This has been a bone of contention
for many decades within the Catholic
Church.

The reasons I had always assumed were
because the Church couldn't support
a priest with a family.

However, the other religions don't have
a problem supporting their clergy with
families - and the Catholic Church is
wealthier than most of them.

I feel that if a priest wants to marry
he should be allowed to do so.

What do others think?

If we live in a society where religions are hostile to the freedoms of others, they should be forced to as they do others.

Providing they mind their own business in society and stop seeking a 'theocracy', I think it's a call only the Pope can make.

Yes.

Surely the point in Catholicism is celibacy rather than simply being single? I thought that abstaining from pleasures of the flesh symbolises a priest's commitment to god? Certainly nuns are metaphorical brides of christ.

Celibacy has fine and ancient antecedents and I do understand how some people channel their sexual energy into one's spiritual life. Some priests may choose to be celibate, or at least partially celibate, for that reason. But the Catholic Church became, at some point, a haven for those who had an uncomfortable inkling their desires were not of a strictly heterosexual and conventional nature.

I think it's a good measure if someone is properly dedicated. They should have to give up something substantial to live off the donations of the church goers, and to prove they are more worthy than the people they are preaching to and receiveing donations from.

See if I was religious, I'd want the bastard preaching to me and telling me how to live my life to have some sort of moral high ground in which to preach from at least. But I suppose the way it is you've got someone who has no idea what it's like to have a wife and kids or sex (supposedly) telling you how to live your life.

I suppose it's where religion falls down in my eyes. Too much about 'show' and proving your credentials in holyness. I trust people who are good because they believe in being good rather than those that are scared of hell or what the church community will say.

Foxy,

I was interested to hear that priests were able to marry prior to the 13th century, but that the Church introduced into its ranks the practice of priests not being able to marry at about this time in order to stop the (terrible!) practice of priests passing on their estate to their families. That is, the Church wanted the properties for itself. A hallelujah moment in the history of Church.

If that's the best reason the Church can come up with, I reckon this practice deserves to well and truly come under the spotlight.

To answer your question, priests should absolutely be able to marry if they so desire. This would be beneficial for a number of reasons: make the priests' lives more whole as well as to allow women to have a decent standing in the Church. In my opinion, the current practice is a lazy artifice that has been hanging around the Church for far too long.

I've always been told that there were several
reasons priests were not allowed to marry...

First was they had to have a single-hearted devotion
to Christ and giving themselves entirely to God.
This was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican
Council (1962-1965). It affirmed that priests
who were celibate had an "undivided heart."

Secondly, Celibate priests had the ability to give
themselves completely to parishners.

Thirdly, They were expected to renounce "worldy
pleasure," including the joy of sex.

Lastly, it was thought that
a married person had a conflict
of interest between religious commitments
and familial responsibilities.

Sexuality was thought to be suspect and not
appropriate for clergy to engage in sexual
activity.

Whether many of us would accept those reasons
as valid in today's modern world or not, doesn't
really matter as far as the Church is concerned.
As many have pointed out, the Church is still
run by traditionalists who will adhere to the old
legalistic ways of the past.

Change in the Church comes slowly at the best of times.
Hopefull, one day priests will be able to make a choice
between marriage or celibacy.

We may even get to call our parish priests by their
first name, instead of the patriarchal and impersonal,
"Father."

A lot of problems could of been avoided if the priests with homosexual tendencies were not taken in the first place. Discrimination would be the cry from many but many lives might not of been ruined.

Dear runner,

I think you're doing a bit of stereotyping
aren't you?

I mean what do you regard as "homosexual
tendencies?"

How can you tell the gender preference of
someone? Unless they tell you.
And I would assume few people going into
the priesthood would.

I would also assume not all homosexuals are
into sexual abuse - the same as not all
heterosexuals are wife beaters.

You can't pigeon hole people according to
their sexual preference.

There's also a big difference between homosexuality
and paedophiles.
Perhaps you're confusing them.

"Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?"

Indeed yes, Foxy. And so should Brothers and Nuns if they so choose. They should also receive a salary regardless of marital status.

Half the Brothers I once worked with are now married.

One dear friend, who after quitting, declared:

"Super? What's that? Twenty seven years as a Christian Brother and all I left with was a push bike!"

Runner,
What problems are you referring too?
Homosexual tendencys occur in all religions.
I go to a AOG Church (Although I do not adhear to all its beliefs), and it was the head of this organization, Frank Houston who committed acts of peadophilia on young boys in New Zealand. He was married.

Allowing priests to marry might be a good idea. It would encourage more young men to join the priesthood, and it might help priests be better marraige counsellers. But it will not stop peadophilia among a minority of priests. Most acts of peadophilia are committed by men with their daughters - ie married men.

Foxy, my recollection is that Paul said something like the following.
My paraphrasing

It's an easier to focus on the job without family committments.
If the lack of a partner causes problems then it's better to have a partner.

One size does not fit all. Some people function remarkably better with a spouse, others get driven to suicide and most are in the middle somewhere. Being married does not seem to stop people being unfaithful to their committments, thats about something else. What it may do is reduce the temptation and distraction for those who do keep their vows but struggle with it.

R0bert

Foxy you write

'I would also assume not all homosexuals are
into sexual abuse - the same as not all
heterosexuals are wife beaters.'

I have no doubt you are right. We would however be blind to the fact that the vast majority of people practicing homosexual lifestyles can not hold a relationship together. I have no doubt that young boys are in more danger from homosexuals just like young girls are in more danger from heterosexuals.

I doubt whether allowing priests to marry would make any difference to abuse rates. I suspect it is more likely to be sexually active people (in the case of Priests, homosexual activity that leads to child abuse). There are always exceptions to the rule.

Dear runner,

I'm glad that you clarified the point you
were making. I misunderstand you.

And I'm glad that you agree -
you can't generalize about people.
There are exceptions to every rule.

The argument for celibacy of Roman Catholic clergy is clearly not a Biblical one.

Nothing in the New Testament teaches that priests ought to be celibate. In fact, St Paul taught (1 Timothy 3:2, 12 Titus 1:6) that a bishop or a deacon should be "the husband of one wife". This position lasted down to about the time of the Council of Nicaea.

The earliest enactment on celibacy is from the Council of Elvira (295-302). If bishops, priests and deacons were already married and continued to live with their wives they were sacked. So much for the sanctity of marriage!

At the close of the fourth century, married clergy were still to be found, so new laws were passed. E.g. in 386 Pope Siricus forbade priests and deacons from having sex with their wives. Although by the time of Pope Leo 1 (440-61) the law of celibacy was generally recognised in the Western Church, there were continuing problems in reality e.g. in England down to the 12th century.

In the Eastern Church (Greek/Russian/Armenian etc) the laws of celibacy are complex but in general married men may become priests and retain their wife, but single men must not marry after ordination.

The Church's arguments for celibacy seem to amount to these:

- Unmarried men make better servants of God because, in remaining celibate, they demonstrate their devotion and self-discipline.

- Because marriage is holy, priests might give their first thoughts to their wife and children and not to the service of God. It's a form of sacrifice in the name of a higher duty than even the duty to reproduce God's creatures.

So, since celibacy is not a matter of faith but a matter of utilitarian opinion, therefore it's a matter which can be tested by evidence.

The fact that over 100 Catholic employees have been found guilty of sexual crimes in Australian courts in the last few decades could be evidence that the unintended consequences of the policy of celibacy indicate that the policy is failing and should be reviewed as it was in the 4th Century

Foxy,

I agree with Veronika to a point that continence is the theologically important thing but I support a general disciplinary rule of prohibiting marriage in most cases as there were serious problems enforcing continence prior to the introduction of the current disciplinary rule.

“First was they had to have a single-hearted devotion to Christ and giving themselves entirely to God.”

I believe this issue is fundamental. The Catholic belief is that people are free to marry or not marry but celibacy is a job requirement for being a priest. We believe that some people choose to enter priesthood including taking on the celibacy (which is well publicized in this religion) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven if they can take it. I believe that from the time of making a commitment to enter priesthood (ie. entering seminary) to being ordained takes about 7 years. Those that can take it should know who they are by then. Those who can’t live their life like a eunuch should realize it by then and not get ordained.

Historically there have been difficulties in enforcing continence with married priests and in the 11th century the celibacy thing was introduced as a disciplinary measure after centuries of problems enforcing continence on married men. This was clear as early as 306AD in some places (Elvira wasn’t an ecumenical council). We know that Canon 33 from the Council of Elvira stated:

“We have decreed a general prohibition for married bishops, priests, and deacons or also for all clerics who have been appointed to ministry: they must not come together with their wives and they must not beget children. Whosoever shall do the same shall be expelled from the ranks of clergy.”

Later in the 4th Century documentary evidence demonstrates the problem throughout the Church as Popes Damasus and Siricius needed to teach that higher clerics and their wives must live in perfect continence.

Subsequent to the 11th century it has obviously been hard enough ensuring that priests comply with the current obligation let alone enforcing marital continence.

CONT

Much earlier a Catholic Bishop laid down a number of requirements for qualifying as a Bishop. The standards were high including being temperate, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not being a recent convert, gentle etc. This included a prohibition on ordaining men who remarried into that role. Some believe that the reason for this curious prohibition was that remarried men have virtually proven themselves incapable of being continent and thus would have difficulty doing so for the sake of the Kingdom.

“Secondly, Celibate priests had the ability to give themselves completely to parishners.” / ...
a married person had a conflict of interest between religious commitments and familial responsibilities.”

Priests are effectively married to the Church. They do occupy a rather unique role and are continually on call. The sacramental nature of the denomination puts them in that situation. They don’t just say Mass and attend to normal parish duties. They also need to get up at 2am and rush off urgently to administer last rites when required. For example, as a parent I find it hard to imagine rushing out after your babies were awoken by the phone call and your tired partner is complaining about being left in the middle of the night with two screaming babies who will keep each other awake if kept together but both need attention.

We believe that it is better that priests are celibate because unmarried men can focus on the things of the Lord while married men are anxious about pleasing their wife and their focus is thus divided. Accordingly, prohibiting marriage is the default position. However this is not a one size fits all situation as Robert pointed out and exceptions are made if they are clearly warranted. The flip side is the belief that if someone is inclined to burn in lust they are considered to be better off not entering the priesthood as they would be better off married and having sex.

I wasn’t going to bother with posting on this thread, as I believe the question of whether priests be permitted to marry is becoming increasingly rhetorical rather than debatable. Anyone who serves the public should be a part of their community rather than APART from it, and that includes the clergy.

However, MJPB’s justification for a celibate priesthood has not been fully thought through. He claims:

“Priests are effectively married to the Church. They do occupy a rather unique role and are continually on call. The sacramental nature of the denomination puts them in that situation......

…..They also need to get up at 2am and rush off urgently to administer last rites when required. For example, as a parent I find it hard to imagine rushing out after your babies were awoken by the phone call and your tired partner is complaining about being left in the middle of the night with two screaming babies who will keep each other awake if kept together but both need attention.”

Using M’s logic that means the following professions should be celibate:

Doctors
Nurses
Paramedics
Fire Fighters
Police
Military
And any other person who job requires being on-call.

Well, I guess that would take care of over-population

Celibacy does not bestow any particular virtue on a person, nor does it prevent anyone from serving whatever religion they believe in. It is an anachronism from a time where such illusory pretensions fooled most of the people most of the time.

Cheers

"Celibacy does not bestow any particular virtue on a person, nor does it prevent anyone from serving whatever religion they believe in. It is an anachronism from a time where such illusory pretensions fooled most of the people most of the time."

Touche Fractelle

mjpb - "...I agree with Veronika to a point that continence is the theologically important thing."

But you can't dismiss out of hand the historical facts of Church policy on continence or celibacy. It's not a theological issue at all - it's a governance and organisational issue. This is a man-made rule which God would probably find very strange.

As for your practical spin on the issue, I'm afraid Fractelle has got you by the short and curlies. Am I to be denied the joy of sex and having children because my partner is often required to attend emergencies of his profession?

Really funny how those who hate the catholic church so much want to tell the Vatican how to run the show. I suspect we have more child molesters among doctors, nurses, teachers and sports coaches than among Catholic Priests. The Catholic Priests obviously get 20 times the coverage of others (thanks to our 'unbiased media). They are also expected to pay compensation when the other deviants don't.

The fact is that Priests know what they are signing up for and do it willfully. If they don't agree they can join the Anglicans or not join at all.

People outside of the Catholic church telling them how they should run the show is pure arrogance. I disagree with some major things in the Catholic church. I left, end of story. Why should they listen to me or you?

Fractelle,

You are correct that I didn’t think about it a lot. Small town doctors have the dubious distinction of potentially also being continually on call but as a Christian serving Christian spiritual needs has a special importance to me. Hence from a clearly different perspective I consider that worthy of consideration.

Spikey,

”But you can't dismiss out of hand the historical facts of Church policy on continence or celibacy. It's not a theological issue at all ...”

Celibacy is certainly a man-made rule. Sexual continence's history is less clear. The history will probably emerge slowly as, since the swinging sixties, most people have considered any type of sexual continence absurd and few historians will probably take the ball.

19th Century historical research looking at sexual continence in the Church ceased when the writings of an early historian Socrates were discovered. In consequence subsequent research took the perspective of celibate versus married with early married clergy assumed to have sex until continence was established developing during the 4th Century.

Socrates established that continence was not universally an issue as late as 325 at the Council of Nicea. He recorded the actions of Paphnutius who he described as a Bishop of Upper Thebes. Other Bishops at the Council of Nicea wanted to introduce a law that consecrated men were forbidden to have sex with the wives they married prior to their conversion. Paphnutius spoke up. He argued that it was unreasonable, undesirable, would tempt cleric’s spouses to be unfaithful and that tradition (presumably from Paul) only forbids subsequent marriage.

Noone was looking for earlier continence because historians all knew that it was not required as late as the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea had been a useful landmark because unlike the Council of Elvira it was the first Ecumenical Council and thus applied to the whole Church.

The Paphnutius story was established to be a fraud only in 1968 by Winkelmann. Historians like Cochini and Heid are now re-exploring the issue of early continence. But as I said I expect slow progress.

runner,

"Really funny how those who hate the catholic church so much want to tell the Vatican how to run the show."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate the Church, just the deviant practice that sometimes happens.

"I suspect we have more child molesters among doctors, nurses, teachers and sports coaches than among Catholic Priests."

Probably true.

"The Catholic Priests obviously get 20 times the coverage of others (thanks to our 'unbiased media). They are also expected to pay compensation when the other deviants don't."

That's because the Church, at an institutional level, has always acted so piously. The level of criticism of it will be in proportion to how good they make themselves look. As for compensation, IMO they can start paying back what they've fleeced off the rest of society by getting into bed with authorities over the centuries.

"People outside of the Catholic church telling them how they should run the show is pure arrogance."

It depends on the reason why. If you're trying to straighten out a warped view of the world, I reckon it's quite reasonable and fair to put a contrary view.

"Why should they listen to me or you?"

Of course, they normally just ignore it. But if enough people start saying it, they won't be able to just sweep the problem under the carpet.

Hi Foxy,

Absolutely! I know, as friends, at least two Church of England ministers, two guys whom attended Moore College but act only in a lait capacity and one Seventh Day Adventice pastor. All these fathers, in a secular sense, are married, have wives and great families. All are well adjusted and seemingly handle the their religious activities very capably.

On Larry King, in the US, I saw a segment, where Larry asked a Catholic Church historian about this matter. His reply was there were times that priests wre allowed to marry and that at some time in the future it might be again allowed. The priest historian said he believed the real reason was that with families would come dynasties within the Church. Something the Church would be trying to avoid.

Should married women be priests or bishops. Again, yes.

Albeit, I am not committed to religion for hisorical and scientific reasons, if churches are to exist and present their ethical and moral side; then I feel it is the individual clergy member's choice, not that of their Church and Vocation.

If memory serves, vestal virgins could retire and later have sex in marriage. Likewise, some first century groups [Essenes?] treated abstance like Lent. They were times were they could have relief with sacred prostitutes outside of marriage.

Sin in "thought" was a real problem in the early Centuries CE, in some groups because of the presence of erotic dreams [Mack]. Hard to escape that one.

I've just recently went out and bought a
copy of the book by Paul Collins, "Believers:
Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future."
I read a review of it in Saturday's,The Age,
19th July 2008.

Paul Collins is described as one of Australia's
most controversial and respected commentators
on the Catholic Church. A graduate of Harvard
Divinity School and the Australian National
University, he is a former priest and a historian
and broadcaster.

Collins tells us that "... the Catholic church can be
an extraordinarily frustrating institution.
Many of its problems are completely self-inflicted.

For instance, while there is overwhelming evidence in
Australia and elsewhere of a desperate shortage of
priestly pastoral leadership in parishes and other
ministries, a shortage that in Latin America is
leading to the defection of literally millions of
Catholics to fundamentalist Protestanism, church
authorities still hang onto the requirements of
celibacy as a precondition for ordination."

This requirement Collins emphasizes was imposed on
the clergy of the western church in the 11th century for
reasons that make absolutely no sense today.

Collins explains that, "Even then it had nothing to do with
improving the spiritual or moral life of priests.
Celibacy was used in the 11th century as a way of maintaining
a primitive form of ritual purity, and of preventing the
alienation of church property by laity and stopping
priest-fathers from passing on their parishes to their
priest-sons.

Nowadays the requirement of celibacy is seen for what it is:
a requirement of church law that could be changed today."

What is interesting is that despite the massive shortage of
priests and the fact that a large majority of the
Australian bishops would ordain properly trained married men
immediately. Collins says that they are stopped by popes and Roman authorities who solidly refuse to face up to the problem
of the shortage of clergy.

That's not logical.

CONT'D

Collins further says, "In the process Catholicism
is in danger of losing aspects of its essential
core., that is, worship, Mass and the Sacraments,
the very heart of the church, and a defining
element of what it means to be Catholic. Yet in order
to hang onto celibacy senior ecclesiastics refuse to
train and ordain suitable married men to lead that
worship.

And they do this in face of the fact that the vast
majority of Jesus' apostles and disciples were married,
including the first pope, Saint Peter, as were by far
the greater number of priests and bishops in the first
1100 years of the church's existence."

So why do Church authorities still resist?

Collins gives a quote from experienced church lawyer and
former Sydney Auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson:

"I believe that the Catholic Church is in a prison...
It constructed the prison for itself, locked itself in and
threw away the key. That prison is the prison of not
being able to be wrong... Far too often the Catholic Church
believed that it had such a level of divine guidance that
it did not need the right to be wrong...even when clear
evidence emerges that earlier decisions were conditioned
by their own time and that the arguments for them are not
as strong as they were once thought to be."

This doctrine of infallibility is something that
Collins stresses the Church must now confront.
And commonsense must now prevail

runner, I find it interesting that in the past, when you have been criticised for having an attitude that bases its logic solely on staunch catholicism you've claimed to not be catholic - yet you despise abortions and vociferously speak out in defence of the religion.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

In any case, I'd like to make this contribution to the debate. Allow me to introduce, Pope Alexander the sixth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI

"it was not long before his passion for endowing his relatives at the church's and his neighbours' expense became manifest. Alexander VI had four children by his mistress (Vannozza dei Cattani), three sons and a daughter."

Ah. Well, technically, she wasn't his 'wife' I suppose. Nor were the other, uh, female companions the Popes of that time had.

I know this example's from the past, and clearly it's a different practice today. But given that papal authority is supposedly based on historical events, then I'd say this is a pretty valid entry as well.

Celibacy for the clergy is much like Popes taking new names when appointed and the wearing of ceremonial vestments - all based simply on tradition and not for any ecumenical or biblical reason whatsoever.

It's time many of these useless superstitions were given up in favour of plain common sense.

If they have a serious message to spread, why hide it behind arcane nonsense and bizarre rituals?

Runner,

The apparent arrogance is an artifact of Western Civilization believing that it owns Christianity for historical reasons. Although most in the culture are disinclined to get an intimate knowledge of the religion they feel like it is their property. Catholicism is subject to that type of thinking. Rather than individual arrogance I believe it is a cultural phenomenon.

Foxy,

”That's not logical.”

Of course not it is rhetorical. Collins gets accolades from the media because he is undermines the Church. He is well qualified to speak but Cardinal Pell would be better qualified. Yet the media will never describe Pell like than nor promote a book he writes.

I firmly doubt that a lack of priests forces people into fundamentalist Protestantism. That is an appallingly patronizing and insulting judgement of Latin American people who choose that branch of Christianity. It implies that they are simply after conveniently located worship rather than genuinely seeking the best way to walk with the Lord. However lack of priest often correlates with priests who display little affection for God’s Word. Priests who don’t take their religion seriously are hardly going to inspire people to follow them into the vocation and people seeking God will find a Church where God is welcome.

If you want a more credible evaluation of the issues in the Church try Michael Gilchrist’s Lost. You won’t find the book lauded by the media but Mr Gilchrist is a Catholic looking for solutions and his theories are backed up with research.

Bishop Robinson was recently refused permission to speak at Church venues by a US Archbishop because he is so hostile toward Christ and the Church. They didn’t want the faithful to think he was a regular Catholic Bishop who actually subscribed to the religion. Likewise the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference have issued a statement that he doesn’t understand teaching about the authority of Christ and the Church. The man is extremely secularized. He doesn’t accept the Biblical Jesus nor even his own denomination. It speaks volumes about Collin’s attitude toward the Church that he should quote Robinson.

Dear mjpb,

Have you actually read Paul Collins' book?

I haven't finished it, but the message
that I'm getting from it is - "Keep
hope alive."

As Geraldine Doogue writes in the foreword,
"It is probably Paul Collins' most
constructive book yet... He issues a profound
invitation to fellow Australian Catholics
to seriously evaluate the role of faith in our
lives. He begs us for new energy, to believe the
Church is worth our best renewed effort..."

And, as Collins himself says:
"...Catholicism has shown a great ability to survive
crises of all sorts, including its self-inflicted
problems and stupidity. The paradox is that while
tearing our hair out in frustration, many of us
have stayed, simply because we feel at home in a
church that is such a failed, scarred and sinful
institution. This is why I have always found church
history so helpful: not only does it show the church's
high points, but also reveals the depths to which it has sunk
and still survived..."

I agree with Collins, it's not as though well-informed
Catholics have not been aware of all of these issues
for many years.

I am still optimistic that we are at a turning point and
that the Church will recover, that serious change is
a possibility.

But in order for that to happen - we need to hear voices like
Paul Collins - and not merely accept the legalistic wooden cadence
from men like Geroge Pell - who only preach
the rhetoric of exclusion from past teachings.

My apologies, for the typo.
I meant to type - George Pell.

Sorry.

TRTL

You state 'yet you despise abortions and vociferously speak out in defence of the religion.'

I do despise abortions as do many other non catholics. I don't defend Catholicism and find some parts of it abhorrent. What I do defend is their right to make their own rules just as every other organization does. They should not have to adapt to the flawed and failed secular dogmas that many in a underhanded way point to. Many would have the whole church feminised if they could and then wonder why no one takes it seriously.To the One true God every catholic will answer to just like every non catholic will. IF they have it wrong then surely it is up to the catholics themselves to fix it not people (many of whom) don't even believe in any God (except themselves)

MJPB: "It implies that they are simply after conveniently located worship rather than genuinely seeking the best way to walk with the Lord."

Surely 99% of all religious people "talk with the lord" via conveniently located worship? Conveniently located within either their country or their culture. Why are Christians Christians? For the same reason Muslims are Muslims — it is the religious system that dominates in their culture/country/family. Of course some people do convert, but ALL the Catholics I know have Catholic parents.

Pentecostalism's all-singin', all-dancin' services and its "it's ok to be rich" message speaks to poor Latin Americans. Plus proximity to the USA means fundies move about. It's a sociological choice rather than a spiritual one.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Runner is a Pentecostal I believe. The media don’t give the full picture. Honesty and concern for social justice and opposition to abortion are normal values across the spectrum of Christian orthodoxy and beyond. Runner is just confident enough to call a spade a spade. If Catholics face injustice he speaks up. Robert, an atheist, occasionally does the same type of thing.

Pope Alexander the sixth was Pope from 1492 to 1503. Historians have demonstrated that from the fourth century the Catholic clergy were not allowed to have sex. His sexual behaviour was part of his misbehaviour not a part of the religion.

Wobbles

“Celibacy for the clergy is much like Popes taking new names when appointed and the wearing of ceremonial vestments - all based simply on tradition and not for any ecumenical or *biblical reason*(my emphasis) whatsoever.”

That is completely obtuse to what celibacy is meant to support. Catholics believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is God. About 2000 years ago he, as a celibate human on earth, reportedly spoke to the apostles who were to lead his continued ministry/Church after He went to heaven. He talked to them about becoming a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven for those that can take it. In consequence a friend asked me if Catholic priests get their “nuts cut off”. Contrarily, we Catholics do not believe that Jesus wanted them castrated. We have understood that to mean He was counseling them and any who wished to follow in their footsteps to refrain from sex, ie. to function like a eunuch.
Peter was married and we understand his claim to have left everything to follow Jesus to include his wife. That appears to be the most extreme self sacrifice in that regard. We understand that priests were only required to refrain from having sex with their wives. That understandably didn’t seem to work to well in spite of the issue being addressed repeatedly in rules, including mandatory dismissal, over many centuries so the present disciplinary rule was introduced in the 11th Century.

Foxy,

“Have you actually read Paul Collins' book?”

No. Have you read Michael Gilchrist’s Lost?

The media display a trend of negativity toward anything Christian but praise the book. This suggests it might not be something media believe will benefit the Church. They may be right. The book quotes Robinson who has some struggles with the faith (though has good qualities outside of it). Then you quote from the book things that sound implausible. On this basis and Collins’s reputation I suspect it isn’t the best at providing the meat to channel the renewed effort that Doogue holds that it calls for. I fully support the “Keep hope alive” message but suspect that it sweetens further counterproductive ideas. All preliminary indications are reading Gilchrist’s book would be more productive and I have read it. Even if Collins merely calls to keep hope alive, if I just wanted to get hyped up I would have gone to World Youth Day.

”… many of us have stayed, simply because we feel at home in a church that is such a failed, scarred and sinful
institution..."

Naturally I am left wondering if he means this literally with the corollary being that his reason for staying doesn’t include believing in the religion.

”… it's not as though well-informed Catholics have not been aware of all of these issues...”

I agree to the extent that in Australia that isn’t too far off the mark as a description. It is floundering, scarred, and as usual contains sinners.

”…we need to hear voices like Paul Collins - and not merely accept the legalistic wooden cadence from men like Geroge Pell ....”

Do you mean read both or listen exclusively to the voice of someone who all appearances indicate won’t generate the answers and shut out any input from (as a minimum) a highly intelligent clergyman who is clearly committed to the Church? If you mean the latter would you be open to reading Gilchrist or do you want to confine yourself to Collins?

Veronika,

Sure I over simplified but what I was addressing was rude and dubious.

mjpb,

Some more historical perspective -

In Biblical times many wives and concubines wer common and never spoken against other than by Paul. Jewish priests suggest 4 wives was probably about the right number.

Before the middle ages it was OK for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses.

Popes who were the sons of other Popes or other clergy were St Damascus I, St Innocent I, Boniface, St Felix, Anastasius II, St Agapiyus I, St Silverus, Duesdedit, Boniface VI, John XI and John XV.

As Church wealth grew, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property and Pope Gregory later declared all sons of priests illegitimate.

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII later banned marriages and mistresses for priests.

Finally in 1139, Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.

All this was done to protect money and Church property.

This had nothing to do with morality but it was about protecting Church assets.

Priests and even popes still continued to marry and have children for several hundred years after 1139. The Eastern Catholic Church still has married priests.

Popes who had illegitimate children after that date include Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, Julius, Paul III, Pius IV and Gregory XIII.

Popes who were married were St. Peter (Apostle), St. Felix III (2 children), St. Hormidas (1 son), St. Silverus , Hadrian II (1 daughter), Clement IV (2 daughters) and Felix V (1 son). (The last two were AFTER 1139).

Then in the 15th-century, attempts were made to reintroduce clerical marriage but these were defeated by a group of ultra-orthodox Church leaders who insisted that celibacy was of Apostolic origin.

This became official doctrine at the Council of Trent in 1563.

The notion that celibacy was there "from the beginning" is really reinterpreting history.

It’s much like those convenient Christian “explanations” behind all the traditional aspects of Christmas and Easter, when these have always been pagan celebrations with the original symbolism and customs hijacked and misappropriated.

Wobbles,

It is historically established that requiring priests to be sexually continent is documented from the 4th Century contrary to your free for all until a 1022 interest in assets. Spikey, who is vigorously debating with me, was aware of that before I mentioned it. Don’t believe everything you google. The real debate is whether Catholics are correct that the 4th Century actions was merely an enforcement due to disciplinary issues, the Protestant view that it was a bastardization of prior practice, or the atheist view that it was a curious anomaly that developed then (and of course whether it should be abolished now). But the free for all until 1022 is a red herring you have uncovered.

”The notion that celibacy was there "from the beginning" is really reinterpreting history. “

It is the Catholic belief that what is established from the 4th century commenced prior to that and scripture indicates it started with Christ. The issue was sexual continence not celibacy. Celibacy was introduced much later as a disciplinary rule. Sexual continence is indicated in scripture first by Jesus who called for it but acknowledged it wasn’t for everyone then by Paul making analogous comments that explained its benefits but also acknowledged that some people lust too much and should get married instead and also by Paul requiring that Bishops must not have remarried, and by Peter leaving his wife to follow Jesus, and by Jesus being celibate when leading the disciples. My point is that it is misleading to say that a disciplinary measure that supports something scriptural (in our interpretation) is “not for a biblical reason”.

”It’s much like those convenient Christian “explanations” …pagan celebrations with the original symbolism and customs hijacked and misappropriated.”

Call them hijacking if you will but they celebrate the birth and resurrection of Jesus. No pagans had done so. At least Christmas was clearly a Christian celebration until Coca Cola converted Saint Nicholas into Santa Claus in a red suit. Now ironically neo-pagans and the secular have hijacked the Christian celebration.

"Anyone who serves the public should be a part of their community rather than APART from it, and that includes the clergy." - Fractelle

Well said. One can have vocation without separation.

I guess the notion of The Brides of Christ, would need to go.

O

Dear mjpb,

I am more than willing to read
Michael Gilchrist's book, but are you
willing to read the book by Paul Collins?
I mean, fair's fair.

You seem to make judgements about Paul Collins,
even questioning his beliefs,
without having read the book to which I refer.

My views of Paul Collins differ greatly from yours.

I find him to be extremely optimistic. He does
not undermine the Church as you put it. Instead, he
Confronts both the difficulties and the opportunities
that the Church faces.

He does not offer only simplistic solutions to the
complex historical process through which the Church
and our society is passing. He actually offers solutions
that make sense.

Anyway, read the book, and I'll do the same,
then we can compare notes.

Cheers.

"Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?"

It might stop some of them from raping kids. That's an up-side.

Using StG logic

'"Should state school teachers and doctors be prevented from marrying?" It might stop them raping young kids.

I feel that by continuing to require
celibacy as a pre-requisite, the Church
has set itself an impossible task.

This really limits the number of those
who can serve in the priesthood, and
thus the episcopate.

According to Paul Collins:

"Benedict XVI may want to appoint
better bishops, but he has a tiny,
contracting pool of talent on which to draw
if he limits himself to the present serving
clergy.

In a worldwide community of 1.098 billion
Catholics the Church draws its entire episcopate of
4600 bishops from a pool of 405,891 priests.

Despite the enormous leadership potential in the
Catholic community the Church artificially limits
its choice to these men who have to be celibate,
ordained at least 15 to 18 years and less than 65 years old.

They also need at least a modicum of spirituality,
intelligence and human talent and must be basically
acceptable to the diocese to which they are appointed.

They should never have publicly disagreed with papal teaching,
or said anything radical, or upset too many people, have no
medical or psychological problems, not be in any type of
intimate relationship that causes scandal, and have reasonable
leadership skills, common sense and good judgement."

Where on earth is the Pope going to find
enough suitable and talented men from such a restricted pool
to lead Catholicism's 2900 dioceses and other ecclesiastical
units?

In other words the Church is already in a difficult situation.
It doesn't need the requirement for celibacy to further
hinder its ministry.

Using StG logic

'"Should state school teachers and doctors be prevented from marrying?" It might stop them raping young kids.

Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 7:19:43 PM

That's your logic derived from something I said. Don't put my name to something that comes out of your head thanks.

Priests raping females could, in some instances, be avoided by marriages. In some cases a certain tolerance of Homosexual priests may help save some boys from a life of torment.

Foxy,
Not being catholic or religous in any way, I have stayed out of this debate. But the thought occured to me that, from a purely practical view, the existance of celibate priests means less competition for the available girls. Do you know how many Catholic clergy there is in Aus?

Dear Banjo,

I don't think you've got much to worry
about. It's a question of chemistry
when you're choosing a mate - isn't it?
And I imagine you'd have no problems
in that department whatsoever.

Besides, not every man wants to marry
nowadays, priests are no exception.
I'm simply raising the question of
giving them a choice.

I see a massive inconsistency in the
fact that Catholicism has accepted convert married
clergy into its ministry, particularly from the
Anglican and Lutheran churches in Germany,
England, the USA, Canada, Australia and other
countries, ordaining them while refusing to accept
the ministry of experienced Catholic priests who
want to marry, forcing them to leave.

With this inconsistency I feel that priests
should no longer feel obliged to be celibate.
It should be a matter of choice.

As for the number of priests - I've given
the stats in my earlier post.
Worldwide I think there's over 400,000.

All The Best,

StG,

Before you fire something like that off please re-read what Runner typed and have a think about it.

Between you and I not very many females were involved in priestly abuse cases. Your last sentence makes me wonder if you have something you need to share and I'd love to discuss it but I don't think it would be productive in this forum. It might be something you need to address in the "real world" but if you need to talk about it please find someone or let me help you to do so.

Foxy,

"...are you willing to read the book by Paul Collins?"

I'm worried it might be like pulling teeth but I've ordered it online.

"They should never have publicly disagreed with papal teaching,
or said anything radical, or upset too many people, have no
medical or psychological problems...."

Either Geoffrey Robinson was good at hiding things or the net is extremely wider than that. Although Bishop Robinson is rejected even by Australian Bishops there are a number of other Australian Bishops who don't fall within those narrow criteria albeit not quite as extremely. I suspect Collins is exagerating.

"And they do this in face of the fact that the vast majority of Jesus' apostles and disciples were married, including the first pope, Saint Peter, as were by far the greater number of priests and bishops in the first 1100 years of the church's existence."

I presume you have been following the discussion so I'll just target his assertion about the apostles. Is it just me or is that how you read it the first time? The term disciples applied to anyone who followed him to learn didn't it? (Luke 6:17) Until he told them that they would need to eat his flesh he had a huge crowd. If most of his apostles (as it read to me at first reading) were married it could be significant but if the big crowd following were married (very few of whom became apostles/pastors) it has little relevance. Mr Collins should be more careful to avoid confusion.

Celibacy is not the same thing as sexual continence.

In a religious sense, Celibate means “renouncing marriage”. Sexual Continence means refraining from any form of sexual intercourse and chaste means conforming to sexual morality.

A married man having sex with his wife is therefore chaste, but is not celibate or continent.

An unmarried man having sex with anyone can still be celibate, but is neither continent nor chaste.

These are the factors that changed over time in the Church. Abstinence was encouraged "before performing Mass" for example.

It was still permissible for clergy have (and retain) wives and children before becoming ordained.

The Council of Elvira in the 4th century forbade sexual relations with wives but did not demand celibacy.

This was progressively banned and eventually all existing marriages officially not recognised and dissolved by the Church.
(In 1123 - "Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved, and that the persons be condemned to do penance." )

The tradition of clerical continence developed into a practice of clerical celibacy (ordaining only unmarried men) from the eleventh century onward among Latin Rite Catholics and became a formal part of canon law as late as 1917.

Celibacy for priests is a discipline in the Roman Catholic Church, not a doctrine, and can be changed at any time.

"Between you and I not very many females were involved in priestly abuse cases."

Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 24 July 2008 12:50:49 PM

Tell that to the females it has happened to.

StG,

Not after putting my foot in my mouth like that.

Rache,

That is correct and the definitions were good as that hasn't been done before in here. For the sake of pendanticism I note that the Council of Elvira was not an ecumenical council and didn't apply everywhere. Universal application hasn't been established with documentary evidence until later that century.

Should priests be allowed to marry ? hmmmmm

This should answer that.

Fact 1. "Peter", according to Roman Catholic tradition was the first 'Pope'...

Fact 2. Mark 1:29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. 31So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

So..if the first pope had a mother in law.. obviously he was.. MARRIED :)

Where did the RC Church go wrong?

Aah.. there is a joke about this.

The old monk down in the basement studiously copying some ancient manuscript.. and down comes the Abbot who exlaims... "Father.. it was CeliBRATE..not "celibate" :)

Dear mjpb,

Dr Paul Collins was referring specifically
to the disciples of Jesus.
As I'm sure you're well aware - if you
know your Church history.

Dr Collins is a historian and a
graduate of the Harvard Divinity School and the
Australian National University as I've stated
previously. His credentials are impeccable.

I'm congratulate you for having ordered Dr Collins'
book online. Hopefully you shall read it with
an open mind, as I intend to do with Michael
Gilchrist's book.

I must admit this discussion is getting
tedious. And I'm beginning to suspect
that it is a waste of my time and yours
for us to continue. We can just simply
agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am sick to death of the spurious
reasons advanced for the maintenance of celibacy
It is simply a church law that has out-lived its
usefulness.

Dear Banjo,

According to the 2006 census which shows the number
of Australian Catholics increased by 125 260 or 2.5%
to 5 126844 over the 2001 census. The number of active
priests in 2007 was around 2150.

That is one priest for around 2400 Catholics.

This is much lower than in the US where the ration is
about one priest to 1900 Catholics.

So while the number of Catholics continues to increase
the number of priests continues to decrease and age.

Foxy

Thank you for initiating this discussion. It's been very interesting, but I think you are right to assess that it has probably run its course.

The debate reminds me again that intelligence and rationality, while closely inter-related, are not necessarily coterminous. It revived for me memories of the recent debate about whether 'my opinion is as good as the next'. Clearly some opinions are no more than dreary pre-judgments unsullied and unaffected by contrary evidence.

I find that I look forward to reading your posts because you are prepared to engage and to vary your opinion in the light of new evidence or a tighter argument. Can you multiply yourself for the betterment of OLO?

Dear Spikey,

Thank You so much
for your very kind words.

I don't pretend to have all the answers,
and I'm not that egotistical as to think
that I can change any one else's point of
view.

There are far wiser posters on this Forum.
(Maybe not as good-looking? ... just kidding):)

I simply enjoy the interaction.

However, as I said in my previous post -
and you concur - I think that this thread
has run its course. I've said all I have
to say on the topic.

Thanks to You and Everyone, for their inputs, and for
making this thread an interesting one.

As a non-catholic, I might observe not

“Should Catholic Priests be allowed to marry?”

But

“Should Catholic Priests be allowed?”

I guess, as a libertarian, I am prepared to suggest they may be allowed

But their organization and they should be allowed only on parity with other organizations which qualify for tax exemptions under the rules of the charity commissioners and only after a thorough investigation by an independent authority into the cover-up of pedophilia and other corruption within their ranks.

As for the recent focus on this religious denomination and its jamboree,

As a non-catholic living in a secular country with historic fealty to a non-catholic monarch (I thought I would throw that in for our home grown republicans), all I can say is

imho the Pope is just another cat who is getting fat on the stupidity of his flock by pretending he is the exclusive conduit between men, women and their maker.

That's one way of looking at it, Col. My own suspicion is that more often than not they actually believe their own rhetoric. Which is unfortunate, because if they were simply conning people then there would be a chance that their conscience would get to them. So whilst I don't think he's 'pretending' I kind of wish he was.

Though ultimately it doesn't make one iota of difference in the scheme of things whether they believe it or not.

I was so sure that this discussion
had run its course.
Apparently not yet.

I'd like to quote from Dr Paul
Collins in response to the two
previous posts:

"Our culture has long moved from
Hellenistic concepts such as
omnipotence, eternity, immutability
and the supernatural, and distinctions between
person and nature, essence and existence,
substance and accidents. Rhetoric like this
is difficult to people like ourselves who
think in relational, psychological,
evolutionary, historical and functional terms.

So...what is the relevance to the future of
Catholicism?

...we are dealing with a shift of emphasis...
rather than the actual abolition of Hellenistic
metaphysics... a shift of emphasis does not imply
the 'abandonment' or jettisoning of something.
It simply means we have already integrated the past.
Today history and human experience are the norms
we use to understand our human predicament and metaphysics
is relegated to the background.

Essentially our challenge is to formulate a contemporary
theology and catechesis that recognises the role of
memory and experience. History is about the ever-changing,
always complex and often serendipitous interplay of
events, processes, circumstances and personalities in
extraordinarily diverse and variegated sets of cultural
and political contexts. As such it is a much needed
antidote and balance to the absolutes of metaphysics..."

Catholicism has survived precisely because ultimately it is
adaptable and able to change. Often this energy for change
comes late in the piece when everything seems to be in
dire straits and it may well emerge from the most
unexpected source.

As Saint Paul says "God chose what is foolish in the
world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in
the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low
and despised in the world...to reduce to nothing
things that are" (I Corinthians 1:27-28).

Polycarp,

"The old monk ..."

The way I heard it he had tears streaming down his face. :)

"Fact 1. "Peter"...first 'Pope'...

Fact 2. Mark 1:...30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever...

So..... pope ... obviously ... MARRIED :)

Where did the RC Church go wrong?"

Later, in Luke 18:28, Peter said he left everything he had to follow the Lord. We believe that included his wife. We believe that was the most extreme situation with most pastors merely not having sex with their wives. After a long period of time a disciplinary requirement of celibacy was introduced to make sexual continence more likely.

Rache,

I'll be interested to know what historians come up with prior to the 4th century. However if you look at the writings of early Christians prior to that time certain things (outside the Bible) seem to hint at the requirement being earlier.

Origen in the Didascalia believed to be written somewhere in the first half of the 3rd century wrote:

"Since we see, however, that men married twice can be much better than those who have only married once, we ask ourselves why Paul does not allow twice-married men to be installed in eclesiastical offices...The monogamous man, however, who perhaps has lived together with his wife into old age, we prefer to admit to office, even if he never had become accustomed to chastity and continence."

That has a double significance. It provides a degree of support for much earlier clerical continence. But further, an orthodox pastor not very many centuries after Paul takes it as a rejection of digamous men. Catholics believe the Pauline scripture is a rejection of digamous men. Due to the potentially ambiguous expression Jehovah's Witnesses (in attacking the Catholic faith) claim that Paul is screening out polygamous men and proactively requiring Bishops to marry once. I know from experience debating the point that that interpretation cannot be sustained from the context. Point out the clear problems and people go silent and never revisit it.

Foxy,

"...God chose what is low and despised in the world...to reduce to nothing things that are" (I Corinthians 1:27-28)."

So what do you reckon is despised in the world - celibacy or hedony?

Now you think Collins is not mixing up the apostles with other people when he asserts that the majority were married (although given the sexual continence thing that doesn't close all issues). I note that Tertullian, a Carthage based theologian, believed way back in 217 that Peter was the only married apostle.

I acknowledge Collins has some wonderful qualifications but my point with Pell is just that he has qualifications relating to history and to meaningfully discuss changing celibacy requires recourse to history. The introduction of celibacy had a context. Collins probably wants priests to be married and sexually active or sexually active in a gay union. I suspect he isn't trying to reinstate sexually continent married priests and may not be aware of nor discusses what removing the disciplinary requirement would result in. His understanding appears to be a secular perception of Catholic priesthood in terms of a dichotomy of celibate or married with sex. Without understanding what celibacy means to the Catholic Church I don't see how he can offer constructive suggestions to change things. If these guesses are correct then his understanding may be weaker than mine (as a lay non-historian Catholic) and it supports my point about Pell. I'll see when I read the book.

As Rache said it could be changed at any time but if the denomination has a belief in a divinely mandated sexual continence for pastors this is hardly the time in history when opening up to married men will promote the requirement. I concede that powers that be in the Church might take a different view to MHO but it seems obvious.

Likewise if he thinks that letting priests have sex will bring in more priests then again his solution to the problem of priest numbers might require a better understanding of the history of Catholic clerical celibacy.

Dear mjpb,

There is another element that needs to be considered.
Essentially metaphysical absolutism is about
protecting hierarchy. It is about arranging reality
in a structured, top-down way which ultimately
powerful churchmen (like Pell) interpret. It is
essentially about "sacra potestas:holy power."

As Dr Collins points out, "Metaphysics has survived
because...the ancient structure of "power" has
survived. So, for instance, the Christian church, being
the head of the Roman Empire, could not abandon this structure
of power and was not able to develop all the anti-
metaphysical implications for Christianity."

In my view, Collins is trying to point
out that the Church's beliefs are not set in stone,
the tradition is a dynamic reality that grows and
changes and Cardinal Pell's notion that somehow
there is an immutable reality above history or
that revelation is not an ongoing, developing
reality is simply not true to Catholic theology.

Anyway, read the book. I don't have the space
here to go into great details with you.
You'll get a better understanding after you've read
exactly what Dr Collins has to say.

I don't want to sound like a broken record,
but nowdays the requirement of celibacy is seen
for what it is: a requirement of church law that
could be changed today.

And, as I've stated in my previous posts many
Catholics see a massive inconsistency and a lot
of scandal in the fact that Catholicism has
accepted covert married clergy into its ministry.

They obviously don't have a problem with hedony
when it suits them.

Rache,

Adding to the historical background of priests not having sex is another writing of Origen written way back in or about 245 (during the time of Roman persecution) called “Against Celsus”. It is responding to attacks on Christianity by pagan Celsus.

“…as soon as they have accepted the teachings of Jesus and have entrusted themselves to God, that many of them in the manner of perfect priests who abhor all sexual relations, remain completely pure, not only with regard to sex. Among the Athenians there is very likely some [pagan] priest who is not considered capable of subduing his masculine drives and controlling them to the extent he wishes. Therefore, according to the views on chastity prevailing among the Athenians, he is regarded as pure only when his sexual parts have been coated with hemlock juice. Among the Christians, however, men can be found who do not need hemlock juice in order to serve the Divinity in purity. For them, instead of hemlock, the Word of God is sufficient to remove all evil cravings from their hearts, so that they can present their prayers to the Godhead.”

All,

I agree that people not in a religion shouldn’t tell people how to run their religion but this discussion provides an opportunity for Catholics to share their perspective and a discussion of relevant scriptures can smooth relations with others in the Christian family. Protestants sometimes get the impression that an admission by Catholics that celibacy is merely a disciplinary requirement introduced in the 12th century means that we have no respect for the Word of God based on scriptures such as "be fruitful and multiply" in spite of claiming to follow God. If we can explain how it relates to sexual continence and why we understand that to be important from scriptures then it might even lead to better understanding. Protestants might not agree with our scriptural interpretation and may or may not see celibacy as beneficial in promoting sexual continence but discussions like this at least enable them to know where we are coming from.

"Our culture has long moved from Hellenistic concepts such as
omnipotence, eternity, immutability and the supernatural, and distinctions between person and nature, essence and existence,
substance and accidents. Rhetoric like this is difficult to people like ourselves who think in relational, psychological,
evolutionary, historical and functional terms." - Collins in Foxy

A Black Hole or Zero Degrees Kelvin [as an abstarct, only 2.7K is now possible] would maintain most of these properties. Were we have artisanship without an [Greek]epistemology, we would have the system of the Ancient Chinese; where, discovery was often happenstance. Albeit, the reaction to discoveries was pragmatic, without the restraint of the Christian Church, which gave the West its Dark Ages.
They would have loved Gallileo!

The Muslims in Spain preserved Episte, which aided the Enlightenmight and a few centuries later [c.1760) permitted the Great Divergence. Thank G.., opps, Thank abstract methodology on practical applications.

Collins like Einstein is a nineteenth century thinker, whom finds it hard to release we have now moved beyond even Hiensberg. Cognitively, I p[osit, infinite indeterminancy in quantum mechanics, expressed as an abstract, is closer to a myth, like Christianity, than believe in the engineering of a steam engine.

[Sorry, off topic]

Thinking about mjpb's comments about how the celebacy thing was brought in got me thinking about a couple of verses and then searching for comment on them. I came across an intereting article on married couples and stuff around abstaing for a period (considering those priests who stayed married but did not have sex with their wives) http://www.settingcaptivesfree.com/home/90-day_fast.php

I'm still thinking about how the ones that divorced wives fited with the divorce criteria. Presumably they did not remarry so maybe they did not commit adultery but they left their ex's in a difficult position.

R0bert

Once again I'd like to Thank You all
for your inputs into this discussion.
It has definitely been an interesting
one.

I feel that the way Catholics respond
to contemporary challenges will depend on
which part of the theological
spectrum they inhabit.

We all need to get beyond stereotypes
as Dr Collins points out, "and recognise
the sincerity and contribution to the rich
fabric of the Church of all Catholics, with
different attitudes to our own, even if we
personally don't agree with their specific emphasis."

The reason why Dr Collins stresses this is because
he has, "so often been told by Catholics who disagree
with him to 'get out and found you own church if you
don't accept the doctrines and rules of the club.'
Such people believe that their very narrow definition
of Catholicism is the only one that is valid:
everyone else is a 'heretic' and beyond the pale."
Attitudes such as those of course don't
achieve anything constructive.

It is important for people to get to know
each other and exchange ideas, and one of our
greatest strengths in Australia is our tendency to
"live and let live."

I believe that we can reach a common ground -
and I believe that we will.

Anyway, Thanks once again,
and All The Best,

Personally, I think they should be allowed to marry. Most other priests,pastors,rabbi's etc.are aloowed to marry. There is so much controversy regarding the fact that the reason they do those 'ahem' things is because they have chosen to be priests and stay celibate.

Robert,

"I'm still thinking about how the ones that divorced wives ...Presumably they did not remarry so maybe they did not commit adultery ..."

Did any divorce? I would have think that they weren't able to. As pedantic as it sounds separating without divorce is normally theologically distinguished from divorce.

Foxy,

"so often been told by Catholics who disagree with him to 'get out and found you own church if you don't accept the doctrines and rules of the club.'

Have you considered that it suggests something about him that he attracts such comments particularly when he quotes Robinson who is too liberal for liberal Catholic Bishops? I note your comment and would like to provide some comments in an interview from someone who considers the Catholic Church dangerously (possibly terminally) out of step with worldly values but discussing Pell (even comparing with Collins) comments thusly about whether or not it is constructive:

"Well I should say to start with these are the remarks of a sociologist who’s interested in the current world. I’m not a Catholic and I never have been a Catholic...

Now this is the animal, this is the Catholic church, and it’s a bit like protesting against that is a bit like saying you don’t like lions because they roar or because they eat human beings. That’s the nature of lions. If you don’t like them, you stay away from them. I think at this point, again, viewed as a sociologist from a distance, that someone like George Pell is correct. He is moving into an institution in huge crisis, perhaps terminal crisis in the West. The institution has the logic which I’m talking about, centred on the power of the keys. Unless you follow that particular logic and defend the Pope, defend the key doctrine, take action against priests who are more and more looking like Protestants, or not even Protestants; unless you do that, you’ve lost your institution altogether..."

I've read similar comments by protestants who focus on the "not even Protestants" ie. non Christian aspect.

Married priests served the Church since it was founded until it was banned.Why?
Were the past marriages illegal or wrong?If they werent then why have marriages been made illegal or forbidden since?
It is either right or wrong.
Why are married men admitted to the catholic clergy when they convert to Catholicism later in life? It is either right or wrong? Why the compromise?
socratease

Dear mjpb,

Thank You for giving the quote from the sociologist.

Now, I'll give you one from Father James Kavanaugh,
from his book, "A Modern Priest Looks at His Outdated
Church."

"Catholics do not listen; they have only been taught to
defend. They refuse to question what they have learned
in childhood. They can defend pious superstition with
the same ardor with which they embrace key doctrines of
their faith. They can uphold a Roman ruling with the fire
of a martyr's conviction and ignore it once the bishop
pronouces that Saturday, at midnight, it does not apply.

They can critize non-Catholics as indulgent sinners who
dilute the teachings of Christ. They can ridicule ministers
and rabbis as unworthy prophets or frauds, laugh at the
ceremonies of non-Catholic sects, condemn the vagueness
of other moral teachings without recognizing the rigidity
of their own. Catholics can attack the non-Catholic's
stand on birth control as "selfish compromise" and their
position on divorce as "moral chaos." No one escapes our
wrath or righteous condemnation. Our papers attack the
divorces of people without knowing the circumstances of
their private lives. Catholic leaders can question their
moral fitness for office, and defend with fervour an
alcoholic bishop or a greedy priest. They can scorn welfare
programs which attempt to solve a problem without upholding
the moral opinions of the Church..."

There's much more but I won't list everything here.

And you're right, the Church under Pell will remain
unchangeable.

I agree with Father Kavanagh:

For many of us it helps to look forward to the day when
the Church will have abandoned its arrogance, when it will
not offer its Catholic code to force the conscience of the
world. When it will practice compassion, not exclusion,
when there will be no "non-Catholics", there will be only
persons, struggling to be honest with themselves.
Then we can call others "brother," or "sister," not Jew,
or Protestant or non-Catholic, and hope that they will
forgive our narrowness and call us, "Brother" or "Sister,"
too.

Socrates,

"Married priests served the Church since it was founded until it was banned.Why?"

It is just a disciplinary rule. Basically it is believed that priests alone find it easier to avoid sex than priests who are with their wives. Atheists just consider any restrictions on sex weird. Protestants believe that the Catholic Church went off track after Constantine legalised Christianity and the Roman persecutions ended. Catholics believe that a sexual continence discipline always existed and celibacy is just a logical way of managing things.

For example, consider Eusebius, early Bishop of Caesaria, Palestine (263-339), who wrote:

"It is appropriate for the teachers and heralds of the true worship of God that they are now free of all the chains of earning a living and daily cares. Indeed, for these men it is now commanded to distance themselves resolutely from marriage so as to devote themselves to a more important matter. Now they are concerned with a holy and not a carnal begetting of descendents. And they have taken upon themselves the begetting, the God-pleasing education, and daily care, not of one or two children, but of an indeterminable number all at once."

Likewise, early Christians Jerome and Synesius both label the situation where a cleric and his wife bear a child as adultery which is otherwise hard to explain. Later it would be documented that sexual continence was required from married clergy and much later celibacy for clergy.

"Why are married men admitted to the catholic clergy when they convert to Catholicism later in life? It is either right or wrong? Why the compromise?"

Interesting you should put it that way. I know of analogous situations where permission was refused yet a number of Anglicans were allowed. My stereotype of an anglican Minister is an old codger. Many assume that after a certain age people are less likely to have sex. I have wondered if "later in life" was a significant consideration. I haven't encountered any ex-Anglican priests myself nor know the criteria for that situation.

Dear Foxy,

"... refuse to question what they have learned in childhood..."

Tapping into the indoctrinated Christian child rhetoric. As an former atheist child I have a certain immunity from that tactic.

Father James Kavanaugh largely appears to set up a straw man.

"...indulgent sinners ..."

No way!

"They can ridicule ministers and rabbis as unworthy prophets or frauds"

Orthodox Catholics would be more likely to apply such descriptions to Catholic pastors who reject Christianity entirely.

"laugh at the ceremonies of non-Catholic sects"

In this religion even if you disagree with something you are supposed to be charitable.

"condemn the vagueness of other moral teachings without recognizing the rigidity of their own."

Isn't there is recognition that a moral teaching believed to be handed down by God Almighty might be rigid in the sense that people can't abolish it on a whim? Further, ironic criticism considering the Catholic Church is often condemned for developing biblical doctrine.

"No one escapes ..."

Isn't this guy aware of the developing ecumenical relationship with the rest of the Christian family?

...

"And you're right, the Church under Pell will remain unchangeable."

Did I say that? Pre-Vatican II I believe Pell would have been considered quite progressive. Now compared to people who reject the basics of both Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general he is quite theologically conservative.

"For many of us it helps to look forward to the day when the Church will have abandoned its arrogance, when it will not offer its Catholic code to force the conscience of the world."

Force or is expressing a moral voice just unwelcome? Until recently openly believing in your own religion wasn't considered arrogant. The New Testament makes it clear that 2000 years ago the Apostles operated in a world with similar values to the ones around today. If you are correct it won't happen quickly.

"When it will ..."

Do liberal Catholics struggle so much to relate to protestants due to the extreme secularisation? Orthodox Catholics have already resolved that. My best friend is pentecostal and that is exactly how we address each other.

Dear Socratease,

You may be interested in the following website:

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7621

It's an 11 page article entitled, "The Anglican Right,"
by Rev. Dwight Longenecker. He is the author of ten books
on conversion and the Catholic Faith.

He explains the situation about clergymen wanting to become
ordained as Catholic priests, despite the fact that they
are married with
wifes and children. Clergymen who convert to the
Catholic faith, are accepted by Rome, and
are able to be ordained as fully functioning Catholic
priests.

Read the article for yourself.

It may give you the insight you're looking for.

another preist to another to be married if they are male and female ,fair enough,

if they are both blokes , i guess cardinal pell will marry them with all his blessing as he seems to protect the pedophiles of the church as proven not two weeks ago , .

and he still has not told the pope ,

it shouldn't matter what religion you are when you marry ,

but when it becomes a priest with another male priest well that really shows the truth of the chuch of catholic ,

they were raping our children in their church homes , so now they want to marry , is this a outlet for the priest to get away with raping children again

just like when those who were working for the state in their state run institutions of which they were raping the children for their own benifit

stop the cover ups of all the rapes in the church and also in the states instituions

huffnpuff

huffnpuff>"another preist to another to be married if they are male and female ,fair enough,
if they are both blokes , i guess cardinal pell will marry them with all his blessing as he seems to protect the pedophiles of the church as proven not two weeks ago , ."

What are you trying to say about gay people, huffnpuff? You do not support them marrying like everyone else? You think gay people are pedophiles? Both?

Dear mjpb,

I can see that you and I won't be agreeing
on this topic no matter how long and well
we discuss it. We simply view things from
different perspectives.

You accept things as they are.
I question them.

I question the double standards and the
inconsistencies.

And to me the insistance of celibacy of priests is a
major inconsistency.

All The Best

i did not say tha steel

i said i would except a lady preist and male to marry

but no to male to male

and i did not say gays are pedophiles

no doubt their would be some in the gat community that we would never know about

just woundering steel are you and col rouge in contact with each other it strange as i had a go at col rouge for a previoys post in the child abuse section

if two men want to mary so be it if thats what they want

i carn't stop it

also i did not say all gays are pedophiles ,

i said cardinal pell should mary them as he is a pedophile protector as proven a few weeks ago

like it or lump it

im not here to argue with you about crap that is going to be put on crap
sorry you feel the way you do

gays are gays their is nothing you nore i can do about it each to their own ,

regards huffnpuff

Foxy,

There is nothing wrong with different opinions. Why not agree to disagree?

I have observed a very straight talking Catholic ask self identifying Catholics who reject the religion why they don't call themselves a protestant or an atheist. This was met with accusations that he was trying to boot out people who disagreed with him. Thus, being vulnerable to the same reaction, I quoted the atheist sociologist to raise an issue I am curious about.

I am aware that some atheists and secularised Catholics are uncomfortable with public expression of Christian values. Apparently it feels like forcing the view on the society that you feel is owned by atheists/secularised Catholics. Likewise, when an atheist or hard to recognise Catholic tells the Church to align with worldly values it feels like you are forcing your values upon us.

Thus it would be easier to hear your arguments if you were easier to recognise and perhaps your perspective can assist.

The Christian family is very broad. Whilst there are subtle differences in doctrine and some unique Catholic practices or liturgy there is huge similarity. The glaring difference is that Protestants are Christians who reject the Pope as an authoritative teacher of Christian doctrine. I recall your comment that the Dalai Lama's teachings make more sense to you than the Pope. I have inferred that you do not consider the Pope authoritative. How do you differentiate between a Catholic and a Protestant?

In spite of the broadness of the family if there is something called "a Christian" there must be some common characteristics such as believing the Bible is the Word of God or believing that Jesus died on the Cross and was resurrected. I have encountered writings from self identifying Catholics who consider themselves Christians but consider Jesus to be a good Jewish man who is essentially a hippy social worker and product of his time. I believe (and am open to correction) that you don't consider the Bible authoritative and subscribe to the Jesus went off and got married type theories. What to you defines a Christian?

Dear mjpb,

You ask what to me defines a Christian?
I don't know why you're persisting with
this line of discussion. My personal
beliefs shouldn't have a relevance to this
topic.

I'll keep it simple. Christians are people who believe
in God and the power of His victory in Christ.
Who believe in a Resurrection that rescued man from
death. Who believe in an Easter that opened man to hope.
Who believe in a life that lingers after this.

Who believe in understanding, in forgiveness, in mercy, in
faith.

And finally,to paraphrase the words of Father James Kavanaugh,
" I am a Catholic, and shall be a Catholic
who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance
from her Church, and will not allow my God to be reduced to
empty ritual and all-absorbing law."

Actually, Catholic priests can be married.

My best friend lives in a Parish when the Catholic priest is married and lives with his wife and children. Prior to being a Catholic priest, he was an Anglican priest, married with children. He converted, and is now a practicing Catholic priest with his own Catholic Parish.

Surprise, surprise-samsung are you religious too? Is this why you made this statement in the "Pushing a political wheelbarrow?" thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2010#41612

samsung, "Seeing anything in life as unalterable fact, shows a mind that is not open."

Thanks Foxy. I explained why I was asking. You keep calling him Father James Kavanaugh. Does he still go by the title "Father"? Hopefully the history of his apparent admission to dating while still a priest didn't influence his viewpoint on celibacy.

I appreciate that you shared your Christian concept. I note that you earlier quoted Collins stating that:

"Our culture has long moved from Hellenistic concepts such as omnipotence, eternity, immutability and the supernatural...

Qualified by the spin "... a shift of emphasis does not imply the 'abandonment' or jettisoning of something. It simply means we have already integrated the past. Today history and human experience are the norms we use to understand our human predicament and metaphysics is relegated to the background."

Yet your own understanding of Christians seems based on the concept of (presumably omnipotent) God, a Resurrection that rescued man from
death (presumably a supernatural event), and a life that lingers after this (presumably for eternity) rather than jettisoning I mean integrating these things and thinking in terms of his norms. I agree with you and like your definition but I struggle with his viewpoint which seems contradictory or perhaps I have "integrated" it friends, Roman Catholics, and countrypeople

Dear mjpb,

As I've said to you previously, don't pre-judge
Dr Paul Collins, read the entire book, then
evaluate what he has to say in its proper
context. It may make more sense to you.

As for Father James Kavanaugh - he is an ordained
priest. And as far as I know - he's never left the
priesthood.

Now, I must leave this thread - because I feel
that it's well and truly run its course.

However I do want to Thank You for your
input into this thread.

It has been interesting

Dear steel,

For some reason you ask am I religious. No I'm not, but why did you ask with such a sarcastic manner?

You seem to have a real problem with yourself and your attitude towards some others. Seriously, you need help to get rid of all that personal angst you display here.

Your rude comments on this forum are a reflection not on the people you aim them at, they are a reflection on you.

"...read the entire book, then evaluate what he has to say in its proper context. It may make more sense..."

I bought it from an Australian source so it might already be in the mail box.

"As for Father James Kavanaugh - he is an ordained priest. And as far as I know - he's never left the priesthood."

You can't believe everything you read in the media but with something like that I assume it was correct... Definitely gone.

"Now, I must leave this thread - because I feel that it's well and truly run its course."

Probably correct.

"However I do want to Thank You for your input into this thread."

And thank you for your input and in particular the reassurance about Christianity.

"It has been interesting"

For me too. In addition to the interesting discussion, the historical discoveries I encountered were interesting to me even though they might not be everyone's cup of tea. I had an idea about the scriptures and a vague idea about the history but I have learned a lot for example the pre-Elvira history and indications of sexual continence both East and West (contrary to the Western stereotype and contemporary situation).

Robert,

In the thick of things I never commented on your key point about how steep it was for the wives of continent clergy. While that is correct (in the context that the vocation was more valued in those days so it might have been like the modern 'doctor's wife') it is likely that their consent was required (as all analogous marital continence was by mutual consent) and there is historical indications that, like their husband, they had to appear to be someone who could be continent. Potential clergy with wives with a sexually shady background were refused ordination.

Samsung,

This can be a haven for rudeness. My belief for what it is worth is that this forum largely attracts a bunch of extremists who enter into discussions with each other. This, and the controversial nature of some of the topics, often leads to a certain robustness in discussion.

Huffnpuff - I'd like to get in contact with you re: Daruk. Do you have an email address I can use?

Cheers,

R8

Foxy,

As you attempt to wrap up this discussion a 190 page paperback book with a prominant Pope looking hat on the front has made its timely appearance.

Dear mjpb,

Thanks for letting me know.

I'd be interested to get your
views, after you've read it.

So please keep in touch.

Foxy,

I'm just concerned that you might be gazing at me with your cyber eyes with great expectations and if I don't react the way you want me to it will hurt you.

Wouldn't it be safer if I didn't give you feedback after I finish it then if you are supremely confident about how it will affect me you can live with that.

I'd be comfortable to do that. I just don't want you to be disappointed just in case.

The book is well written and interesting to me. It is better than I thought it would be in some respects. Coincidentally when I first got it I immediately flicked through and was holding it when a young priest walked in the door of my place of work (not a particularly common occurrance). That made me self conscious and I tried to address it by suggesting that perhaps he could bless or exorcise the book and mumbled an explanation about why I had acquired it. He replied words to the effect "Paul Collins! You should just burn it!" It put a smile on my face when I read Collins' apparent negativity toward the current crop of young priests. The feelings seem to be mutual.

From what I've read so far I like the highlighting of the work of the Catholic Church but note that he is described as a "historian" on the first page yet his treatment of celibacy is amazingly historically thin with the 11th Century property comment and a reasonably likely misguided comment about apostles and a comment about their successors which misses the continence issue and a recourse to the stereotype about the Eastern branch that I know to be incorrect from my recent research. Perhaps his historical endeavours are more specialised and don't encompass that.

And the inside gos on the Brisbane Archbishop which confirmed the rumours was fascinating. That is the second time he has thumbed his nose at the Pope recently. He has always had that image as a covert thing but until recently it wasn't public. Perhaps as he approaches retirement he is increasingly emboldend (if that is a word).

Dear mjpb,

Your insights are very interesting and
I would be grateful to hear more of them.
Please don't worry about what I may or
may not think. My ego is not that big -
that I have to be right or that I want
you to agree with me. I respect and value
your opinion. Plus, I am interested
in opinions that may differ from my own.
How else will we learn and grow?
Although I suspect we've got more in
common that we realize. You certainly
had an effect on me - and made me
re-think so many things.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I would be
interested to get your take on the book.

Okay Foxy it would probably be disrespectful to not proceed after you have said that. I do note that it wasn’t your ego that I was concerned about it was just that human quality of yearning for something and getting disappointed. If I understand your rethinking comment correctly then perhaps we do have more in common than I thought. I RCIAed from a kind of sympathetic atheism into an Collins-like environment which excluded me from other perspectives. I found it both inspiring yet unsatisfying enough to look outside the Church. I eventually found something that where all the pieces seemed to fit but it turned out to be in the same Church I had struggled with. I’ll explain the impression I formed of Collins as, while it formed contemporaneously with getting the information from him, it may effect how I interpreted the information.

I get the impression he is a self identifying Catholic. He is very much an elderly man and unless expensive medical attention, healthy lifestyle, or a familial predisposition toward longevity kick in he statistically would be lucky to be around in 10 years time and I think he knows it. He appears to be a mover and shaker in that his activism appears to extend beyond the book. What he tries to achieve with his book is just an example of a hobby or passion. I sense fear of orthodox Catholics in his reaction to young priests and overseas priests. Perhaps this explains why he risks exaggerating when dismissing their significance (eg. what appears a reasonable estimate of people attending Latin Masses, given their minority, is included. It appears authoritative due to the reference. However I did some quick mental calculations which had me question the credibility, and track back the reference. He just references it to a conversation he had with someone). If I correctly sense fear it may explain his tolerance (which I would guess would normally be out of character) of what appears to be racism. In a particular context he is willing to rationalize it.

CONT

Another symptom may be his willingness to go into great detail on some things but gloss over things that are central to his argument as if he wants to fire off arguments that advance his wishes even if he isn’t confident he can cross horns with the orthodox arguments. Yet another example is, after buttering up Bishops with similar views with the pastoral label holding that rejecting Catholic doctrine and rejecting papal authority equates to prioritizing the flock and manifesting Christian headship (eg. p120 - 121 or p152 or p124), he calls for Bishops to do things which could reasonably be expected to result in excommunication. That seems unrealistic to expect but he calls them to action anyway as if he is trying anything.

He appears to believe that the power base for his belief system is Australia.

I believe that in spite of his vintage he has a good feel for many contemporary norms but, as Oliver points out, appears to misunderstand others. Although he seems willing to caricature his ‘opponents’ at times he correctly points out that the different camps shouldn’t be caricatured. Finally he demonstrates that he has some commitment to the Catholic faith (even if he rejects details) this enabled me to de-villainise him a little and discover more commonalities. Do you want multi-post detail of specific musings about the book? I’ll get started when the post limit allows just in case.

Never before have I seen such a refreshing detailing of the function of certain parts of the Catholic Church in society. I am not obtuse to the fact that he is partly wielding this as a way of lessening the importance of the core religious aspects by showing how much bigger it is but it is something that was long overdue to be researched and put in a book. It also demonstrates that he is not completely hostile toward the Church. Although a much more difficult and sensitive subject, his portrayal of the management of the abuse crisis in the Church as having tilted too far in the opposite direction also I believe contained an element of affection for the Church in spite of an incorporated implication that Bishops just can’t get it right so we need to guide them more.

I have no reason to doubt his interesting history of Catholicism in Australian society. Naturally it is written from his point of view and demonizes those who disagree with him but I don’t believe that he holds the monopoly on that approach. However his treatment of the history of celibacy was disappointing to say the least. I believe he devotes all of one paragraph to the issue (p77). It completely ignores the scriptures relied upon by the Church to support celibacy and virtually ignores the entire relevant history both that established by historical orthodoxy and certain issues that aren’t there yet but appear relevant as I have discussed. I wondered whether his research was 5 minutes of googling or whether he deliberately omitted the historical counterargument. Neither are probably ideal for a historian. I would have felt more comfortable if he had at least had a bash at arguing against the issues rather than failing to locate or avoiding them.

His comments about fundamentalist scripture quoting and communication difficulties between Church officials and non-religious are probably correct to that extent (eg. p63).

His dismissal of “Lost” as simplistic (p63) (presumably due to the assumption that correcting deficiencies in Catholic schools would solve the problem of Catholics leaving the Church) I couldn’t help comparing with an extremely analogous simplistic argument that removing priestly celibacy will solve the problem of dwindling numbers of priests (eg. p76). He seems to just assert it and then wield all the problems of a lack of priest numbers as a weapon to call for removal of celibacy. Highlighting this is the innuendo that bringing back priests who have left to be married will have a significant impact. Having perused a survey where most of them don’t want to return as married priests I find that specific assumption less than compelling. He seems to give undue weight to reasons why people have left the Church (eg. p102) given the difficulties with people remembering back when forced to explain something in their past and the obvious value of asking people who remain at Church why they remain. Interestingly I didn’t locate any reference to a lack of priests in the reasons given for leaving the Church and while celibacy did get a mention it appeared to be in the context of seeing it as an offensive aspect of Church belief. Much later (p129) he adds to the unimportance of celibacy based on the straw man history (which I have previously criticised) an assertion that a small minority of misbehaving priests proves that celibacy can neither be spiritually beneficial nor free a priest to dedicated service. That sounds like an argument but a very thin one particularly with respect to the latter issue.

He definitely calls for hope but it appears to be aimed at people who agree with him and reminds me of rallying weary troops to stay firm in spite of Pope’s failing to overturn Christian orthodoxy and the young priests who may be stepping on their toes.

TO BE CONT when possible if you (Foxy) give the nod

Dear mjpb,

Please continue.

It's giving me an entirely different
perspective. And now I want to go back
and re-read the book.

I did not see nearly as much as you did.
I just took things at face value.

He forcefully presents the argument that not providing sufficient priests (by countenancing celibacy) means that Bishops are neglectful of their duty to provide the Eucharist. Ironically, he rejects the idea of importing foreign priests (p86) who he perceives as unpalatably orthodox (“young, clericalised, and immature”). He dresses his objections up in terms of cultural sensitivity and language but his admission about outnumbering I suspect is most important. Cultural sensitivity cuts both ways. The fact that someone is an immigrant should not add to parishioners objections. It would be surprising if a non-English speaking priest was imported for English language masses. In terms of general culture I’m also sure new arrivals could adapt as did our own ancestors. There may be some validity in some of the ways he dresses his objection but if his key concern is sacramental than importing them would clearly meet the clerical bum on the seat dispensing sacraments requirement. Likewise, his concern about Catholics missing out on sacraments also appears somewhat contradicted by the view that Catholics who shift to external social justice issues are “a gift to the wider society, which perhaps needs these people more than the church.”(p114). He even states that the “most positive scenario is the appointment of a non-ordained person to care for the parish. This is certainly better than the appointment of a foreign born priest who…” p 130

In all his argument may well create guilt in Bishops or rally people against them but, given the potential to import priests whether or not he thinks they share his opinions, it appears thin and without him necessarily being disingenuous I suspect he knows better irrespective of whether or not he admits it to others or perhaps himself. At least he attempts to dispute the obvious counterargument to his deprivation of sacraments claim. That is better than his historical treatment of celibacy. I believe he genuinely wants more priests but is more hungry for a victory than ensuring priests dispense sacraments. I am uncomfortable with the idea of launching such a strong argument if you are not fully committed to it.

(strong refers to the powerful guilt it is calculated to give Bishops)

To avoid conflict, conservatives and progressives are reclassified to those emphasizing change and those emphasizing continuity. In spite of a much more positive description of the change caricature (and the snide suggestion that traditional Catholics don’t accept Vatican II), the initial presentation appears relatively accurate. He eventually weaves this into developing things into the idea that the traditionals don’t accept any development and that is contrary to traditional orthodoxy.(eg. p162). Protestants have been known to criticise Catholic understanding of Doctrine if it is not word for word in the scriptures. He seems to equate any change (development) with viewing the core doctrine as a negotiatiable product of history and failure to accept eradication (not his euphemism) means not accepting development.

However he vacillates on development assisted by the philosophy of “pagan” Greeks. He cites Cardinal Newman’s apparent reference to this with approval (p162) but then rejects it considering it “baggage” to Christ’s message (p165-166) (which sounds like a reinvention of the protestant reformation wheel) and relates it to a power structure not being able to relate to the “anti-metaphysical implication of Christianity” (p170). He then seems to rely upon it to argue Pell is wrong about “immutable reality” (p170) but then apparently disparagingly refers to “Hellenism” and states “There is a real sense in which morality is not revealed but is the consequence of the biblical and doctrinal formulations of faith.”

I am not comfortable with his apparent sectarian local Church against the (Catholic) world approach(eg. p150 or p152) and using this as a justification to rebel against the Pope given the underpinnings of the first schism and that he is referring to the Roman Catholic branch of that schism. (We are the ones who stuck with the Pope)

I couldn’t help noticing his reference to the early Christian life in the Acts of the Apostles (p120) with the comment that “this fellowship doesn’t exist in the contemporary Church”. Maybe so but within the Catholic Church I can’t help noticing that orthodox enclaves are a lot closer.

Another issue is the “primacy of conscience” debate he admits having with Cardinal Pell. Basically the sound byte is that he calls for primacy of conscience and Pell considers it ‘incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching’. (p119) One post won’t be enough to explain why I have an opinion on this. He correctly points out that the two sides are not mutually exclusive and doesn’t argue his case there but when defining the conservative he does slip in the comment “confront the world with the ‘hard’teachings of Jesus. Actually, more accurately, the ‘hard’teachings of the papal magisterium, which are then identified with Jesus.” A related approach is to suggest that JPII was “Catholicism incorporated” (p155). This JPII comment seems completely obtuse to the pre-existing doctrine of papal infallibility and the old axiom “Where there is Peter there is Church”. A laterally related approach is “Those at the top of the hierarchy in the Vatican, even if they are saints, have too much invested in the maintenance of the structure to perceive the need for the renewal required.” All these suggest that the papal magisterium can’t be trusted to teach and explain the ‘deposit of faith’ or give the necessary ‘power to the people’ and thus Pell’s approach is naïve.

Pell has drawn a comparison with a wrist watch which I will attempt to roughly paraphrase from memory. To ignore the value of conscience would be like going to appointments without consulting your wrist watch (conscience). For our sake and for others sake we need to check the time. However if 1194 (truth) gives a different time you cannot justify either not finding out or rejecting it irrespective of how reliable your watch might normally be and how strongly we believed it was accurate. God can form our conscience but there is ultimately a truth and our conscience can get out of synch due to failure to ascertain God’s revelation or rationalizing something else to feel better about our indiscretions. So what is traditional Catholic teaching?

I struggle with the term “primacy of conscience’. I acknowledge an obvious overlap in that, in many cases, the individual has at some point made the decision to accept the authority of the Papal Magisterium to inform their conscience just as people who don’t will accept other sources of information to inform their conscience. Nevertheless the term “primacy of conscience” appears to be more associated with Protestantism albeit in the context of being constrained by God’s Word in the Bible. Collins doesn’t explain why primacy of conscience or anything close to it is a part of Catholicism. It clearly wasn’t at the time of the Protestant Reformation. I can only fill the gap from conversations with progressives claiming it became a part of Catholicism as a result of VII and in particular Gaudium Et Spes. I note that (perhaps ironically) no Pope has comprehensively interpreted all conciliar documents as would normally be required so it seems like a difficult argument to mount. Perhaps their jumping the gun is derived from a concern that a Pope will “re-interpret Vatican II out of existence” (p156) The finger was pointed toward the document enough that I bought a copy. There appears to be only one paragraph that applies. It identifies the commonality by saying that “Conscience unites Christians with other men in the search for truth, for solutions of individual and social problems of morality which shall be based on truth.” It definitely speaks highly of conscience devoting a number of sentences to it and considers it a law in the heart written by God. It concedes that “conscience can be wrong through invincible ignorance” in which case acting in good conscience is nevertheless the right thing to do. However it states that the same is not true “when men have too little care in looking for the true and the good, or when habits of sin gradually almost blind conscience.” I’m not a Pope but in its reference to truth and the culpability of the latter points to conscience being the wristwatch.

CONT

Given the contents of the document, the argument (not made in Collins’ book) that it justifies a primacy of conscience revision is not only implausible but reminds me of the seeds that fall along the path and don’t mature in Luke 8:5. Sorry for the diversion but Collins raises the issue as if it is a given and I would have preferred that he did more than that since I struggle with his position for the reasons I gave and it seems like a big issue.

That all said he has some insightful ideas about evangelism (p158-161) that I believe could enrich the Church.

Collins is an excellent writer dealing with subject matter in which I have a keen interest so it didn't take me long to get through the book. I would have prefer if he had stuck to our common ground as I would treasure a book that covered the things he did at the beginning particularly with the invaluable ideas of evangelism. He has clearly researched the former thoroughly and thought about the latter thoroughly. I empathise with him (without agreeing with him) with the way he seems to feel. I felt like the book brought out something of Collins the man and as I said that helped devillainise him to me. He isn't just some aggressor he is someone with an overlapping but different perspective who believes he is doing the right thing and can't understand why it won't take off. The more Bishops that thumb their nose at the Pope (even when he tells them that paedophiles can't be priests) the more it looks like he is succeeding but at the same time a Pope who participated in Vatican II as a Bishop and at one time displayed liberal tendencies didn't come to the rescue and he is frustrated that the Bishops aren't solving the problem.

That is basically what I got from the book. Your thoughts?

Dear mjpb,

Firstly, let me say how much I appreciate
your taking the time to be so open
and honest with me regarding the book
and its author.

I did not analyse it as you did.
I suppose my impression compared to
yours is a rather superficial one.
I simply read it and accepted what
was said. I took him to be the expert
in his field - speaking as an "insider."
I presumed he knew what he was talking about.
And much of it appealed to me, because I felt
he was speaking not only from personal knowledge
but from the heart. I believed that his
intentions were good ones.

I could identify with, "The core of the problem
is that the Catholic church has become lethargic
and passionless... still optimistic
that the church might recover, and that serious
change was a possibility."

and

"...it needs to be rembered that genuine faith
and belief is tested and everyone, even the
most committed, go through periods of aridity
and personal and interpersonal crisis."

and finally:

"The word 'Catholic' gives us the clue: it is derived
from the Greek "katholikos" meaning universal, of the
whole. In that sense Catholicism stands as the very
opposite of sectarian, particularist and narrow.
It is truly itself when it is embracing and inclusive.
It involves a commitment to God in Christ and to a
way of life that places a person in a community of
belief without geographic boundaries, and with a
sense of continuity and common history and tradition
reaching back through 2000 years to Jesus and the
New Testament. It involves a consciousness of God,
a sense of the presence of the transcendent in life,
a living culture and spirituality, an experience of
and feeling for prayer and worship, the sense of a
consistent creed expressed through varying theologies
and an evolving doctrinal tradition. Catholicism is
never static; it is always developing and
changing... the more the church grows, develops and
changes, the more it becomes truly itself."

All The Best,
And, again, Thank You so much.

Foxy,

Sorry to keep you.

"Firstly..."

Thank you very much.

"I took him to be the expert in his field - speaking as an "insider.""

He is well qualified and he does have inside information like the Bathersby story. I struggled with some things such as his history of celibacy and his primacy of conscience. Both of which he barely touched yet they seemed extremely important for what he was arguing.

"I presumed he knew what he was talking about."

The Evangelical thing I believe is extremely insightful and his Australian history, discussion of charities etc. and inside information I believe were spot on.

"...from the heart. I believed that his intentions were good ones."

I believe you were generally correct. It did seem to put something of himself into it and I believe he is very passionate in thinking he is doing the right thing. I think he gets a bit carried away about how he does it sometimes but with good intentions.

"I could identify with, "The core of the problem is that the Catholic church has become lethargic and passionless... still optimistic
that the church might recover, and that serious change was a possibility."

Oh yeah! Having discovered less visible aspects to it I note the exceptions locally and of course note World Youth Day but from general experience I identify heavily.

"...it needs to be rembered that genuine faith and belief is tested and everyone, even the most committed, go through periods ..."

Sometimes it makes people drift away. Sometimes it makes things stronger.

I didn't embrace the stuff in the final paragraph as much. It is mainly correct but it has some slight rough edges in that it occasionally seems to overextends facts IMHO and some of it seems inconsistent with other things he says.

"The word 'Catholic' gives us the clue: it is derived from the Greek "katholikos" meaning universal, of the whole."

When he went sectarian I wondered if he knew this and then he proved he did by stating it when it suited him.

CONT

"In that sense Catholicism stands as the very opposite of sectarian, particularist and narrow. It is truly itself when it is embracing and inclusive."

Rightly or wrongly my concept of the universal leans more toward the idea that worldwide the essential Catholicism and liturgy has a characteristic pattern not that all patterns are licit. St Paul's comments about being separate from the world may indicate some sectarianism but it shouldn't be sectarian within itself. However that doesn't mean it is indefinable or includes everything. The pattern of belief and worship should be characteristic of believers worldwide. Foreign priests should not be rejected because they don't do things the Australian way.

"It involves a commitment to God in Christ and to a way of life that places a person in a community of belief without geographic boundaries, and with a sense of continuity and common history and tradition reaching back through 2000 years to Jesus and the New Testament."

This is exactly my understanding.

"It involves a consciousness of God,a sense of the presence of the transcendent in life,a living culture and spirituality, an experience of and feeling for prayer and worship,"

This is exactly my understanding. Doesn't he normally think that we should understand things as historical rather than transcendent?

"the sense of a consistent creed expressed through varying theologies
and an evolving doctrinal tradition. Catholicism is never static; it is always developing and changing... the more the church grows, develops"

Again I believe the words are correct but sometimes it seems like it is er... all Greek to him.

Subject to minor issues I have with the last paragraph those were also highlights of the book which I didn't praise in my 'review'. Thanks for mentioning them.

Since we are probably having a private discussion by now did you want to take the thread off track and discuss anything else relating to the religion? I actually enjoy communicating about Catholicism without Gibo saying the Pope is an anti-Christ or Col saying the Church is horrible etc.

Dear mjpb,

I'm going to pull out of this discussion.

It's been very rewarding and interesting
but at the moment I've got a few personal
issues to deal with.

So once again, Thank You and please excuse
my wanting to end right now, but I've got a
lot on my plate at the moment - and I can't
give this the attention I would like and which
it deserves.

Dear Foxy,

"I'm going to pull out of this discussion."

All the best then. Thanks for the discussion.

"It's been very rewarding and interesting"

Ditto

"but at the moment I've got a few personal issues to deal with."

Good luck with them I hope they resolve satisfactorily.

"So once again, Thank You and please excuse my wanting to end right now"

No problem at all. Best wishes until next time.