Re Letter in diocesan magazine

[need_to_know]

Our diocese publishes a bimonthly magazine. You can see it here. I have some issues with one of the letters on the ‘Letters’ page (page 7 of the magazine, bottom right of the 6th page of the PDF). The writer says that we should ‘bring back all those priests who were excluded, and continue to be excluded simply because they wished to get married’ (i.e. defied church teaching). She also suggests that priests need not be male and that women could be ordained as priests ‘Pray for women to follow their vocation to the priesthood or diaconate, and for the church to stop excluding them’ (again, going against church teaching). She finishes with ‘How on earth have we got ourselves into the unjust situation whereby married Anglicans are welcomed as priests in the Catholic church whereas Catholic candidates for the priesthood are still required to commit themselves to lifelong celibacy?’ which sounds like she feels converted Anglican priests are not as good as priests ‘straight out of the Church’. The editor adds, ‘(I’m reminded that the Orthodox and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have married as well as celibate clergy. Ed.)’ I note that the Orthodox are a separate Church and the Eastern Rite Churches are of course allowed their own disciplines but I do not feel that the editor should support these kind of dissenting views or even appear to. I feel that the whole letter is misguided and I do not think that it should be included as the first letter in this section of the magazine. I do not like the idea that my money could be going to the diocese and funding a magazine which publishes these letters in this way. What this woman has written runs counter to church teaching and it doesn’t seem right that it should be able to appear in a diocesan publication. Does anyone have any advice on what I can do about this?

 

[Leopard]

Write a letter to the editor of the magazine.

 

[need_to_know]

Write a letter to the editor of the magazine.

That’s what I was thinking of doing, but I need some ideas on how to make my points. This thread has given me some good support for the ‘no women priests’ bit, but I’m not sure exactly what to say in objection to the fact that this woman is arguing against priestly celibacy (which is ‘only’ a discipline, but still…) and her apparent prejudice against ex-Anglican priests.

 

[whatevergirl]

Hello;

Thanks for sharing this…I think that magazine is so rich with information, that is nice that your diocese puts something out like that!

Two things…one a question the other, an observation…

First, I just see that letter as someone who wants to redefine the priesthood, and second, why was this letter chosen to be in this magazine? Of all the letters that probably pour in, this is the one that was chosen? lol I dunno how to take that.

 

[Shin]

There is not much you can do about it – if the Vatican is going to clamp down upon the particular bishop whose responsibility it is to oversee this and who is permitting it…

Basically you have nothing you can do directly. You can pray and offer up sacrifices. That is what you can do.

Letter writing campaigns and all are nice if they actually get off the ground but I don’t think you’re thinking of going so far.

Write a letter of complaint at best. Pray. Offer it up.

 

[need_to_know]

Whatevergirl, I agree that it is a really nice publication. My main objection was that, as you say, somebody who is arguing against church doctrine has had their letter published first on the Letters page. It just doesn’t sit right with me, I guess.

Shin, the first inside page had a disclaimer of sorts: ‘Views expressed in Portsmouth People are not necessarily the views of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth…’ so I don’t know if this is something over which the Bishop necessarily has a lot of oversight in practice. Of course, as diocesan funds (i.e. what parishioners contribute to the collection and goes to the diocese) are going towards this then of course he does have some responsibility for it. I did also notice on page 17 of the magazine (bottom right of page 11 of the PDF) in the orange box it says ‘Men applying to be deacons must be under 55. Controversially for some, the ministry is not open to women.’ I found it puzzling that the writer had mentioned this, since the church has made an infallible declaration on the matter.

I suppose I’m just worried about what this says about the diocese itself. I’m a convert (as of 2006) discerning a vocation to the priesthood and if this is indicative of the character of the diocese it might be putting me off diocesan priesthood. I’d feel a bit mean applying to another diocese for the diocesan prieshood.

 

[Shin]

Whatevergirl, I agree that it is a really nice publication. My main objection was that, as you say, somebody who is arguing against church doctrine has had their letter published first on the Letters page. It just doesn’t sit right with me, I guess.

Shin, the first inside page had a disclaimer of sorts: ‘Views expressed in Portsmouth People are not necessarily the views of the Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth…’ so I don’t know if this is something over which the Bishop necessarily has a lot of oversight in practice. Of course, as diocesan funds (i.e. what parishioners contribute to the collection and goes to the diocese) are going towards this then of course he does have some responsibility for it. I did also notice on page 17 of the magazine (bottom right of page 11 of the PDF) in the orange box it says ‘Men applying to be deacons must be under 55. Controversially for some, the ministry is not open to women.’ I found it puzzling that the writer had mentioned this, since the church has made an infallible declaration on the matter.

I suppose I’m just worried about what this says about the diocese itself. I’m a convert (as of 2006) discerning a vocation to the priesthood and if this is indicative of the character of the diocese it might be putting me off diocesan priesthood. I’d feel a bit mean applying to another diocese for the diocesan prieshood.

Looks like I missed out on a +not in there somehow above.

Yes it’s obviously a heterodox newsletter. Now, just because the bishop hasn’t done anything about it yet doesn’t mean he isn’t going to – but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Hopefully there’re some good priests in the diocese to make up for the bishop, what can I say?

Write to the bishop first, and then to the nuncio and then the CDF? Well, at least they’ll hopefully be filed away somewhere the letters and not thrown away. It’s the times we’re in…

 

[bkovacs]

This must be a Post Vatican 2 mentality. Having Women Priests!. As for non-celebate male clergy, I’ll take the position of the Orthodox on that one. And they don’t have the vocation problems like the West has.

 

[need_to_know]

Shin, do you think I should write to the editor of the magazine first or go straight to the bishop? (I realise I can go Bishop → nuncio → CDF if I need to).

And bkovacs, I guess this person has a right to disagree with the Church’s discipline on priestly celibacy but I think my main objection there is how she says that the Church’s current rule ‘contradicts the evidence of the New Testament and the early church’, where she shows an ignorance of what discipline is. And the editor adds in a note afterwards making the same point as you but does not balance the argument out.

 

[Shin]

Shin, do you think I should write to the editor of the magazine first or go straight to the bishop? (I realise I can go Bishop → nuncio → CDF if I need to).

And bkovacs, I guess this person has a right to disagree with the Church’s discipline on priestly celibacy but I think my main objection there is how she says that the Church’s current rule ‘contradicts the evidence of the New Testament and the early church’, where she shows an ignorance of what discipline is. And the editor adds in a note afterwards making the same point as you but does not balance the argument out.

Well, the proper response would’ve been for the magazine itself to have replied correcting the letter – if it is going to post a letter of that kind.

Hmm. I think writing the magazine or phoning them, some form of contact first would be best, that would be the ‘start’ of the ‘chain of command’ that you get punished for not following when complaining about these things.

If one ever is to have an iota of chance of getting a decent response one has to generally document, cite names, dates and locations of the problems, and how one took it step by step.

Not that you likely should bother taking it far, they will dismiss it as only a single letter, you’d want more substance before taking it too high. The other bit about deacons is good but neither is quite enough to really run with to the tip top.

 

[need_to_know]

Well, the proper response would’ve been for the magazine itself to have replied correcting the letter – if it is going to post a letter of that kind.

Hmm. I think writing the magazine or phoning them, some form of contact first would be best, that would be the ‘start’ of the ‘chain of command’ that you get punished for not following when complaining about these things.

If one ever is to have an iota of chance of getting a decent response one has to generally document, cite names, dates and locations of the problems, and how one took it step by step.

Not that you likely should bother taking it far, they will dismiss it as only a single letter, you’d want more substance before taking it too high. The other bit about deacons is good but neither is quite enough to really run with to the tip top.

I think I will email the editor. That way I have an electronic copy of the communication and I can make it quite a long message, quoting documents etc. I’ll only bother taking it any higher if I get a really bad response or if this becomes a recurring problem - this is only the second edition of the ‘new format’ magazine and the second time they’ve had a letters page (it seems it was reintroduced with the new format).

Thanks for your replies!

 

[need_to_know]

I just want to check, would it be correct to refer to the writer’s views on female priestly ordination as heretic/heresy? I know that it is a strong word, I just want to check if it would be technically correct - as she is going against established, infallibly declared Church doctrine.

 

[Dauphin]

I just want to check, would it be correct to refer to the writer’s views on female priestly ordination as heretic/heresy? I know that it is a strong word, I just want to check if it would be technically correct - as she is going against established, infallibly declared Church doctrine.

Her views are certainly heretical, but I would avoid calling her a heretic. Only someone who obstinately persists in holding this position even after correction can be considered a heretic.

 

[need_to_know]

Okay, thanks for that clarification. But would it be okay to call the view she expresses heretical so long as I make sure that it does not appear as if I am applying that label to her?

 

[Dauphin]

Okay, thanks for that clarification. But would it be okay to call the view she expresses heretical so long as I make sure that it does not appear as if I am applying that label to her?

Yes, of course.

 

[LRThunder]

I just want to check, would it be correct to refer to the writer’s views on female priestly ordination as heretic/heresy? I know that it is a strong word, I just want to check if it would be technically correct - as she is going against established, infallibly declared Church doctrine.

It is heresy. Male only clergy is a doctrine and to espouse views contrary to doctrine and dogma is heresy.

 

[whatevergirl]

I just want to check, would it be correct to refer to the writer’s views on female priestly ordination as heretic/heresy? I know that it is a strong word, I just want to check if it would be technically correct - as she is going against established, infallibly declared Church doctrine.

I’m sure the editors realize that…I would hope! The problem is with why they chose that letter to highlight in their magazine? Unless it’s a Q&A type section, that would be good, because then an answer about Catholic teaching would be appropriate follow up. But, it looks like it’s just a letter hanging there…with no real purpose.

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

I have to interject here. It is the nature of every periodical with letters to the editor to print things that are meant to get people stirred up and write in. It keeps things interesting and it ensures that people will continue reading to see who wins the debate. In other words: It keeps the money rolling…

 

[Contarini]

Our diocese publishes a bimonthly magazine. You can see it here. I have some issues with one of the letters on the ‘Letters’ page (page 7 of the magazine, bottom right of the 6th page of the PDF). The writer says that we should ‘bring back all those priests who were excluded, and continue to be excluded simply because they wished to get married’ (i.e. defied church teaching). She also suggests that priests need not be male and that women could be ordained as priests ‘Pray for women to follow their vocation to the priesthood or diaconate, and for the church to stop excluding them’ (again, going against church teaching). She finishes with ‘How on earth have we got ourselves into the unjust situation whereby married Anglicans are welcomed as priests in the Catholic church whereas Catholic candidates for the priesthood are still required to commit themselves to lifelong celibacy?’ which sounds like she feels converted Anglican priests are not as good as priests ‘straight out of the Church’. The editor adds, ‘(I’m reminded that the Orthodox and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches have married as well as celibate clergy. Ed.)’ I note that the Orthodox are a separate Church and the Eastern Rite Churches are of course allowed their own disciplines but I do not feel that the editor should support these kind of dissenting views or even appear to. I feel that the whole letter is misguided and I do not think that it should be included as the first letter in this section of the magazine. I do not like the idea that my money could be going to the diocese and funding a magazine which publishes these letters in this way. What this woman has written runs counter to church teaching and it doesn’t seem right that it should be able to appear in a diocesan publication. Does anyone have any advice on what I can do about this?

Good heavens! Not only don’t you want to see dissenting ideas published as articles in the diocesan paper, you don’t think they should even print letters if the contents are unorthodox in your view?

Can you see why non-Catholics see this and wonder what would happen to them if people like you ever became too powerful?

Edwin

 

[Shin]

Good heavens! Not only don’t you want to see dissenting ideas published as articles in the diocesan paper, you don’t think they should even print letters if the contents are unorthodox in your view?

Can you see why non-Catholics see this and wonder what would happen to them if people like you ever became too powerful?

Edwin

If the idea had been corrected in the magazine with the proper instruction, that would be good. But that it is allowed to stand on its own, uncorrected as an endorsement of the idea, is sin.

That is right it is a sin to teach people to sin, to promote sin. What part of that is it that seem strange to you? Perhaps because you do not believe in revealed truth, absolute truth, or certain truth you find it odd – but it flows from this, from God – who is truth, and whom it is a sin to speak against, which should be easy to understand.