Australian bishop backs reconsideration of celibacy, women's ordination

[bones_IV]

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

You said,

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.

To compare my opening posts to people burning heretics is just ridiculous. Just shows how uneducated you are. If you don’t like what I say then don’t post.

 

[francesco920]

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

It is certainly possible to know more than is necessary. Read the catechism. Read the Bible. Pray and recieve the sacraments. Get information, whether in written form or from a good priest or somebody else, about your specific state in life and the responsibilites that go along with it.

True, it is probably not possible to know every single detail, but that’s not required. What is required is that we know the truths of our faith well, and the Church gives us more than enough tools to learn those. We have an obligation not to be ignorant about the Faith. The great thing about Catholicism is that you never stop learning and that’s how it should be…we are always children in God’s eyes. Anyway, it is entirely possible to say: “If Holy Mother Church teaches it, then I believe it.”

However, this is nothing like picking and choosing. That involves denying some truths and accepting others based on personal preference. What these people are saying is: “If Holy Mother Church teaches it, then I believe it IF it feels good to me.” Like I said before, it is entirely possible not to do this and many don’t.

 

[bones_IV]

The Holy Father has already spoken on women’s ordination.

John Paul II said it in ordinatio sacerdotalis

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

 

[frommi]

The Holy Father has already spoken on women’s ordination.

John Paul II said it in ordinatio sacerdotalis

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Yeah…he’s spoken and a lot of well meaning people haven’t listened…how effective has that statement been? Not very…

 

[bones_IV]

Yeah…he’s spoken and a lot of well meaning people haven’t listened…how effective has that statement been? Not very…

It’s because of disobedient catholics and lack of orthodoxy among our bishops and priests.

 

[Nohome]

Just shows how uneducated you are. If you don’t like what I say then don’t post.

So now I’m stupid? Read my post, I didn’t compare you to burning heretics, I said that was the last time the cafeteria was closed. Presently, it is open 24/7.

Me? Uneducated? I could think you under the table with half my brain tied behind my back (sorry Rush).

This is a place for dialog. If you can’t handle disagreement than it is you who should not post.

Nohome

 

[Caesar]

Ha! More dissident bishops I see…

Perhaps there should be an automatic excommunication for those who say ‘non serviam’.

In any case, this bishop merely shows the rest of us that he is embracing an error. Yes, the Eastern Rites have married priests, and there are a few in the Latin Rite (mostly converted Anglicans), but the Church has ruled time and time again that celibacy is to be the norm in the Latin Rite. Rome has spoken.

Also, keep in mind two things in regards to the allowance of married clergy in the Eastern Rites and the rare cases in the Latin Rite:

• Married men may be ordained priests, but priests may not get married. If a priest was to get married, the marriage would be invalid. If a married priest’s wife dies, he must remain celibate for the rest of his life.
• Bishops cannot be married. In the East they are drawn from the ranks of the monastics, or are widowers.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

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.

You say, “Much of the fear today is also over property rights.” I have not found this to be true for myself or any other Catholic I know. What is your source please?

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

I think what would bring men into the priesthood would be to instill in young Catholics a sense of vocation. They should understand the universal call to holiness as well as their individual calling. The lack of vocations is not seen just in the priesthood. There are fewer men and women religious, and there are fewer and fewer couples who stay married. Many people get married without even thinking about the fact that it is a vocation that is meant to lead the couple toward heaven.

Do we have a vocation crisis in the Church? I would say, “Absolutely.” But it certainly is not found only in the priesthood, and I do not believe having married priests will solve the overall problem.

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.

The Church is not concerned that problems will arise if women are ordained. The Church is concerned about God’s will. Many, many wonderful Church leaders throughout history have affirmed the fact that ordaining women is simply not possible because God has not given the Church the authority to do so.

 

[frommi]

It’s because of disobedient catholics and lack of orthodoxy among our bishops and priests.

You’re oversimplifying the problem…

Talking out loud about something doesn’t make one disobedient…

The women who get ‘ordained’ on boats…that’s disobedient.

My point is that the statement you refer has been around for well over a decade and the topic is still discussed.

Even the ‘authentic’ Catholics still spend time discussing how we shouldn’t be discussing it.

If you’re so sure of how this is all supposed to work…why not walk away from these conversations?

The reality is that the statement by the late pontiff did nothing to quell the sensus fidelum that questions the church’s ordination practices.

Even in places that have bishops who make the parrot the statement over and over the conversation continues

 

[pprimeau1976]

The Holy Father has already spoken on women’s ordination.

John Paul II said it in ordinatio sacerdotalis

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

To me that sounds like an infallible ex-cathedra statement. The same language was used to define the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The only thing that JPII was lacking in was a clause after that statement that spells out what happens if you don’t abide by this teaching. Take for example, Ineffibilis Deus:

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is defined:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

The penalties of not abiding by the dogma are layed out:
Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

For the life of me, I don’t understand why JPII would have such a weak infallible statement compared to previous popes. I guess this was his pastoral side shining through.

 

[francesco920]

Ha! More dissident bishops I see…

Perhaps there should be an automatic excommunication for those who say ‘non serviam’.

In any case, this bishop merely shows the rest of us that he is embracing an error. Yes, the Eastern Rites have married priests, and there are a few in the Latin Rite (mostly converted Anglicans), but the Church has ruled time and time again that celibacy is to be the norm in the Latin Rite. Rome has spoken.

Also, keep in mind two things in regards to the allowance of married clergy in the Eastern Rites and the rare cases in the Latin Rite:

• Married men may be ordained priests, but priests may not get married. If a priest was to get married, the marriage would be invalid. If a married priest’s wife dies, he must remain celibate for the rest of his life.
• Bishops cannot be married. In the East they are drawn from the ranks of the monastics, or are widowers.

Yes, and from what I understand, married priests in the East have to be continent before they say Mass. I once heard somewhere that the reason celibacy came to be official in the West is because of the practice of daily Mass, which meant that married priests had to be continent daily, and that’s difficult for marriage. Daily Mass, as far as I know, doesn’t exist n the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Churches.

I’m not sure about this though. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge about this can shed some light on whether this is true or not.

 

[bones_IV]

You’re oversimplifying the problem…

What problem?

Talking out loud about something doesn’t make one disobedient…

tttttttttt

The women who get ‘ordained’ on boats…that’s disobedient.

Indeed yes. But you say,

My point is that the statement you refer has been around for well over a decade and the topic is still discussed.

And the fact that it is discussed doesn’t make it debatable.

Even the ‘authentic’ Catholics still spend time discussing how we shouldn’t be discussing it.

So by using the word ‘authentic’ catholics are you mocking me? Sounds like it. Discussing is the code word for, “let’s keep discussing this until you see that I’m right”.

If you’re so sure of how this is all supposed to work…why not walk away from these conversations?

It’s called freedom of speech, look it up.

The reality is that the statement by the late pontiff did nothing to quell the sensus fidelum that questions the church’s ordination practices.

Which is a justification for dissent.

Even in places that have bishops who make the parrot the statement over and over the conversation continues

And because the conversation continues doesn’t make it legitimate does it?

 

[francesco920]

For Catholics, the issue of women’s ordination is settled, as are the issues of abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. Among Catholics, there is no debate.

There is debate, however, between Catholics (those who believe all the Church teaches, which include these issues) and modernist heretics (who refuse to beleive what the Church teaches about ordination, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc.)

There is no gray area; the case is closed. Let me say it again: WITHIN the Church, there is NO debate on this issue or on the issues of abortion, contraception, etc. Between the Church and heretics who claim to be in full communion with her there is debate.

I don’t care how many dissenters (i.e. heretics) there are. Most people in this planet have never believed that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that doesn’t change that truth. I don’t care about numbers. The truth is the truth no matter how many peopel deny it.

 

[blessedtoo]

Yeah…he’s spoken and a lot of well meaning people haven’t listened…how effective has that statement been? Not very…

How on earth would you know that? Have you asked every Catholic alive if his statement settled the matter? For all you know, it may have put the matter to rest for many and only the few, very vocal dissenters are still yapping.

Talking out loud about something doesn’t make one disobedient…

If I tell my child that the matter is closed and he still keeps yapping about it, that is no longer discussion. That is disobedience.

My point is that the statement you refer has been around for well over a decade and the topic is still discussed.

Like I said, spoiled children who don’t get their way will continue griping until they either wear themselves out or finally get the message.

The Church is patient.

 

[CrypticWritings]

For Catholics, the issue of women’s ordination is settled, as are the issues of abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. Among Catholics, there is no debate.

There is debate, however, between Catholics (those who believe all the Church teaches, which include these issues) and modernist heretics (who refuse to beleive what the Church teaches about ordination, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc.)

There is no gray area; the case is closed. Let me say it again: WITHIN the Church, there is NO debate on this issue or on the issues of abortion, contraception, etc. Between the Church and heretics who claim to be in full communion with her there is debate.

I don’t care how many dissenters (i.e. heretics) there are. Most people in this planet have never believed that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that doesn’t change that truth. I don’t care about numbers. The truth is the truth no matter how many peopel deny it.

Nice and simply put!

People don’t seem to understand that it is an impossibility for women to be ordained. Even if a dissenting bishop held an ordination for women, the ordinations would be invalid.

 

[Caesar]

Yes, and from what I understand, married priests in the East have to be continent before they say Mass. I once heard somewhere that the reason celibacy came to be official in the West is because of the practice of daily Mass, which meant that married priests had to be continent daily, and that’s difficult for marriage. Daily Mass, as far as I know, doesn’t exist n the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Churches.

I’m not sure about this though. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge about this can shed some light on whether this is true or not.

Yes, you are correct.

For Catholics, the issue of women’s ordination is settled, as are the issues of abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. Among Catholics, there is no debate.

There is debate, however, between Catholics (those who believe all the Church teaches, which include these issues) and modernist heretics (who refuse to beleive what the Church teaches about ordination, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc.)

There is no gray area; the case is closed. Let me say it again: WITHIN the Church, there is NO debate on this issue or on the issues of abortion, contraception, etc. Between the Church and heretics who claim to be in full communion with her there is debate.

I don’t care how many dissenters (i.e. heretics) there are. Most people in this planet have never believed that Jesus Christ is Lord, but that doesn’t change that truth. I don’t care about numbers. The truth is the truth no matter how many peopel deny it.

Well said!

There is no room in the Church for personal opinion to supercede the truth. Most people dont realize that so many of these “progressive” and “liberal” Catholics have placed themselves outside of communion with the Church by allowing their preferances to come before the doctrines of the Church.

 

[Milliardo]

Yes, and from what I understand, married priests in the East have to be continent before they say Mass. I once heard somewhere that the reason celibacy came to be official in the West is because of the practice of daily Mass, which meant that married priests had to be continent daily, and that’s difficult for marriage. Daily Mass, as far as I know, doesn’t exist n the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Churches.

Divine Liturgy is only celebrated once every Sunday, as well as if there’s a feast day. As Orthodox and Eastern Catholics say, there is only one Divine Liturgy.

 

[repo_man]

celibate priests isn’t dogma. i was always taught in school (by a very conservative teacher) that it was an issue capable of being changed in the future. however, i do not support the married priesthood. celibacy is the one thing that stands in my way of considering the priesthood. i know the “married to the bride of christ, the church” thing. but the only reason i do not advocate allowing married priests is simply because we can not support them. a lot of catholics would have a hard enough time coughing up $10 at mass in the collection basket. it’s our fault as a congregation priests can’t get married, the family would go hungry. if we gave enough to provide for them a sufficient life, i’d support it. but we’re not that responsible/reliable.

 

[Milliardo]

celibate priests isn’t dogma. i was always taught in school (by a very conservative teacher) that it was an issue capable of being changed in the future. however, i do not support the married priesthood. celibacy is the one thing that stands in my way of considering the priesthood. i know the “married to the bride of christ, the church” thing. but the only reason i do not advocate allowing married priests is simply because we can not support them. a lot of catholics would have a hard enough time coughing up $10 at mass in the collection basket. it’s our fault as a congregation priests can’t get married, the family would go hungry. if we gave enough to provide for them a sufficient life, i’d support it. but we’re not that responsible/reliable.

I am not sure about this, so Orthodox and Eastern Catholics might shed more light on this, but from what I’ve read married priests take up some other job to support themselves. Since Divine Liturgy is celebrated only on Sundays and feast days, and since it is only celebrated once a day, then the Orthodox/Eastern rite priest has more time to devout to his family and take on some job to help his family and community.

 

[Grace_Angel]

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?)

Probably not. But I am disgusted that now that he has retired and is looked after he clears his conscience. Again does that mean that he was a bishop with a muddy conscience. Not good for his flock. He was dishonest. simple. dishonest.
GraceAngel.