Liberalism in the Catholic Church

[Shiphrae]

In seems to me that there are excellent reasons for the Church to insist on Her priests remaining, in general, celibate. How can they give their all to the Church if they have a family to care for? I could see some of them doing alright with a wife but then there would often be children as well.

 

[otjm]

Is it your belief that this Sunday School teacher’s behavior was appropriate in bringing in the question and allowing the debate in an 8th grade religion class??? For me the issue isn’t whether Priests shoud be allowed to marry or not, but rather whether this teacher had the right to turn his class into a debating society. Particularly when the debate was so obviously one sided and he could or would not take an impartial position.

My apolgies for confusing doctrine with discipline.
Again my concern is less with whether the issues can be debated than with the appropriateness of the teachers actions in a Sunday School Class. That teacher needed to be conveying the churches teachings and kept his opinions to himself.

James

It is my belief that children should be treated as intelligent individuals, capable of understanding issues. I disagree that all students should be protected from knowing any issues which are questioned - either in the church, or about the Church by those who are not members. It goes without saying that they need to be taught why the Church has the position it does, but by 8th grade many of them will already have been exposed to the issues.

As to the format of the issue, I disagree with letting 8th graders, or for that matter, high school seniors, debate an issue outside of a debate class. That does not preclude a vigorous discussion. The teacher needs to present the Church’s position, but on issues of discipline, I do not see that they need to be taught as matters of faith; we already have a history going way back where that was done, leaving a whole lot of people who thought they were taught a matter of faith, having problems when a disipline is changed. An example is communion; too many were taught about it as if it werre a matter of doctrine of the means of reception.

In short, I think it does matter that people - children - are taught what is a matter of discipline and that it might, or might not, be changed in the future. It prevents them from having a crisis of faith when a discipline is changed that they were taught to think was immutable.

 

[otjm]

In seems to me that there are excellent reasons for the Church to insist on Her priests remaining, in general, celibate. How can they give their all to the Church if they have a family to care for? I could see some of them doing alright with a wife but then there would often be children as well.

Given the fact that attorneys, doctors, accountants, mid-level and higher managers of corporations, accountants, many engineers, and many other professionals have the same issue, it would probably be handled the same way they do.

It is a mantra, not based or reality, that a priest is available 24-7. They all have time off; they all need sleep, they all have schedules which are more than a 40 hour work week. So do professionals.

Priests need to be available for emergency calls; so do doctors. Priests are not going out on calls 24 hours a day; on occasion they are needed in the middle of the night. All people, no matter what they do - priest, doctor, lawyer, whatever - need time away or they face burnout. There is nothing intrinsic to the priesthood that says that the priest must attend every last meeting in the parish, every last function, and be available literally 24-7. Our archdiocese insiststs that priests take at least one day off; and amazingly, the world does not fall apart on that day.

Celibacy is not bad; it is not evil; it is not something to be done aways wtih; it is its own charism, a gift that is not given to all. To those whom it is given, it can be an excellent witness look to all who have professed a life of ceilibacy dedicated to the Church who are not priests.

It is not, however, intrinsic to the priesthood. The Church has a 2000 year history of married clergy in the Eastern rites, and it has a married clergy in the Latin/Roman rite - those who were married ministers in Protestant churches who converted and were subsequently ordained.

 

[Shiphrae]

In short, I think it does matter that people - children - are taught what is a matter of discipline and that it might, or might not, be changed in the future. It prevents them from having a crisis of faith when a discipline is changed that they were taught to think was immutable. otjm

I don’t really see how teaching children that there are some disciplines of the Church that could change in the future has to do with having a long debate in Sunday school class.

I think that the young man was brave and right in defending the Church’s (disciplines) or laws. The children should first be taught the basics of Catholicism before they are led into discussing whatever may or may not change. Surely by grade eight the children have not learned everything that there is to learn about Catholicism.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[otjm]

In short, I think it does matter that people - children - are taught what is a matter of discipline and that it might, or might not, be changed in the future. It prevents them from having a crisis of faith when a discipline is changed that they were taught to think was immutable. otjm

I don’t really see how teaching children that there are some disciplines of the Church that could change in the future has to do with having a long debate in Sunday school class.

I think that the young man was brave and right in defending the Church’s (disciplines) or laws. The children should first be taught the basics of Catholicism before they are led into discussing whatever may or may not change. Surely by grade eight the children have not learned everything that there is to learn about Catholicism.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

And I figure by the 8th grade, some of them have already heard the question.

You are right; it doens’t have anything to do with a long debate in class; read my post.

I don’t question the bravery (?). Part of teaching them the basics, if you will is ;not making it so basic that they are dumbed down. As I said, I consider 8th graders intelligent enough to hear bout the issue. I did not perhaps make myself clear. One could study a lifetime about what the Church teaches; however, sadly, all too many Catholics stop learing about the Church after confirmation. Teaching them about the sacrament of Ordination, and including a sidelight about celibacy (which too many are taught is the only way a person can be ordained - in short, not the truth) is certainly not beyond the understanding of an 8th grader. Nor do I consider it something that has to go on to the point of distraction.

 

[Shiphrae]

*Celibacy is not bad; it is not evil; it is not something to be done aways wtih; it is its own charism, a gift that is not given to all. To those whom it is given, it can be an excellent witness look to all who have professed a life of ceilibacy dedicated to the Church who are not priests.

It is not, however, intrinsic to the priesthood. The Church has a 2000 year history of married clergy in the Eastern rites, and it has a married clergy in the Latin/Roman rite - those who were married ministers in Protestant churches who converted and were subsequently ordained.* otjm

Yes, accountants, lawyers and doctors all have the same problems. And in the past they have handled things very badly. The family has suffered because these people have put their work first. They have ignored family crises. As a result there are many many divorces and children who are insecure and have major problems. Do we need these problems in the Church as well?

How would the Church deal with divorces of the priests? How would She deal with children of priests who have major problems due to emotionally or physically absent fathers.

Pope John Paul 2 was quite definite when he answered “It’s a long way to Tiperary”. I think that his meaning was clearly “It is not happening”.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[anthony022071]

Given the fact that attorneys, doctors, accountants, mid-level and higher managers of corporations, accountants, many engineers, and many other professionals have the same issue, it would probably be handled the same way they do.

There’s no comparison. People with secular professions do not have a sacerdotal commitment to God and the Church.

cbn.com/CBNnews/58163.aspx

 

[otjm]

*Celibacy is not bad; it is not evil; it is not something to be done aways wtih; it is its own charism, a gift that is not given to all. To those whom it is given, it can be an excellent witness look to all who have professed a life of ceilibacy dedicated to the Church who are not priests.

It is not, however, intrinsic to the priesthood. The Church has a 2000 year history of married clergy in the Eastern rites, and it has a married clergy in the Latin/Roman rite - those who were married ministers in Protestant churches who converted and were subsequently ordained.* otjm

Yes, accountants, lawyers and doctors all have the same problems. And in the past they have handled things very badly. The family has suffered because these people have put their work first. They have ignored family crises. As a result there are many many divorces and children who are insecure and have major problems. Do we need these problems in the Church as well?

How would the Church deal with divorces of the priests? How would She deal with children of priests who have major problems due to emotionally or physically absent fathers.

Pope John Paul 2 was quite definite when he answered “It’s a long way to Tiperary”. I think that his meaning was clearly “It is not happening”.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

I have often said that two words should be stricken from the dictionary while one has children - the words “always” and “never”.

Although you have not used them, you have painted a tremendous number of people with one brush. Attorneys, doctors and etc. are not particularly better or worse at family matters than are loggers, farmers, mill workers, gorcery clerks, and a whole host of other people. Because some doctors and some lawyers get a divorce is no reason to presume or state that all of them are bad parents. I know too many who are to even give any credit to such a statement. And last I checked, divorces were pretty popular across the board, no matte what you do for work.
And the fact that one person gets a divorce - or in the US, the fact that more than half the marriages end up in divorce court - is not a reason to not be married.

And as to the comments about whether it will happen or not, it is happening.

Will we see more married priests in the Roman rite? I suspect not, and that saddens me; they, being a married priest, are witness to a good marriage just as a celibate priest can be a witness to celibacy. I believe there is validity in both; so does the Church (as opposed to the Roman rite of the Church) in that it has had 2000 years of having both married clergy and celibate clergy.

How will the Church deal with difficult issues? How has the Church dealt with difficult issues in the past? Sometimes well, sometimes not so well. again, you miss the point: we already have a married clergy in the Eastern rites with married priests for 2000 years; we have married priests in the Roman rite, and we now have married deacons in the Roman rite. and we are surviving, in spite of your objections.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by **otjm **
Although you have not used them, you have painted a tremendous number of people with one brush. Attorneys, doctors and etc. are not particularly better or worse at family matters than are loggers, farmers, mill workers, gorcery clerks, and a whole host of other people. Because some doctors and some lawyers get a divorce is no reason to presume or state that all of them are bad parents. I know too many who are to even give any credit to such a statement. And last I checked, divorces were pretty popular across the board, no matte what you do for work.
And the fact that one person gets a divorce - or in the US, the fact that more than half the marriages end up in divorce court - is not a reason to not be married.

I did not mean to single out any profession. Farmers, clerks, etc. It is the same. There are many divorces and problems in all fields. **And of course it is not a reason to not be married. ** I was saying that since there is already so much problems in the lay people, we are much better off if it isn’t in the clergy as well. And I think that the Pope thinks so as well.

originally posted by otjm
How will the Church deal with difficult issues? How has the Church dealt with difficult issues in the past? Sometimes well, sometimes not so well. again, you miss the point: we already have a married clergy in the Eastern rites with married priests for 2000 years; we have married priests in the Roman rite, and we now have married deacons in the Roman rite. and we are surviving, in spite of your objections.

That may be so! But it is not only my objections. The Church still expects most of Her priests to stay celibate.

Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[peary]

OH! That’s WAY too funny! Having 8th graders debate whether or not priests should be celibate. 8th graders are a bucket of raging hormones LOL What do you THINK they would say?

 

[Daprato]

Hi everyone,
I am having trouble dealing with the fact that there seems to be so little understanding in my area for people who want to get past the cofortable, easy-going catholicism that exists. Since I started watching EWTN, I find that we are surrounded with liberal catholics. The idea seems to be that working for a few common problems such as the environment and poverty is all that is needed. My husband and I for the last few years had been members of a parish **that now I find is so far from traditional catholicism. ** We were members of the Stephen Ministry in the parish. Much of the time I found the meetings discouraging. Even the leaders expressed thoughts about there being no difference between catholics and other christians. When I brought up issues that I thought needed to be discussed, I was hushed. No one seemed to want to face the fact of problems existing.
Now in my own family, I am getting the same response.
I posted my thoughts in an ‘ask a sister’ forum and got an angry response. I got told that if I am looking for the perfect church, I should wait until I am 6 feet under. The sister said that there is no perfect church on this earth. I believe this is wrong. The One True Church led by the Holy Spirit IS perfect. People working in the Church make mistakes when they act without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I find it frustrating that there are so few people who are looking for more and better ways to follow the faith.
**Are there any other people who have encountered the same difficulties? ** And what should one do about it?
Love in Jesus Christ
Shiphrae

As wonderful as I think EWTN is in many ways, sometimes I am afraid they are polarizing far too many people with a brand of fundamentalist Catholicism that appeals to the same sort of person that fundamentalist Protestantism does. Those searching for reductionism rather than the truth.

Just what is a “liberal” or “conservative” Catholic?

Just because the Mass at your local parish doesn’t look like the one on EWTN does that mean it is “bad” or “liberal” – not necessarily!

You need to dig a bit deeper…

 

[JRKH]

It is my belief that children should be treated as intelligent individuals, capable of understanding issues. I disagree that all students should be protected from knowing any issues which are questioned - either in the church, or about the Church by those who are not members. It goes without saying that they need to be taught why the Church has the position it does, but by 8th grade many of them will already have been exposed to the issues.

As to the format of the issue, I disagree with letting 8th graders, or for that matter, high school seniors, debate an issue outside of a debate class. That does not preclude a vigorous discussion. The teacher needs to present the Church’s position, but on issues of discipline, I do not see that they need to be taught as matters of faith; we already have a history going way back where that was done, leaving a whole lot of people who thought they were taught a matter of faith, having problems when a disipline is changed. An example is communion; too many were taught about it as if it werre a matter of doctrine of the means of reception.

In short, I think it does matter that people - children - are taught what is a matter of discipline and that it might, or might not, be changed in the future. It prevents them from having a crisis of faith when a discipline is changed that they were taught to think was immutable.

Of course children should be treated with respect and treated as intelligent. They should also be treated as uneducated. The job of this teacher was to teach them about the Church not to teach them to be ecclesiastical debators.

Stringbeanduck, origionally explained that:

Stringbeanduck said:
Earlier this year when I was 8th grade I had a real liberal Sunday school teacher. Last thing a bunch of early teens need is a liberal teacher. I had to be the only one to defend the churches teachings.

Later Post – Stringbeanduck said:
So I come next with my speech ready and he comes ready to debate me. Team 1 was the teacher and 11 kids. Team 2 was 1 kid, that kid being me. So I say, “Look this is not gonna happen full ‘debate’ style. I said how about I read my speech and you can have a rebuttal. He says, “Sure.”

After I read aloud my speech he and 11 other kids start shouting questions at me. I will not repeat their rebuttal. But it was like 12 lions going after a lamb. I came there to learn and I was challenged instead including by my teacher. One of the only things I learned that Sunday school year was to defend what I believe without backing down.

Please note that Stringbeanduck - a peer in the group - felt that they were too young for this kind of liberal questioning of the faith in a CCD class.

In addition, please note that this teacher positively failed to maintain any kind of balanced approach to the discussion, even joining the anti-celibacy side in the debate. Assuming the teacher is at least adequately educated and intelligent he should have taken a neutral stance and appointed one student from each side for the discussion and not let it decline into a free for all.

These children, 13 and 14 years old, who’s hormones are just beginning to assert themselves have not the experience, knowledge, wisdom, and balance to adequately discuss, let alone debate such an issue?

Once these students have reached adulthood and have a chance to grow in their faith, gain life experience, discern God’s will for them, and generally matured then they would be properly equiped to discuss and debate such a complex issue.

I personally have no position one way or the other on celibacy in the priesthood. I do have a problem with negligence by teachers in the formation of young catholic minds.

I would ask that you place yourself in the role of CCD teacher. Would you feel it appropriate to allow such a situation to occur as Stringbeanduck related?

James

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by Deprato
As wonderful as I think EWTN is in many ways, sometimes I am afraid they are polarizing far too many people with a brand of fundamentalist Catholicism that appeals to the same sort of person that fundamentalist Protestantism does. Those searching for reductionism rather than the truth.

I disagree! There is no such thing as being too dedicated to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings. We are all meant to try for perfection and sainthood. Jesus had no use for the mediocre.

Just what is a “liberal” or “conservative” Catholic?

I think that a liberal Catholic is one who picks and chooses the doctrines or disciplines of the Church that he or she will follow. For example back in the 60’s and 70’s people decided that they could choose to use contraceptives (follow their conscience} as they were told to do by some priests and even bishops. It was wrong! It is against the Church’s teachings.

A conservative Catholic is one who accepts all the Church’s doctrines and makes every effort to live by them. Such a person accepts the Church’s discipline as well. We were given the Church by Jesus Christ. He did not say to follow Her only when we think that we should. We do not see the whole picture. Only God does and He gives us the Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Just because the Mass at your local parish doesn’t look like the one on EWTN does that mean it is “bad” or “liberal” – not necessarily!

I didn’t say that. I think that it goes much deeper than a few outward changes.

Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[KathleenElsie]

In seems to me that there are excellent reasons for the Church to insist on Her priests remaining, in general, celibate. How can they give their all to the Church if they have a family to care for? I could see some of them doing alright with a wife but then there would often be children as well.

I agree with your answer in general. Here are my thoughts.

If a priest was to be married he would have to follow the same teachings every other married person does. So in most cases there would be no maybe about children. The families would be big and the complications many. (now the upside is that maybe the Catholic education system would become a priority again)

Look marriage and priesthood are both vocations. Both call for giving your all to the one you choose. I honestly don’t know of many people that could handle both as each was intended.

Would the woman have to be checked out for the same amount of time that a candidate for priesthood is? Could a priest whose wife divorced him (with or without societal reason) still be able to remain a priest? So many questions so few honest and reasoned answers.

So IMHO priests should remain un married thus celibate per the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[peary]

As wonderful as I think EWTN is in many ways, sometimes I am afraid they are polarizing far too many people with a brand of fundamentalist Catholicism that appeals to the same sort of person that fundamentalist Protestantism does. Those searching for reductionism rather than the truth.

Just what is a “liberal” or “conservative” Catholic?

Just because the Mass at your local parish doesn’t look like the one on EWTN does that mean it is “bad” or “liberal” – not necessarily!

You need to dig a bit deeper…

**What is a ‘liberal’ Catholic? I would rather use the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’. In my experience, ‘traditional’ Catholics are just that…TRADITIONAL. They follow the church’s teachings, they prefer the more traditional music in church rather than that reflected in pop culture; they prefer the Mass said by both the priest and people following proper rubrics. Your ‘non-traditional’ Catholic is one who does not agree with either some or all of the church’s teachings, who ignores doctrine, who prefers pop music during Mass, and doesn’t mind how many liberties a priestt takes with celebrating the Mass.

EWTN has no capability of polarizing anybody except non-traditional catholics who seem to have a disdain for the Church’s traditions.

The digger you deep, sooner or later you end up in a hell of your own making**

 

[buffalo]

Liberalism is a Sin

 

[KathleenElsie]

Given the fact that attorneys, doctors, accountants, mid-level and higher managers of corporations, accountants, many engineers, and many other professionals have the same issue, it would probably be handled the same way they do.

It is a mantra, not based or reality, that a priest is available 24-7. They all have time off; they all need sleep, they all have schedules which are more than a 40 hour work week. So do professionals.

Priests need to be available for emergency calls; so do doctors. Priests are not going out on calls 24 hours a day; on occasion they are needed in the middle of the night. All people, no matter what they do - priest, doctor, lawyer, whatever - need time away or they face burnout. There is nothing intrinsic to the priesthood that says that the priest must attend every last meeting in the parish, every last function, and be available literally 24-7. Our archdiocese insiststs that priests take at least one day off; and amazingly, the world does not fall apart on that day.

Celibacy is not bad; it is not evil; it is not something to be done aways wtih; it is its own charism, a gift that is not given to all. To those whom it is given, it can be an excellent witness look to all who have professed a life of ceilibacy dedicated to the Church who are not priests.

It is not, however, intrinsic to the priesthood. The Church has a 2000 year history of married clergy in the Eastern rites, and it has a married clergy in the Latin/Roman rite - those who were married ministers in Protestant churches who converted and were subsequently ordained.

These all attorneys, doctors, accountants, mid-level and higher managers of corporations, accountants have high divorce rates. So IMHO they are not good examples for a married priesthood. Ask many in the social services field about the problems their mostly small families have.

Also the chosen professionals you mention are mostly high income. Priests are not highly paid. So you now have the added burden of higher costs and possibly a wife having to work like many, if not most, women.

Could it be done? Yes. Should it be done? No IMHO.

 

[peary]

These all attorneys, doctors, accountants, mid-level and higher managers of corporations, accountants have high divorce rates. So IMHO they are not good examples for a married priesthood. Ask many in the social services field about the problems their mostly small families have.

Also the chosen professionals you mention are mostly high income. Priests are not highly paid. So you now have the added burden of higher costs and possibly a wife having to work like many, if not most, women.

Could it be done? Yes. Should it be done? No IMHO.

**What is never discussed is the divorce rate among the married Eastern clergy. You never hear about it, though it is as high as what occurs among protestant ministers. **

 

[Wolseley]

Just what is a “liberal” or “conservative” Catholic?

Conservative: One who supports the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

Liberal: One who supports St. Joan of Arc parish in Minneapolis.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by Kathleen Elsie
These all attorneys, doctors, accountants, mid-level and higher managers of corporations, accountants have high divorce rates. So IMHO they are not good examples for a married priesthood. Ask many in the social services field about the problems their mostly small families have.

Also the chosen professionals you mention are mostly high income. Priests are not highly paid. So you now have the added burden of higher costs and possibly a wife having to work like many, if not most, women.

Could it be done? Yes. Should it be done? No IMHO.

IMHO this is excellent reasoning. Thank you!

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae