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.