If you begin enforcing the current rules about not admitting gays to seminary, you would be down to a few hundred ordinations every year.

As boomers die and gays are turned away, the priesthood would dwindle to maybe around 10k, for 70 million US catholics (and growing).

Catholics would simply exist without priests, which is probably God's plan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36647929)

In Korea there has been 0 scandals, and the no. of Catholics are on the rise vs. the corrupt Protestantism there.

(not to mention the history of the Catholic Church actively fighting against the dictatorship- the cardinal in Korea even told CHun that he'll have to arrest him, the priests and the sisters before getting to the protesters in 1987, and a month later the dictatorship capitulated and allowed the first democratic elections in 16 years)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36648024)

Well, the price for this has become too high. Priesthood is automatically associated with sodomy. Kind of a high price. Catholicism will and must exist without priests.

For centuries Catholics barely received communion, except on high holy days. They'd go to "watch" Mass, but almost never receive the sacrament. Once a year at most. This idea of being a daily communicant -- or even weekly -- is very modern.

Well, western catholics are going to have to go without communion even if nothing changes, because there will not be enough priests to do the sacrament. In many places one priest is responsible to drive to 7 or 8 parishes. May as well get used to communion services with pre-consecrated hosts, or prayer services without being a mass at all.

As for the special fancy stuff like confirmation, confirmation is a dying sacrament anyway, and probably the least important of the 7. But each diocese can staff one bishop to do giant confirmations if that is called for.

But yes, the future is priest-less, whether you think that is a good or bad thing. And lately, it's hard to imagine it wont be an improvement.

If you're one who believes the Holy Spirit actually guides vocations, then you must affirm that the Holy Spirit is drastically limiting the number of ordinations as the gen pop explodes.

I personally think every seminary should be forcefully made to exclude gay applicants, which will bring the number of ordinandi down to a few hundred a year. (Right now its like 500 with gays included). As the boomers die, we will have a few thousand priests left in the USA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36648638)

Well, the price for this has become too high. Priesthood is automatically associated with sodomy. Kind of a high price. Catholicism will and must exist without priests.”

This is kind of a stupid statement tbh.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36649827)

sorry. its true.

Your contribution was "we CANT have a church without priests". I have heard that argument a million times, and its usually about access to the sacraments. Enlighten me if you meant something else.

And my rejoinder -- that "access to the sacraments" is a fairly modern concern to the church, and that this access has come at the price of the complete and utter degradation of the church at the hands of its priests -- still doesnt seem to be rebutted.

Spare me the "we can just renew the church with better policies and more seminars teaching priests not to molest anyone"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36649916)

Saying people used to receive the sacraments less often is meaningless, because the sacraments were still regarded as absolutely critical. That’s why things like a papal interdict existed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36651041)

People didn’t receive less frequently they received like three times in life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36651722)

The early church likely had a much higher fraction of bishops anyway. Of course, the early church also had plenty of married priests and bishops, which is a more obvious and likely solution if there’s a severe shortage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36652172)

in practice, i'm sure they will do something gay like allowing women to become priests. the church is done.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36647982)

If they go the woman priest route, there will be schism. Even the death penalty teaching, which Francis recently reversed, had an inch of wiggle room. Dozens of popes have taught with 100% clarity, and "from the see of peter" that women can NEVER be ordained.

A reversal there would mean institutional death.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36648768)

When I mean Babylonians - I mean the same class of temple usuruers, simony propagators and alterers that have always prevented people from getting to the Truth. The RCC infiltration by communism almost 100 years ago also made it extremely corrupt.

This is warned about in the Old Testament and many other scriptures - the presence of corrupt humanity has always been a plague - people only can liberate themselves by reading scripture - it becomes obvious the situation of the RCC in modern times parallels any other period of gross corruption and degeneracy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36648703)

As for missionary priests from the third world, this is a disastrous "solution". I know these guys very well too. They come from huts and rice villages, only to be planted in an empty five-bedroom house in the suburbs with a shiny Toyota. Their english is indecipherable. Many are good-hearted men, but they cannot lead American congregations. MLB players from the caribbean have a hard few years adjusting to american culture, wealth and life, now imagine youre all alone, no family, no friends, and expected to be a spiritual guide to 1000 white american families.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36648687)

Why wouldn't members of the parish all chip in for speech lessons? Not being facetious. These guys could drastically improve their English over a relatively short period of time with the assistance of a professional.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36650050)

This model is dead, though. Whether another will work remains tbs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36648992)

In the height of my roaring 20s I left MFH and joined seminary in order to give my entire life to the church. as Ive posted a dozen times before, I had a good experience in many ways. i entered with ten guys, about four were gay. the first two years of jesuit novitiate were intense and life-changing. the years taht followed, in what they call philosophate, were lonely, sick and unhealthy. Me and the other straights left, some gays left, two gays remained.

i would never encourage my son to do the same unless things are radically changed, and they wont be.

Sad.

I did first communion my son, but Im not sending him to catholic school. Nor will I give a shit if a perv bishop "confirms" him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36649870)

During these cases, I listened to unvarnished, first-hand accounts of life in the local diocese seminaries in the 60s, both from the perspective of the diddlers and others. It was beyond disgusting. All of the old fucks who allowed that cancer to take hold and metastasize throughout the church should be burned at the stake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36650146)

1960's were a disaster for just about every american institution as far as i can tell, but sad how bad the church got it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056026&forum_id=2#36652830)