God is not dead!

[inocente]

In the course of discussions on the priesthood I often hear comments like, “A woman can be a counselor, right? She can manage a parish, right? She can have some good things to say while preaching, right? She can even do the same things a man does in order to confect the sacraments! So what’s the big deal?”

These comments, in my opinion, show an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

The priesthood is not a job. It’s not what he does (for, to be sure, a woman can “do” all those things a priest does rather nicely!) It’s who he is. At his very essence.

And just like a woman can not be a father, a woman can not be a priest. It’s just not ontologically possible.

I don’t comprehend what gender has to do with priesthood but then it’s not my church and I’ve no axe to grind, just making the observation that removing restrictions on gender and celibacy could help bring more into the priesthood.

At the risk of another deluge from others () there do appear to be differences of opinion here:

romancatholicwomenpriests.org
womenpriests.org/
corpus.org/
renewedpriesthood.org

 

[Betterave]

I don’t comprehend what gender has to do with priesthood but then it’s not my church and I’ve no axe to grind, just making the observation that removing restrictions on gender and celibacy could help bring more into the priesthood.

At the risk of another deluge from others () there do appear to be differences of opinion here:

romancatholicwomenpriests.org
womenpriests.org/
corpus.org/
renewedpriesthood.org

Hi inocente,
You’re pretty much asking to be rained on here, so I’ll oblige (not a deluge though). I’ll refer you to post 140 and note that you are apparently ‘refuting,’ here, someone who believes that there are no differences in opinion, i.e., you’re ‘refuting’ someone who is radically naive and who isn’t part of this conversation. (Here’s the rainy bit: this is, unfortunately, your usual MO, which suggests that you have somehow managed to remain radically naive - still, after all this time! - about the position of the majority of your Catholic interlocutors here at CAF.)

 

[PRmerger]

Yes but that must sound like grin and bear it to an exhausted and isolated priest.

To a priest who has no spiritual reserves, a minimal prayer life, a disposition towards melancholy, perhaps.

But to a priest who answers the calling, it is most definitely not a “grin and bear it” scenario.

“Circuit riding” to perform Mass in multiple parishes is expecting unnecessary sacrifices on the part of priests, and according to that Episcopalian report it’s a vicious circle anyway. The logistics need to be dealt with: more priests are needed, therefore more must be attracted, therefore something has to change. Passively ignoring it doesn’t solve anything.

Not sure what makes you think the Church is “passively ignoring it.”

On the contrary. 'Tis true that in the past the vocation call was rarely mentioned by the hierarchy.

However, for the nonce, this message is being heard loudly and clearly by the faithful. In fact, my 18yr old DD doesn’t want to go hear the bishop preach to teens, because, she says, he always says the same thing: “We’ve learned that the reason the seminaries weren’t filling up in the past was because…no one asked our young men to consider the priesthood. Now, we are asking…” (And asking, and asking, and asking, according to my DD).

This is, of course, only 1 way in which the Church is addressing the lack of vocations to the priesthood in the west.

 

[levinas12]

… it’s conjectured that the total sum of energy in the universe is, always was, and always will be exactly zero.

I’ve seen this conjecture in a number of popular books but must confess that I don’t really understand it, especially the concept of negative energy. What’s the difference between negative and positive energy? Why is gravity considered negative energy? And why do some physicists conjecture that the negative cancels out the positive?

I’m curious when the conjecture was formulated (and by whom). And what’s the reasoning and/or experimentation behind it? Can you recommend any good books in this regard?

Did Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc, (the first generation of 20th century physicists) talk about the total energy being zero?

 

[Poustinia]

Not into Sodomy so, your holy book is pretty useless there again.

I have some reflections on the scriptures that are helpful.

… I don’t believe…

When you are ready, you will need to pray and ask for the gift of faith.

Poustinia

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’ve seen this conjecture in a number of popular books but must confess that I don’t really understand it, especially the concept of negative energy. What’s the difference between negative and positive energy? Why is gravity considered negative energy? And why do some physicists conjecture that the negative cancels out the positive?

I’m curious when the conjecture was formulated (and by whom). And what’s the reasoning and/or experimentation behind it? Can you recommend any good books in this regard?

Did Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc, (the first generation of 20th century physicists) talk about the total energy being zero?

Maybe CAF is not the place to ask these things. Maybe a question to someone in the field that supports knowledge of science would be a great place to start.

I suggest Neil Tyson for this question.

 

[inocente]

Not sure what makes you think the Church is “passively ignoring it.”

Maybe I should have written “wouldn’t” instead of “doesn’t solve anything”. Maybe in both Spain and the USA it’s like a swan gliding along with hidden feet madly thrashing that I can’t see. I’ll hope so. But then we still won’t have got to Karl Keating’s issue.

 

[inocente]

I’ve seen this conjecture in a number of popular books but must confess that I don’t really understand it, especially the concept of negative energy. What’s the difference between negative and positive energy? Why is gravity considered negative energy? And why do some physicists conjecture that the negative cancels out the positive?

I’m curious when the conjecture was formulated (and by whom). And what’s the reasoning and/or experimentation behind it? Can you recommend any good books in this regard?

Did Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, etc, (the first generation of 20th century physicists) talk about the total energy being zero?

A while ago someone posted this good sixty-minute talk by Lawrence Krauss. It’s an excellent and fun lecture to generalists that goes through the development of the idea. As long as you can forgive the following: intro by Dawkins (skip the first two minutes); Krauss’ atheist jokes (also he swears once early on); and ignore his remarks about not needing a deity, he’s talking to an atheist choir and that’s just his personal feel-good speculation, and not thought through at that.

On the other hand note his obvious respect for a famous Catholic priest in minute eleven and his blessed dislike of string theory.

A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe I should have written “wouldn’t” instead of “doesn’t solve anything”. Maybe in both Spain and the USA it’s like a swan gliding along with hidden feet madly thrashing that I can’t see. I’ll hope so. But then we still won’t have got to Karl Keating’s issue.

The Church moves slowly.

Reminds me of a film* “Into Great Silence” about Carthusian monks in the French Alps. The producer first approached the monks about making a documentary about their life. They said they needed time to think it over…

16 years’ time, apparently.

In contrast to eternity–which apparently the Church and these monks have forefront in their mind’s eye–what’s 16 years?

*“Into Great Silence” is clearly a film, and not a movie. Arnold Schwarzzenegger makes movies. “Into Great Silence” is a film.

 

[inocente]

Reminds me of a film* “Into Great Silence” about Carthusian monks in the French Alps. The producer first approached the monks about making a documentary about their life. They said they needed time to think it over…

16 years’ time, apparently.

Don’t suppose the film’s got any car chases or alien space battles though.

In contrast to eternity–which apparently the Church and these monks have forefront in their mind’s eye–what’s 16 years?

Around five times as long as the ministry of Jesus? Or you could ask someone whose house is burning down.

I guess the moral is Carthusians wouldn’t make good evangelists or firemen.

 

[PRmerger]

Around five times as long as the ministry of Jesus?.

Yes, I see your point.

I think I might use this in discussions with some literalist Christians here on the CAFs. It would seem that if they go by a strict interpretation of the Bible then they ought to be following Jesus’ path and accomplish their ministry in 3 years.

Anyway, I went to Mass this morning, and this was the communion antiphon:

The eyes of all look hopefully to you; you give them their food in due season.

The Church gives us what we need, in due season.

 

[inocente]

I think I might use this in discussions with some literalist Christians here on the CAFs. It would seem that if they go by a strict interpretation of the Bible then they ought to be following Jesus’ path and accomplish their ministry in 3 years.

 

[Poustinia]

So finally I’ve completed SODOMY IS FORBIDDEN BY DIVINE REVELATION. It is too long to post on CAF so I went and got myself a blog.:manvspc:

I spelled my name wrong and I don’t know how to change it.

Anyhow, the address is poustinasblog.wordpress.com

:knight2oustinia