Australian bishop backs reconsideration of celibacy, women's ordination

[bones_IV]

Now this is a Bishop who needs our prayers. He should look at what’s happened in the Episcopalian Church and realize that married priests and women’s ordination is not the answer! The cafeteria is closed.

Link

 

[4HisChurch]

I read about this. It is so very sad. I was actually *not *surprised to read this: “He discloses in his book that he himself was a victim of childhood abuse.” The whole thing is very, very sad. The only “good” thing, is that this bishop is retired.

 

[rr1213]

Women’s ordination is one thing, a married priesthood another. The Scriptures explicitly contemplate a priesthood that is married in some degree. Moreover, your own Church has married priests in both the Latin and Eastern Rites.

 

[bones_IV]

Women’s ordination is one thing, a married priesthood another. The Scriptures explicitly contemplate a priesthood that is married in some degree. Moreover, your own Church has married priests in both the Latin and Eastern Rites.

But even Latin rite priests that are married have to keep their celebacy vows too.

 

[CreosMary]

This particular Bishop is well known for his stance on issues such as these and others such as homosexuality.
The Church in Australia pays him the “appropriate” attention, it is only the media that this bishop can get an audience with.
However the Archbishop of the same Archdiocese is +Mark Coleridge and he is a holy, loyal and brilliant man, one assumes things will be discussed…
God Bless Archbishop Coleridge!!

 

[rr1213]

But even Latin rite priests that are married have to keep their celebacy vows too.

I don’t think so…source?

 

[francesco920]

But even Latin rite priests that are married have to keep their celebacy vows too.

This is incorrect. By definition you can’t be married and be celibate. Celibacy means abstaining from marriage and therefore also all sexual relations.

 

[Nohome]

The cafeteria is closed.

Dream on Bones, dream on. Everyone, even you, picks and chooses what they wish to belileve. Maybe, back when they burned heretics, you could say such things, but certainly not today.

Nohome

 

[francesco920]

Dream on Bones, dream on. Everyone, even you, picks and chooses what they wish to belileve. Maybe, back when they burned heretics, you could say such things, but certainly not today.

Nohome

This is not true. There are plenty of people both here in tihs world and the next who hold all that the Church teaches.

Bones - I think I understand what you were saying…you meant continence, where husband and wife abstain from sexual relations. I’m fairly certain that continence is not required for married priests…although I’m not completely sure. I think it is sometimes required in the East, such as before a priest says Mass, but I don’t think it’s required all the time in the East either. Again I’m not a 100% sure.

 

[frommi]

By all accounts this guy is not a ‘crazy liberal bishop’…he was trusted enough to be the lead on the abuse scandal in Australia in 1994…he was supported by all but 2 of his brother bishops in his proposal and response to the abuse crisis there.

If I were to draw a comparison this would be similar to someone like Archbishop Flynn or Archbishop Gregory making these proposals in this country.

Read what he has to say before automatically blasting it.

 

[francesco920]

By all accounts this guy is not a ‘crazy liberal bishop’…he was trusted enough to be the lead on the abuse scandal in Australia in 1994…he was supported by all but 2 of his brother bishops in his proposal and response to the abuse crisis there.

If I were to draw a comparison this would be similar to someone like Archbishop Flynn or Archbishop Gregory making these proposals in this country.

Read what he has to say before automatically blasting it.

The problem is that as Catholics we know that it is part of our faith that only men can be ordained to the priesthood. Forget “liberal” - to suggest that the Church might have the authority to ordain women is heretical not lliberal.

 

[bones_IV]

This is not true. There are plenty of people both here in tihs world and the next who hold all that the Church teaches.

Bones - I think I understand what you were saying…you meant continence, where husband and wife abstain from sexual relations. I’m fairly certain that continence is not required for married priests…although I’m not completely sure. I think it is sometimes required in the East, such as before a priest says Mass, but I don’t think it’s required all the time in the East either. Again I’m not a 100% sure.

Married priests or deacons have regular sexual relations with their wives you are right sorry about that.

 

[bones_IV]

Dream on Bones, dream on. Everyone, even you, picks and chooses what they wish to belileve. Maybe, back when they burned heretics, you could say such things, but certainly not today.

Nohome

Why do you feel the need to call me a bigot and highjack the thread?

 

[Milliardo]

I do not get his stance regarding celibacy–is he saying that priests should also be free to marry, or that married men can become priests? If it’s the latter, it’s much like the Orthodox/Eastern Catholic practice of allowing married men to become priests, but priests already ordained single cannot marry. Regarding women ordination, the priesthood is tied closely to Christ’s priesthood. Or in simple terms, Apostolic Tradition has not shown us that women can be elevated to the priesthood.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

This has not been the first time making celibacy optional has come up by bishops.

Priests were married until 1100. It was over Medevial property rights back then. Much of the fear today is also over property rights (no matter what other reasons are usually given). All it takes in today’s modern world is a mandatory pre-nup agreement only holding the spouse to the priest’s personal property and nothing related to church property.

Making celibacy optional will bring more men to be priests again. It is an idea whose time has come again.

On Women’s ordination, history has shown them as having deacon roles in the past and there have been no problems with any other Christian denomination who have adopted it. They are giving us good data when the time comes to debate it again sometime in the future.

 

[Nohome]

Why do you feel the need to call me a bigot and highjack the thread?

Bigot? Where did you get that? I’m just saying the “cafeteria is closed” cliche is tired and (based on many stories such as this one here) untrue. Dissent is alive and well in the RCC and every other faith, Christian or otherwise.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

This is not true. There are plenty of people both here in tihs world and the next who hold all that the Church teaches.

I disagree, in fact, I doubt there is anyone in this world (can’t say about the next) that even knows all that the Church teaches.

Nohome

 

[Grace_Angel]

I read about this. It is so very sad. I was actually *not *surprised to read this: “He discloses in his book that he himself was a victim of childhood abuse.” The whole thing is very, very sad. The only “good” thing, is that this bishop is retired.

He needs more than prayers. He needs a swift kick up the kyber.
He waited till he retired. Till he collected all the kudos, and the pension and the good life. Now he feels free to be “honest” Does that mean that he was dishonest all those years.
As I said (as an australian) he needs a kick up the kyber and some higher authority to have a word in his ear.
Grace Angel.

 

[4HisChurch]

That’s a good point, Grace. I can’t help but cynically wonder if he had said those things before he retired, would anything have been done about it? (Will anything be done now?)

 

[allaussie]

He needs more than prayers. He needs a swift kick up the kyber.
He waited till he retired. Till he collected all the kudos, and the pension and the good life. Now he feels free to be “honest” Does that mean that he was dishonest all those years.
As I said (as an australian) he needs a kick up the kyber and some higher authority to have a word in his ear.
Grace Angel.

You don’t know that, he states that part of his decision to retire was based on his doubts about church teachings. Without any evidence to the contrary I would have assumed that his doubts grew over time (not many people think the same way about a subject forty years later) and when his doubts reached a point felt that his thinking was incompatible with his role as a representative of the Church he removed himself from that role. I don’t think it’s fair to judge somebody so harshly when you don’t know all the facts.