The call to celibacy

The call to celibacy

An article has been posted on Eureka Street which has me completely flummoxed.

It is called ‘The Call to Celibacy’, and I think it purports to argue against clerical celibacy. I’d like to think it parodies an unrealistic view of the priesthood.

The alternative explanation isn’t a good one. Maybe it’s a serious meditation on the priesthood, which manages to deify the priest and deny the Incarnation. A sample:

The man becomes priest upon taking his vows of celibacy. He is no longer a man who would work and care for family, enjoy his leisure and be father to his children. He is no man; not man, but an earthly angel called by God to serve. In his robes and vestments he is for the flock, but not of them.
He is neither superior nor inferior to them. He is not them. He is like the celibate Jesus walking among them.

If it an article against clerical celibacy, it fails because it creates a straw man which is easily knocked down, but proves nothing. If it is an article defending clerical celibacy, it fails epically (is that a word?), because it draws on a theology which is radically removed from Christian revelation.

The piece is written by one B.F. Moloney, who according to his byline is a poet. I’ve never really got poetry. Perhaps his article is some sort of prose-based poem, which my analytical reading can’t do justice to.

Are there any readers of this blog who can make sense of it?

  • Anne

    Father john I actually like the section of the article which you quote.”He is no longer a man who would work and care for family, enjoy his leisure and be father to his children. He is no man; not man, but an earthly angel called by God to serve. In his robes and vestments he is for the flock, but not of them.
    He is neither superior nor inferior to them. He is not them. He is like the celibate Jesus walking among them.”
    No he is not a man who thinks about the ways of the world but a man who thinks about the way s of heaven. He iw with them but not of them though he has friends amongst them. He is neither superior nor inferior but one “like yourselves” (exodus) a prophet, priest a shepherd. He is supposed to be innocent and celibate like Jesus. His geneology will be heavenwards, eternal, and not lateral.
    So Father John I love the quote though hard as it may be to live up to. A priest in the style of Jesus. Its a hard call and not for all.

    • Fr Thomas

      Anne, a quote from St Augustine may help: “For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian”. A priest is not an angel, he is a man, your brother; like Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, he shares our humanity, and is able to sympathise with you (Hebrews), even as he is called also to be a clay vessel holding an inestimable treasure. He is called to holiness as are married men. A married man must forgo intimacy with millions of women, a priest with that many plus one, not a lot of difference.

  • MuMu of St Kilda

    It is poetic and thus uses that type of licence. It doesn’t strike me as being pejorative. I won’t go as far as Anne has and say I love this poem, but I sort of like it, especially the bit about like celibate Jesus walking among us. This is why there is such outrage about those who have not done so. I have to also say that the couple of ex-priests I know who have married have lost their shine, their charisma.

  • MuMu of St Kilda

    (cont.) But after reading the Eureka article (with my face screwed up as if I was swallowing cod liver oil), I agree with you, Fr John – the author seems confused. If a man finds he can’t be celibate, why does he have to project this onto the whole priesthood? Can’t he see that the vast majority of priests are well able to manage celibacy? You can almost hear the dude in the illustration whining, “I can’t live without sex! You all can’t live without it either! You’re all just pretending!”

  • Stephen K

    Father John, if I may be permitted to proffer a comment here. I don’t think Moloney’s article is poetic in any sense. By my reading I think this article criticises mandatory celibacy, not celibacy as such, although it does not go so far as to extol voluntary celibacy. Its reference to Michael Parer’s account makes this clear, I think. The picture painted in the second paragraph is, I think, a characterisation of priesthood as the writer thinks comes across in a history of elevating the religious consecrated life over lay life. I think Moloney is clearly suggesting that the lack of physical sexual interaction has pivotally contributed to a separated, detached priesthood and that the gap or vacuum is filled by dogma, theology etc.

    I think you’re right to be a little flummoxed. Moloney’s article is not written very directly. You have to read between the lines a little. The confusion arises because I don’t think this matter is an either/or question. Moloney’s article says in effect priests and religion would be better if priests could express sexual love with a woman. At least, in my view, mandatory celibacy is not, and historically has not been, a problem for everyone. Nor is it or has it been universally a good or helpful for possibly many priests who would still perform their role as well were they married.

    I think we can all call to mind priests who have demonstrated approachability, empathy, robustness, balanced personality, humour and humility, and other priests who are arrogant, know-alls and up themselves, and as far as I can see, celibacy is the factor least involved. More crucial is a formation that has emphasised that they are a different and higher theological species!

    Those priests who have laicised and married are no less – or more – loved than priests who devote their whole life as celibate clerics. They have not “lost” any quality; charisma is something “we” invariably invest in others, and something “we” take away. The best attitude to take towards priests in my view is to remember that first and foremost they are each individuals like the rest of us and not put them on a picture-book pedestal. That places too unfair a burden on them, far more than celibacy ever could.

    • Anne

      Stephen, you waffle and your continued anti church anti celibacy thought comes through quite strong. I dont believe you have a clue what priesthood is. Both marriage and priesthood are sacraments of service. One (marriage) the commitment (service) is to one another and family. the other (Priesthood) is service in the style of Jesus and the continuation of His work/presence amongst the people. Jesus “ministering” to His people and the continuation of this. He promised that He would not leave us orphans and the priesthood by administering the sacraments and through their vocation, continue to bring Jesus and keep Jesus present amongst us.
      Its true that all baptised are called to priesthood with a small p because of their own baptism but the vocation of Priesthood is special vocation with a extra large P, The Priesthood according to Jesus Christ and those who offer their lives to this priesthood continue the sacrificial offering as did Jesus.
      These Priests belong to the order of the eternal priesthood (Heb 7:25) and this priesthood was started at the Last Supper (Mt 16:28). The essence of priesthood is to offer sacrifice to God.
      Not to another woman, or to another man, but to God. His call to sacrifice is heavenward and derive their priesthood from the one true priest Jesus.
      As Adam of old was to be Priest, Prophet and King but failed Jesus was Priest Prophet and King and did not fail. His priesthood continues through the men who are called to this charism/work/honour call it what you will.
      Could a married man do the rubirics of priesthood? of course he could. but according to Jesus that is Priesthood which is different. This is the priesthood which calls for suffering.
      That some fail, is understood. That some taint their vocation is understood, that some lose sight of the road is understood. But priesthood according to Jesus is something he asked of those whom He called to this task.

      • Stephen K

        Anne, your summary of sacrificial priesthood is a familiar one and concisely and prettily expressed. I’ve no problem seeing the traditional ordained priesthood as a call to a life of sacrificial service. But it has little to do directly with my analysis of Moloney’s article and the argument I saw in it. That was that Moloney’s article was implicitly critical of mandatory celibacy and was not a “poetic” characterisation of priesthood in general. Not only did I not think it poetic, I thought his ‘argument’ against celibacy misconceived. My comment that laicised priests are as loved by God as dedicated clerics was added as a response to MuMu’s remark that the former had “lost” their charism. I was putting the view that any such “loss” was in the mind of the critic, and cautioning not to invest unrealistic expectations in priests. I see this tangent may have obscured my principal point.

        I take it as read, of course, that you and I adopt different, conflicting theologies or theories about a host of things including priesthood, but please pay attention to what I actually say in any given instance and don’t assume that because I say things you don’t like that it means I don’t know what you’re talking about. Consider the simpler possibility that I do and have rejected it. I’m quite willing to pay you that same courtesy.

        By the way, I’m still surprised some think Moloney was writing poetry. If ever beauty was in the eye of the beholder, this is surely the proof. In my school days, poetry was Keats and Wordsworth!

      • Anne

        Stephen, “priesthood” is poetry when it is understood. Just as you fall in love in a woman and know that this is the one you want to be with forever (or for me my husband) then for the priest its “falling in love” with Jesus and the Church, with the same passion and ideals, and wants and hopes that a couple brings to their love. It is poetry.
        Do we expect too much from priests, perhaps but they are given the graces to continue to love through the hard times just like the graces given to couples to weather hard times. That some fail understood. that some marriages fail understood. But the “love” and the “poetry” of that love (priesthood and marriage) is the same just expressed differently. As you would not want to be in the position of being in love with two women (or two men – for women) then celibacy (abstinance from intimacy with a human woman) is the same vow. The marriage vow is consumated with sexual intimacy. The Celibacy vow is celbrated with spirtual intimacy with Jesus.
        Like Mu Mu I also know several laicised priests and they have “lost” that shine, that something. When I am in their presence I wonder how is it that they could have rejected the honour of bringing Jesus onto the altar. How was it possible? But it was because both that I know did it. I also sense at times that they wonder if they have done the right thing. But its now done.

      • + Wolsey

        Anne,

        That sounds all very nice, but it’s false.

        Marriage is a sacrament. Ex opere operato, it gives the graces necessary to deal with the ups and downs of life.

        Celibacy does not, it’s as simple as that.

  • Florence

    “The man becomes priest upon taking his vows of celibacy. He is no longer a man who would work and care for family, enjoy his leisure and be father to his children. He is no man; not man, but an earthly angel called by God to serve. In his robes and vestments he is for the flock, but not of them.
    He is neither superior nor inferior to them. He is not them. He is like the celibate Jesus walking among them.” written by Maloney.

    Fr John, I think Maloney is a little bit of a dreamer. Just because a priest is celibate and he is not married and does not have his own children, does not mean that he does not care for family. The whole parish becomes his family and some parishioners go to their priest when they do have problems and the priest, I am sure atleast suggests that he would pray for them. In fact this is a great responsibility when a priest agrees to pray for parishioners who are having problems and who trust them enough to share their problems with a particular priest. In fact the whole parish is one big family and what do you think a priest is doing. Everyday when he celebrates Mass which is the greatest sacrifice and the great prayer of the Catholic Church which brings showers of blessings upon the people and especially upon those who the priest is praying for. When parishioners get sick, the priest visits and takes Holy Communion to these sick people. His very presence gives them strength and consolation. Priests eat with their parishioners. They have fun with their parishioners like any family member – laughing and joking (clean jokes ofcourse), Priests accommpany the youth of the parish to various youth programs and youth events. Priests have a meal with the Seniors and various groups of the Catholic Church. In fact I know of family members who are away from home most of the time because they work long hours and they come home and have a meal cooked by other members of the family and then go to bed – Rise next morning and to the same thing sometimes 6 days a week. Then, there is only one day to relax and maybe spend sometime with the children. I think and know that priests have a bigger family which is the parish and he does have interaction with those parishioners who are willing to have interaction with them. I know of priests who cook and clean the presbytery, The reason being they like their own cooking and they want privacy like any other person, married or single.

    Jesus Christ had friends – they were like family to him. Lazarus and his two sisters. Martha and Mary. Priests are very human and they do have family like brothers, sisters, neices and nephews and parents whom they love and care for. Priests laugh with their extended families and they cry with them as well. What about a single man who decides not to marry and he remains celibate. He does have extended family and he does interact with them as well. There are many singles in the world who in a very indirect way adopt a neice or a nephew – meaning, they care specially for them and they do things for them like a parent would. There are priests who though they do not have a family of their own, do adopt a family in the spiritual sense. They pray for them and they look out for them and are always looking out for their well being. All priests are human – just because they are celibate does not mean that they live lonely lives. Jesus Christ did not live a lonely life. A priest is very human and yet he is called to be a person of prayer – A priest is called in the middle of the night if someone is dying – just like any family member would be called. Yes, every priest is called to another Jesus Christ – just like every Catholic Christian is called to be another Jesus.

    I think Maloney was just writing poetry and I kinda like the Poetry.

  • marcus

    Fr John, If you were to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, the issue of Celibacy would be a non issue. We catholic believe in the power of God, miracles and conversion, why is celibacy such a matter to understand. Why do we have to bring human feelings in the argument? Why is so much energy wasted in this matter, the simple answer is that God calls people to the service of the Priesthood and he gives those people sufficient grace and strength to be his disciples to overcome those aspects which society accepts as normal.. That is our faith and our belief.

    • Samuel

      Amen!

  • + Wolsey

    I hardly know where to start – but I’ll say this:

    This whole thing brings back nightmares of my days as a seminarian. (And no, before anyone comments in view of what I write hereunder, I did not leave for reasons which had to do with celibacy.)

    This idea of the angelpriest has done so much harm to the Latin Church, and has more in common with neo-Platonism than Catholicism.

    Celibacy requires a charism – it cannot be prayed for (there’s a canon from Trent that underlies this point, I don’t have my reference material at hand), it is given once and for all by God from all eternity. The possession of the charism is not co-extensive with a calling to the priesthood. God doesn’t draw a line down the middle of Europe and say “I call secular clerics to celibacy to the west of this line and secular clerics to marriage to the east of it.”

    It would be better if the obligation were set aside. The clergy would then be better all round, because so many of them would not have to live with being square pegs in round holes, obliged to live in pursuit of a charism denied them. This situation suggests a question: “how does one legislate the possession of a charism?”

    I think there unfortunately might be some morbid catholics who derive a spiritual thrill at the idea of the “suffering priest”, icon of the crucified Christ – and the compulsion of celibacy is certainly a successful method of causing many a priest to suffer.

    Here’s a good article: http://www.east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm

    + Wolsey

    • Anne

      + Wolsey the article you reference is too long to read in one go and study, however, tell me is priesthood to be in the like of Jesus? Yes or No. Simple. Was Jesus married? Yes or No. Simple. Whom did Jesus breathe on? remember scriptures “then he breathed on them saying whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins retian they are retained” there is the special charism. The one He was accussed of doing, forgiving sins, which according to his detractors only God can do. that is forgiving sins. He breathed His own charism onto those He wanted to continue the “priesthood.” that is my understanding and I could write 3 books on my understanding but my husband wants food of a different kind on the table when he gets home.

      • + Wolsey

        Anne,

        The answer to your first question is not “either yes or no”, but rather “both yes and no.”

        There’s an old saying applicable to theology (and probably philosophy, too): “rarely affirm, rarely deny, always distinguish”.

        In some ways the priest is like Christ, in others, not.

        He shares some aspects of Christ’s divinity (e.g. power to absolve sins, power to transubstantiate) but for the most part, his lot is that of other mortals. Our Lord was unmarried for at least two reasons that I can think of, that have nothing to do with the priesthood as such, but eberything to do with his divine nature and his mission:

        As one of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, he felt no psychological compulsion to unite himself to a woman in marriage – marriage is a pale imitation of and analogical to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Blessed Trinity; and,

        It was no part of his mission on earth to marry.

        These are masive points of distinction between Christ and his purely human ministers. Indeed, your argument can be reduced to “Christ had a beard, therefore priests should wear beards.”

        Not a very convincing argument, is it??

        Furthermore, it’s clear from the NT that the law of Christ permitted clerical marriage – the later prohibition was simply based in the idea that sex is inherently impure, a position that cannot be sauared with church teaching.

      • + Wolsey

        That should be:

        … squared with church teaching.

      • Anne

        the response to your thin post is that God gives couples graces to work through tough times. And priests graces to work through tough times.
        Different graces, one sacrament either or.

      • Anne

        The role of priesthood according to Jesus is mission and divinity. No different with those whom he calls to this task. Re read Hebrews and OT on “priesthood”
        your argument doesnt convince me either.

      • + Wolsey

        I’m afraid your argument doesn’t convince me either, Anne.

    • Clara

      Wolsey,
      A friend of mine says “we make vows for things that do not come naturally” and here he speaks specifically of marriage vows and vows of celibacy. Fidelity and celibacy both require us to be constantly reminded of our vows in order to live them – the sacraments of marriage and holy orders gives the grace to live this out.

      If one has a charism of celibacy, then it can be lived without the requirement to join the priesthood or religious life.

      • + Wolsey

        Clara,

        For those given the charism of celibacy, it’s natural to be celibate.

        But that’s the whole point. One can’t second-guess God by making it a requirement that most (Latin-rite) priests be celibate.

        I again point out that the orignial reason for this discipline was, under the influence of neo-platonic philosophy, to foster cultic purity. This is invalid.

        All other reasons were later rationalisations.

  • MuMu of St Kilda

    Go Anne, Go Marcus. Here’s a good quote: “The unmarried man gives his mind to the Lord’s affairs and how he can please the Lord; but the man who is married gives his mind to the affairs of this world and to how he can please his wife, and he is divided in mind.” 1 Corinthians 7: 32-34. There are endless good reasons for the celibacy of the priesthood. My favourite is luminosity.

    • = Wolsey

      Mu Mu,

      St Paul’s (not the Holy Ghost’s) personal preference for priestly celibacy is just that – his personal preference.

      Christ’s law expressly permitted clerical marriage, whether you like it or not.

      Here’s a quote for you, Mu Mu:

      I Cor 9:5 “Do I not have the right to eat and drink? Do I not have the right, as does Cephas and the other apostles, to take a sister (= Christian woman) around as a wife?”

      • Anne

        + Wolsey this is Paul speaking it has nothing to do with Jesus and his marital status. When Jesus confected the Eucharist was He married? When He breathed on His Apostles was He married. All the works of the priest flow from the mystery of the Eucharist and their role in this. The other sacraments also flow from this sacramental (vow) promise found in the Eucharist.
        Scoff as you might, the role of priesthood is “sacramental” and “sacrificial” and designed to stand between heaven and earth as representative of both. Priesthood has this priviledge. Marriage and other sacraments do not.
        Baptism, sacrament of cleansing and initiation, confirmation, sacrament of strenthening and affirming, Eucharist divine manna, marriage sacrament of service to one another as couple and children and family and world, reconciliation or confession, sacrament of forgiveness, (remember he breathed on them whose sins you forgive they are forgiven etc”) and Holy Orders sacrament also of service but this service is heavenward. This service is one of mediation (priest) for and on behalf of people toward God and on behalf of God toward the people (Eucharist) all sacraments flow from the Eucharist. Like all sacraments flow from Jesus.
        Celibacy demands many graces and they are available they just need to be aviled and recognised and loved and wanted.

      • + Wolsey

        What’s the marital status of Christ got to do with his law, that expressly permits clerical marriage???

        His marital status is irrelevant.

      • Anne

        Its not irrelevant. He was celibate and He chose men to consecrate His body and bloood through their body and body and hands and words. That’s why female priesthood and married priesthood according to Jesus must be as He set it forth.
        It is NOT a job it is a high order calling.

  • MuMu of St Kilda

    = Wolsey, I believe the Latin Rite Church, to which most of us belong, stipulates that priests remain unmarried. To a culture possessed by the spirit of Eros, this is madness. To the sensis fidae, it is obviously right. To those Catholics afflicted by banality, the canon must be a mistake made by those poor old idiots in Rome; Jesus NEVER would have dreamed up something so mean. LOL!

    • + Wolsey

      Sigh!!

      Where to begin????

      Mu Mu, there are many assumptions behind your above post.

      Some of them are quite wrong.

      I don’t have the time to go into it all now.

  • + Wolsey

    … but I will say this – there’s a principle:

    Abusus non tollat usum.

    The abuse of a thing does not detract from its proper use.

    Think about that in the light of your suggestion that because our present-day culture is possessed by the spirit of eros, priests ought not to be married.

    • MuMu of St Kilda

      I did not say that at all, = W. The rule of celibacy, which simply in the sacerdotal context means remaining unmarried, has been in place for centuries. The spirit of Eros took possession of the world in around 1965 and it has turned to mush the minds of many. Please don’t attribute to me silly things which I did not say.
      And just to annoy you further, I will repeat what I said about laicized priests who have lost their je ne sais quoi and I’ll add something else: in a sense, the flame of Christ which burned bright within the priest, has been extinguished by Eve, prowling round looking for an illicit way to devour Christ. Once she has, though, she finds herself left and stuck with a mere man. She has destroyed that which she couldn’t leave alone.

      • + Wolsey

        Sorry – and this might be because of the way you have expressed yourself – I think you are saying silly things.

      • Anne

        Actually +Wolsey Mu Mu didnt say silly things, in the plain light of day, and explained plainly thats what it is. Each sacrament has its own character and signet. The Priest like the Signet Ring of God has his own character and once the “ring is lost” all that is left is a “finger” without adornment. You think about that just like you told Mu Mu to go away and think about things.

      • + Wolsey

        As Pope JPII said, celibacy is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood.

        The sacramental character of the priesthood therefore has no connexion with celibacy, which is utterly extrinsic to it.

        You’re letting your imagination run wild.

    • + Wolsey

      There’s a typo there: it should be TOLLIT (indicative) not TOLLAT (subjunctive).

      • that claebicy is un-Biblical. I have said that claebicy as a higher calling is unbiblical. Do you have any biblical reason for thinking otherwise? Yes, Jesus was celibate, as was Paul. So? Did Jesus say, though, that we are to follow in his path in that regards? Israel sometimes killed children in their warring ways, does that mean that we are to do so? Just because you can find a situation in the Bible does not mean that this is the only legitimate model.David had hundreds of wives. Does that mean that it is a higher calling for us to have hundreds of wives??2. Where you say you have offered verses supporting claebicy as being regarded in exactly the light I suggest. I’m saying you have not done so. You have offered verses where Paul says he wishes everyone had the gift of being single like he is, but then he goes on to acknowledge that everyone does not have that gift. There are no verses of which I am aware that call claebicy a higher calling. That is your human tradition, but not a biblical one. Which is not to say that I’m knocking it, just that I’m saying it’s not biblical.3. You said: You’ve countered that the family life is Biblical and the monastic is not. I have said that family life is GOOD and there certainly are examples of it in the Bible. I have not said that family life is biblical. Similarly, IF you define (contrary to the dictionary definition) the monastic life as one where community goods and concerns are shared, where simplicity is embraced and concern for the poor is embraced, THEN I agree that it is biblical and a very good thing.IF we are using the dictionary definition of a place where one withdraws from the world, I think that is less biblical, although I am fine with the notion of people withdrawing for prayer and contemplation for a while.It feels like we’re talking past each other a bit. Does this help any?

  • Stephen K

    If I may, I would like to suggest some moderate corrective here. Father John originally asked whether anyone was able to make sense of B F Moloney’s article. In other words, what was B F Moloney trying to say?

    Well, in my book, that called for a comment first and foremost on what we thought HE was saying. We seem to have found ourselves however in a spiral descent of ideology over celibacy as such!

    I can’t help feeling it’s somewhat misplaced to be very insistent or dogmatic about something that applies to someone else rather than oneself, or over something that, if it applies to oneself, does so in a very individual, idiosyncratic way.

    Moreover there seems to be – if not a confusion – an ambiguity in the sense that “celibacy” is sometimes being spoken of here as identical with “sexual abstinence” or otherwise “chasteness”. None of these terms are identical, for they stand for different things.

    The historical fact is that celibacy – non-marriedness – has not always or universally been required of priests. They may have always been expected to be “chaste”, whether or not they have been required to be sexually abstinent. The requirement of celibacy is often justified by symbolic and theological reasons or arguments as well as practical ones. But all these reasons or arguments are intrinsically open to revision and question.

    Unlike, perhaps, the idea that priests – and others – must be chaste in the sense of being sexually respectful and responsible. (If the foundational Christian teaching is that sexual intimacy is a relational sacramental only making sense and only productive of that deep respect for persons necessary for the kingdom of heaven within a formal marriage, then it is a contradiction in terms for someone to be unchaste and a representative of chasteness at the same time.)

    Wolsey, you have opined that celibacy is a God-given natal charism, not something that can be attained by learning or training. I don’t have a settled view about that. Mere non-marriedness seems to me more simply a legal status and condition. But if you mean, as I think you do, by celibacy something akin to joy-filled sexual abstinence, you may be onto something because it is clear some appear to have this but many don’t. But the answer to that is something that only each person can make as they grapple with the meaning and character of their own existence.

    But others are effectively insisting that criticising mandatory celibacy – for priests – is to embrace some evil paradigm. I can’t agree with that. The history and religious landscape just doesn’t bear that out, across many traditions.

    May I conclude by simply saying that Moloney’s article argued against mandatory celibacy for priests. One is entitled, in my view, to agree or disagree with his thesis. It is not, in my view, nor can it be, a matter of faith. It is, I believe, from beginning to end, a matter of prudence and a very personal attitude on the part of an aspirant or candidate for the Roman priesthood. It seems futile to try to suggest anything much more than that its removal would either be likely or less likely to attract more men to ordained priesthood and that, at present, remains speculation.

  • MuMu of St Kilda

    Moloney, Baloney. I believe what may be important to Fr John, a very new priest, is what the unmarried priesthood means to passionate Catholics like Anne and myself. He is unable to perceive himself and all priests who have sacrificed their nature for the sake of their bride, the Church (us) as we do. I would only include the term ‘passionate Catholics” to mean those who love the Church, her disciplines, teachings, customs to the point of seeing that arguing against them is so dreary, so dismal, so …. sad.

    • Anne

      Mu Mu ..sad tonight was a news story 6pm channel 7 of a catholic priest who has been living a lie. Apparently he married a filipina woman last year and has continued “behind the back” of the church his role of “celibate” priest. He didnt even bother to tell his parishioners. they had to find out in his interview on the tv channel. How sad for the church and for Jesus. I am saddened for the Lord.
      Nite for now

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!