show up freaks...

taxman,

I believe that a man who was a priest/minister in a different religion could convert and become a priest and remain married.

Not true. A married man cannot become a Catholic priest.

jrl.

You are correct the Pope has given special dispensation to several married Episcopalian priests that converted to the Roman Catholic church. He allowed them to be RC priests and to stay married.

A deacon in the Catholic church can be married but if his wife passes away he is not allowed to re-marry or he is also ex communicated. I'm Catholic and like 99.99999% of the Catholics out there believe: Just let them get married!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The world will not end!

The only reason Catholic priests can't be married now is because the Pope realized that when the priest died, the wealth went to the widow, not back to the church where it belonged.

sam adams is an idiot. Married Episcopal priests are allowed to become Catholic priests.

B I N G O.

taxman, I believe you are partially correct. It seems that I remember a few years ago that there was a group of Episcopalian priests in the U. S. who were unhappy with the increasingly liberal practices of their church and so they petitioned the Holy Se and even though married they were allowed to be come Catholic priests. Additionally, the Catholic Church does have Deacons who perform many (but not ALL) of the duties of a priest. Deacons are allowed to be married but must agree to not remarry if their spouse dies.

While I don't necessarily agree with the whole celibacy aspect of the priesthood I don't think this is exactly a secret that is sprung on the men in seminary, and they are given ample chance to reflect on whether or not they are able to fully make the commitment needed to be a priest. To be a priest and get married in the deceptive way this man did in order to "fool" the church or try to force the church to allow priests to marry is shameful! While I don't know that he should be excommunicated, he deserves to be severly reprimanded for his appalling lack of of judgement. After accepting responsibility for what he did, the gentleman should be allowed to continue, not as a priest but as a Deacon in the church if he wishes to do so.

Finally, I am tired of seeing people bashing the Catholic Church! The number of priests "diddling little boys" is a very small percentage of the men who are faithfully serving the Lord. Yes, there are some sick pervs out there but you can find that in ALL religions and in many, many other walks of life. To stereotype all Catholic Priests as child molesters does a great disservice to the many fine priests out there. Also, the Catholic Church does have many rules and traditions and that is NOT a bad thing! Many of these "new" religions have an "if it feels good, if it makes you happy then it can't be wrong" preaching that draws people in because they are never told that their adultery, lying, cheating, aborting is wrong. The Catholic Church has rules, traditions and beliefs that they have held on to because they are part of the fabric that makes up the Church and unlike other "new" faiths who seem to make up their beliefs as they go along, they don't just allow their followers to cherry pick the parts of the religion they follow. If they believe something is wrong, the Church says so! As a Catholic, I don't necessarily agree with all that the Catholic Church preaches but I respect their traditions and find comfort in my Catholic faith and don't feel at all like I am some indoctrinated zombie sheep because of my faith.

If you want the definition of hypocrisy, just look up Catholics in the dictionary.

Travlena-

It's one thing about these child molesting priest, it's another thing about the church hierarchy's practice of defending and protecting them!!

What I'd really like to know is how the Pope gets to decide who's going to heaven and who isn't ? What gives him the 'right' to excommunicate anyone? I thought everyone going to heaven was judged by God, not a man on earth.

Ky.

The Catholic Church believes that the Pope represents God's wishes.

(not my opinion but that's the belief)

So says the Pope and conveniently unverifiable.

So the Pope is, in effect, God and without error??? LOLOLOLOL!!! As the old saying goes, I like Jesus, but God help me from his followers!!!

@Ky: That's one of the reasons Martin Luther protested, and the Protestant church was founded. The Pope had no right to determine who is going to heaven or not, and excommunication is wrong. No man can judge whether or not another person will be going to heaven.

What I'd really like to know is how the Pope gets to decide who's going to heaven and who isn't ?

He doesn't. The Pope is a flawed human being just like everybody else and I'll bet dimes to dollars that many ex-popes had trouble finding the pearly gates. All organized religions are set up by humans with all the mistakes that go with living. I know as much as the Pope does about 'getting into heaven'.

And the celibacy requirement is just bullcrap made up by the RCC.

My step mother divorced her violently abusive first husband as a last resort after taking all the steps she could within the church. Unfortunately the church believes that women just have to put up with abuse and should try to figure out why they are making their husbands unhappy. Well this physcopath went to far one day a threw a buthcher knife at my step mon who ws holding her infant daughter at the time. IF she hadn't turned to the side as he was throwing the knife it would have directly hit my step sister and possibly would have killed or seriously injured the both of them. She left and never looked back. My dad legally adopted my stepsister as the bio dad had nothing to do with her after the described incident and never tried to contact her or pay one dime of support. My parents were catholic(dad) and mom methodist, they divorced when I was 5. SO between all my parents background I was sent to both the catholic church and methodist as well as the church closest to where ever we lived at the time. None of my parents went to church due to the experience of being excommunicated for divorcing their spouses etc.. Found it very hard to even get into the Catholic religion as I found it hypocritical as a child. the older I got and more I learned the less use I had for the catholic faith. I feel close God and have faith, but, don't feel the need to espouse a particular faith or church because I feel I can communicate with God wherever I am any time of day or night and can read a multitude of books on religion any time I chose.

I just have so much difficulty with so many things about the catholic faith. Priest shoud be allowed to marry making them all the more able to relate to their parishioners as a spouse, partner in a relationship, parent etc.. Nuns are still treated as less than men and should be treated better and allowed to become priests. Don't believe in the churches stance on divorce due to above comments. It should be extremely difficult to get out of a marriage but attempts on and fear for your life shouldn't be the reason for the church to try and stop you and the church should sympathize with and accept that decision in the end and still welcome the divorcee with open arms. I think they're also way off the mark regarding birth control. But that's what happens when a religion is ruled by old men who can't get pregnant and don't have to support a multitude of children!!!!

LOL

"Found it very hard to even get into the Catholic religion as I found it hypocritical as a child."

I'm not at all surprised that THIS is what U learned from your church.

♪♫Good morning Ms Hypocrite.♪♫

Jennifer,

I think you need to do a little more research on the feeding of the poor by the Catholic Church both in this country and across the world. The Catholic church, along with many other organized religions are the most prolific at helping the poor across the globe. One could only look at the work Mother Teresa did for the poor. Remember, Pres. Obama started as a community organizer and was paid by a Catholic charity.

jrl - much of that poverty is created by the church by encouraging people to have huge families and disallowing birth control and denying the rights of women to have some control over their bodies and destinies. The pope and his henchmen live in luxury that you and I could probably only dream of.

JenniferM281852 & Susi-Oh - How right you are! I left the Catholic Church for just the reasons you're talking about. How can the Pope hold out his hands with millions of $s of rings on his fingers and ask us to give to the poor? THERE WAS ONLY ONE INFALLIBLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER WALKED THIS EARTH - His name was Jesus. The Pope does not qualify. Enjoyed most of the rituals and pagentry of the Catholic Church so - Turned to Episcopal Church - Catholic lite sans Pope.

Minneapolis agreed! When I was old enough to be allowed to make my own choice, I didn't just walk away from the Catholic church, I RAN as fast as I could! I go to a Baptist church now, yet I still find myself getting weirded out when my new church does things that Catholics would NEVER allow (getting communion without being baptized or having your first holy communion) I'm getting better about it though.

My mother still calls me at least once a month to rant and rail about the fact my daughter isn't baptized (I decided when she was born she'd be allowed to choose her own path)

I say let them marry!

ah, Espicopal Church; twice the fashion and half the guilt. ;)

Minneapolis. You confuse the term infallible with impeccable. The Pope is only infallible when speaking to the whole Church on matters of Faith and Morals. As far as impeccability, a Pope, priest, deacon, nun or any person can sin just like anyone else. If you were the devil and wanted to attract as many people as possible, who would you go after; the worst sinner in the world who no one would listen to or someone who is respected and looked up to? No one is defending sin by a Pope, priest, deacon, nun or whomever. There is no doctrine or law in the Church that allows for anyone to be a pedophile.

jennifer, suzi, minneapolis,

How sad it is to see people try to judge a world organization with so little understanding of the world. You may choose not to follow a particular church, but you have no ability to look beyond your own little worlds.

I am not Catholic, and there are certainly many areas to criticize them by, but I do not think their charitable efforts are one of those areas. Catholic charities are one of the largest and most active charities around the world in human right and care areas, including starvation.

Finish reading the article. He was booted out and ex-commuicated. But I do agree with you otherwise.

softdude, thank you for posting the most insightful and well-typed post in this thread!

I confessed to breaking the commandment about sex (can't even remember which one that is)

There is no such commandment (assuming you're referring to the "Ten Commandments"). Adultery? Yes (#7). Coveting thy neighbor's wife? Yes (#10). Sex? Nope, not in the top 10.

I was raised in the Catholic Church and spent 12 years in a parochial school. I have a very normal life and a great education. My daughter is in her 11th year of parochial school and does well socializing with kids at her school and also the kids at that attend the public school system. My daughter loves the school she attends and I wouldn't trade the education she is getting with the best of the public schools.

I'll give you that WeALL- I went to parochial school too and I did get an amazing education, but it's not about school it's about the church itself.

I found out several years ago that when my parents were discussing where to send me to school(Catholic vs public)the issue was great education and the trama of man hating nuns and Catholic Guilt complex or an average education without all the other stuff. They sent me to Catholic school. Yeah, I got a good education...and a healthy dose of mental bu11sh!t I'm still dealing with forty years later. They knew what it would be like and made that decision. I'm not upset by it, it's just that was in the process of how was I to get educated. To deal with that "other stuff".

So parents should only be allowed to raise their children as they see fit if it agrees with your world view softdude? I doubt many people with parents of any background feel that they had the perfect childhood.

Perhaps. Paul, in fact, recommended marriage as a way to fend off sexual immorality, because it would allow men to express those feelings inside the marriage, instead of in an immoral manner.

Agape is Greek for unconditional (God's) love. When Jesus taught, "No greater love than this, that a man would lay down his life for another." Jesus used the word agape. The famous John 3:16 verse likewise uses agape. In fact, every reference to love in the context of God uses the word agape. But that wasn't the only word that was used for love. There's also phileos (Philadelphia, aka, city of brotherly love uses this; Phile - Brotherly love and delphia - from delphos meaning city), and eros (romantic love). There IS no greater love than agape, for it is 100% unconditional, but it isn't the only type of love expressed in the Bible.

Also, I don't know where you get the idea that God's love for us is on a master-slave basis. Quite the opposite, the word agape was used in context of God to Jesus. If Jesus is also God, then how is it that God is slave to God, and yet also master? Further, the Bible also says that we are children, not slaves, and that His love for us is in the context of being His children.

Between a man and woman, it is eros and agape love. Even the Bible uses the word to describe it. Between friends/family, it is supposed to be agape and phileos. To everyone else, it is supposed to be agape.

How agape love can easily evolve to master-slave love:

I was told that there are five category or five type of love defined by religious people. You identify three of them. They are agape love, eros love (a.k.a. romantic love), and phileos love (or brotherly love). I don't know the other two.

I automatically assume that all love is unconditional even though religious people made upto five category of love and definition of love. I also assume that the bond of love is stronger in eros (romantic) then it is in phileos (brotherly love). And between man and God, the bond of agape love is as strong as eros.

Further, the Bible also says that we are children, not slaves, and that His love for us is in the context of being His children

the agape love in the context of love between parents and children makes sense. The parent is willing to sacrifice self to protect the children. In this case love can be unconditionally one way to protect the children. Love should be two way, to include all children like babies.

In religious context, the agape love between religious man (children) and God (father) also makes sense. Followers are willing to sacrifice self for unconditional love (agape love) of God. In this case love can be unconditionally one way to love God. Love should be two way but hard to tell since God don't talk back.

In a master-slave relationship, the agape love exists as long as the slave is willing to provide servitude to the master through unconditional love for the master. Any other form of master-slave relationship is criminal and evil. In this case, love is unconditional one way from slave to master. Love should be two way.

Because romantic love is unconditionally two way, it cannot be agape love unless agape love is two ways. while master-slave love needs only be one-way.

The Catholic Church is not in the business of doing God's work, but the Church's work, which is primarily the generation of revenue, the acquisition of assets such as real estate and gold, and the suppression of free thinking by its members. I was born and raised a Catholic, and once I developed enough critical thinking skills as a youngster, I left it without a second thought.

@ Alan

Nothing would suprise me at what practitioners or followers of ANY religion/cult would do. Every single one of them would be willing to see a billion dead if it guaranteed that they would be the ones in power when it was done. There is absolutely no difference between a cult and a religion except in the number of followers/whackos that would put aside truth for "faith" instead. A look at any of the fundamentalist christian cults here in the US provides a perfect example of this. Amazing amounts of hate in the name of "love". They fool no one with half a brain and a willingness to disagree with the mob.

This priest being married registers as an absolute ZILCH! on my scale of importance to the well being of anyone's soul.

WHAT IN THE HELL is going on in Australia these days? Merlin - we can say too, that Government is a cult. it is a religion. It creates the Laws, not Sins and Imposes HEAVY penalties for not complying. It decides what is right and proper - like prostitution and Gay marriages to FEED the tax system and judicial system - can you imagine the Number of Divorces coming down the pike when Unnatural people get to also by united by GOD - which only the STATE can tear asunder?

I am Catholic, and I applaud clergy who marry as opposed to getting involved in covert affairs. There are mothers and fathers of children with clergy who are scorned when they try to get child support, etc., being pushed back and forth by the religious order and the Vatican. No, I have never had this experience. I remember the horror of "Sixty Minutes" and other news coverage of these liaisons over the years, and the plight of child migrants (see Child Migrants Trust website). Even non-Catholics have to realise that, "It takes all kinds to make a world." I celebrate Mass (preferably Latin), yet I am aware of a Reformed Catholic Church wherein the clergy marry and perform sacraments that can be recognised by the Roman Catholic Church. I have lived in a large archdiocese area where there were special collections to raise fund to pay off lawsuits arising from sex scandals, to which I will never contribute. As the Bible states, "The world grows weaker and wiser". I only contribute to the building collection, although one does not know where donations to any church or organisation end up going (as mismanagement revelations sometimes uncover). I would prefer that less be solicited for seminaries and missionaries and more for direct education and assistance worldwide. Furthermore, to not allow anyone to become a priest or nun until age thirty would allow most to get whatever sexual preference he or she does or does not have dealt with. These youth need to experience secular education and civilian or military work before taking vows. Yes, even those who attended parochial school need to have some secular education at a public or private college, if only one course of study. To the credit of the Catholic Church, some of the older orders are recruiting widowers and widows to become priests for the obvious wealth of firsthand experience they have in family matters from which to counsel others. There are not enough youth nowadays going into religious orders to solely depend on them as newcomers that will commit to years of service. One of my favourite priests was the child of a violent alcoholic who shared that volatile experience with the laity, so some do understand and know how to counsel others due to their own life paths, without marriage.

This priest should not have been excommunicated. That he married a bride form a country where the women have been so sexually exploited by merchant seaman, the clergy, military personnel, et al. is even more admirable. For those who scoff at my post, read up on these facts for yourself. Any Catholic college library will have histories on the Church in open reference and circulation stacks. The first Popes, including Saint Peter, were often married with wives and children. Furthermore, Christ and the Apostles were raised as Jewish men, expected to marry and be fathers. Celibacy became a requirement of clergy, not because of spirituality initially, but rather, to avoid widows and the children of clergy from inheriting Church property. Bare in mind that the Catholic Church and Protestants (namely the breakaway Church of England) were bedfellows in the control and profit of Western slavery and child migrant exploitation for centuries. I am older, and I have to compose as I recall, thus my dart from one point to another and back. Final notes on the Philippines include a call for you to read of the ancestry of prominent families like the Marcos and Aquino elite, both of whom have Spanish clergy and/or mestizo patriarchs in their documented family trees. As for the military role worldwide in adding to the exploitation of the people, there is a documentary film entitled, "Left By the Ship" (in war and peacetime) being released this month. The economic saga continues with all the "customer service" outsourcing done abroad. The late DHL founder had much of his estate ordered to be paid to his children by women and girls in Asia. Internationally, we must be responsible for our individual actions and have self-respect and respect others.

The celebacy rule for catholic priests is totally rediculous - and if your wondering - yes I am a 68 year old catholic. How can any non married & childless priest possibly counsel me on any issue involving family life? No way! It's not even remotely possible until he's walked a mile in my shoes. The rule is just plain silliness. And, this is only one issue that the catholic church needs to wake up & smell the roses on. Cmon guys it's 2012 ! I love tradition just like the next guy. But, depriving Priests from living a fulfilled life - the way God intended is rediculous. No wonder there are so many perverts molesting young boys in the priesthood. And, this nonsense will never stop until WE catholics force the hierarchy to wake up & smell the roses by withholding donation & refusing to continue to fund legal settlements for pervert priests. As soon as we begin witholding funds ($$$$$) practicality will immediately return to the hierarchy of the single richest organization on this planet.