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