The Church of England OK's female bishops

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well first of all, I hope your screen name is inspired by the Led Zeppelin bassist and not the famous naval commander LOL…I’m a huge Zep fan!

Ironically, I have been playing the guitar since I was 12. I’m now 35. I live with a Statocaster by my side, trust me! Many of my heroes are guitarists. It’s my favorite instrument bar none. However I notice that the guitar tends to be a strummy koombaya phenomenon in the guitar. I myself played in the 10am music group for a couple of years in junior college. I felt it was inappropriate, happy-clappy stuff and just not what I want to hear in the Church. I prefer the organ, piano, and plenty of Ave Marias… Sadly the guitar, despite being my favorite instrument period, leads to a bass and a violin and a flute and a this and a that…then look at the 8pm sunday night “youth Mass” and you even see a drum set. What’s next…John Bonham? LOL…Moby Dick!!!

I’m just conservative with Liturgy and subscribe to the less is more Medievel sound. Honestly I wish we had Gregorian Chant with NO instruments if I had my druthers! God bless, brother!

I agree with most of what you said except for the part about the guitar - I really don’t understand anti-guitar sediments I hear from people. The tradition of playing string instruments can be trace back to the Old Testament. There are many musical instruments that are mentioned in the OT - like the harp & the lyre, whether these instrument are the exactly the same in ancient times, translations for similar instruments - I’m not sure. The guitar is a string instrument very much like the lyre and the harp and the difference between them is the position of the strings in relation to the body. David (who played the harp) is probably the most popular string instrumnents players from the Bible. The fact he wrote the Psalms and the fact they were accompanied with string instruments should add to the legitimacy of them in prayer/worship.

I don’t see the folk gutiar as the problem, the quality of the style of music might be lacking, but I believe the folk guitar is just as legimate an instrument to be use during Mass as the organ. John Foley S.J. wrote many folksy songs that are just as beautiful and inspirational as older material that comes from Middle Ages.

 

[Biedrik]

The same place they pugged in the flutes and stringed instruments, of course.

Perhaps the Ark of the Covenant? I think it would be able to give quite a bit of power.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .
I don’t see the folk gutiar as the problem, the quality of the style of music might be lacking, but I believe the folk guitar is just as legimate an instrument to be use during Mass as the organ. John Foley S.J. wrote many folksy songs that are just as beautiful and inspirational as older material that comes from Middle Ages.

As I recall, Silent Night was written for a guitar to cover an emergency at a mid-night Christmas mass when it was discovered that a mouse had sabotaged the organ.

 

[larkin31]

Women are just as capable of making terrific religious leaders (of all categories) as men are. Good for the Anglicans!

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the folksy koombaya guitar-strumming, communion-in-the-hand, hand-holding during the Our Father, and blandness of the post Vatican II liturgy is indeed a tragedy. But the essential meaning, structure, sacrifice, and theology has not changed an iota. I don’t think the Mass changes drove people away. I think the pathetic, and I mean PATHETIC catechesis in the Church drove many many people away. For decades Catholics, including myself as a kid and teen, didn’t have a dang clue about theology or church history or sacramental theology. I didn’t understand soteriology, the Eucharist, the communion of saints, the liturgy, you name it. Catechesis is still bland, rote, and pitiful. The Church stopped being missionary-minded. The Gospel wasn’t preached from the roof tops. The Mass wasn’t the problem. The catechesis and in more recent years the PR nightmares haven’t helped. What has kept things together is Catholics who love their Church, Marian devotion to a large degree, the papacy, titans like John Paul II who energized the youth, World Youth Day, JP2’s role in the downfall of communism, and I think the Holy Spirit. I don’t think Benedict has been anywhere near the envigorating, energetic, inspiring, funny at times, deep figure that JP2 was. He was the pope my whole life. He felt like an uncle. Personality in the papacy does a lot. I wish he were back. But I think there is more that has kept Catholics together than just a central authority. I think it’s all those factors.

I have to disagree. In the Anglican Church the theology behind the liturgical changes has been pretty well documented, though it was not openly admitted at the time , and the RC liturgical changes were nearly identical. I can’t think that was just chance. Now, I don’t think there was much of a change in theological focus at the top of the hierarchy in the case of the CC, but I am pretty sure that the people who developed the NO had the 20th century liturgical movement ideas in their minds, even if they didn’t express them.

I also wonder if problems with catechesis may be related to liturgical issues. The OC has always taught, and Anglicans until recently, that the two are essentially connected. One of the most important secondary function of the liturgy and other types of public prayer is didactic. It should clearly and beautifully teach and show us what we believe. The Latin Church went from a liturgy that most didn’t understand well, to one that is just not up to par in that area. Not to mention all those theologically muddy hymns (especially the ones on guitar maybe)

I really liked JP II as well, he was a dynamic personality, not to mention rather handsome as a young man. (For some reason he reminds me of the Dali Lama, or vice versa. I can imagine them having a coffee on a terrace and discussing the annoyances of being a world-wide religious leader.) Benedict seems like a nice enough man and he’s obviously very talented, but he doesn’t have that charisma.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

reply to bluegoat…

You can’t disagree with me! LOL…sorry, that’s my Mel Gibson impression

You make good points and I’m not so sure where we disagree? I agree with you that the liturgy of the Catholic Church took a nose dive with Vatican II, a tremendous one! But I think this is a holistic problem, not just liturgical. That’s all I’m saying. I think the liturgy, despite having weak language, watered-down music (in many parishes, not all by any means), cutting off the incense and majestic bells and whistles, it has taken something away. However, the essentials are still there. The Eucharistic liturgy is there and the theology behind it is solid and sound. The invocation of Mary and the Saints is there. The sacrifice of the Mass is in tact. The Sanctus and acclamations are there, the sermon (I agree with you that the homilies are crucial and have seriously taken a back seat and are thin in my own experience!) is there albeit not dynamic and didactic enough for yours truly either!, the blessings, the important parts are all there.

I think the rationale behind Vatican II weakened the Mass’s beauty and its ritualistic majesty. The liturgy didn’t weaken the Church. The Church weakened the liturgy. Chicken and egg kinda thing.

Like I said, catechesis being HORRIFIC for decades makes Catholics not understand their faith, not get motivated, not care, and convert to other faiths that will catechize and take the time to care, the priesthood took in so many renegade homosexuals and pedophiles and uninspiring characters for decades also that that sure didn’t make the Church stronger. Apart from JP2 the other popes were a tad forgetable IMO and didn’t achieve half of what he did, and the world has become more secular and difficult to evangelize no matter what church you’re in anyway! Don’t forget that!

I think the Catholic Church also went up against a difficult challenge–pastoral care, fellowship, and bible studies. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had no need for fellowship. Why? Everyone was Catholic! The emphasis in the Middle Ages was the sacrificial side of the Mass with less emphasis on the didactic side you mention in the sermon, etc. So there is a bible component lacking. And the pastoral care in the Catholic Church has never been good in my observation.

So the Catholics were functioning with a Medievel model in the 1900’s while you have the Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Non-denoms, Methodists and all the rest putting huge stress on bible studies, Awanas, family nights, fellowship, outreach, counseling couples, retreats, you name it. When I was a kid my Protestant friends invited me to Vacation Bible School. Wow! That was cool! I wondered when I was a kid, “why don’t we have VBS?” Hmmmm. My Pentecostal friends, these two brothers, invited me to their church to play soccer. The pastor and elders supervised us. It was fun. No strings, no forced conversions. Just a little fun for the kids. I went to a Lutheran VBS and a Reformed VBS. I learned a lot at both and had fun.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

reply to bluegoat continued…

Now, in Catholic Answers Forums there is a lot of sour grapes. I hear this all the time: “those Pentecostals and Baptists only have soccer games to try and rip Catholics and other folks away from their faith into their folds!” or “Those Lutherans and Anglicans have greeters. That’s a stupid concept! Those greeters are trying to sell you something! They aren’t sincere in all that friendliness! Trust me! It’s a salesmanship thing!” And with all the other outreaches or great Bible studies and ministries they dismiss them away as ruses or salesman tricks or window dressing.

And this has hurt Catholicism. Catholicism has had a “you come to us, we’re not coming to you” mentality for decades. Catholic Answers and EWTN have tried to reverse that so I applaud them. The need to evangelize has been dormant for quite some time. The medievel model of how to operate isn’t effective. People with adulterous spouses who need counseling find little solace or help in many parishes. People struggling with marital problems or the loss of a job or a death in the family or AIDS or whatever the problem is find deaf ears at times. I read it all the time in CAF here and I see it at my parish. The pastoral care is abysmal in my entire diocese. I lost my job years back, got laid off, and my pastor said, “look, you’ll find another job. relax. Look, I can’t talk now, football game’s on. Make an appointment or something ok?” I had a priest tell my mom at confession, “get to the dang point already lady!” We had another priest say, “there’s nothing I hate more than visiting these old people at convalescent homes and I can’t stand going to the hospitals. I shouldn’t have to do that. Lay people should!” When my wife and I struggled, I mean STRUGGLED with NFP to a high degree the priests wouldn’t call us back, wouldn’t meet with us, could care less, all four of them. It was sickening. And then when we finally got in to speak with one (my wife literally had to force her way into his office) he said that nobody follows NFP anyway, who really cares, use birth control, don’t even bother confessing it. Go for it?

The liturgy of the Mass, IMO, is the least of the problems. The Church has had some fundamentally bad problems. If we could get rid of the heaps of gay priests, the pedophiles, get some married clergy who understand the problems of couples and normal folks, down to earth bishops and clergy who are dynamic and into preaching the word, coffee hours, greeters, mid-week fellowship, better evangelism, outreach, catechesis that is actually fun and engaging for kids as well as meaningful, and an improved liturgy, etc. the Catholic Church would be vastly improved in my opinion.

I have to disagree. In the Anglican Church the theology behind the liturgical changes has been pretty well documented, though it was not openly admitted at the time , and the RC liturgical changes were nearly identical. I can’t think that was just chance. Now, I don’t think there was much of a change in theological focus at the top of the hierarchy in the case of the CC, but I am pretty sure that the people who developed the NO had the 20th century liturgical movement ideas in their minds, even if they didn’t express them.

.

l

 

[Bluegoat]

reply to bluegoat continued…

Now, in Catholic Answers Forums there is a lot of sour grapes. I hear this all the time: “those Pentecostals and Baptists only have soccer games to try and rip Catholics and other folks away from their faith into their folds!” or “Those Lutherans and Anglicans have greeters. That’s a stupid concept! Those greeters are trying to sell you something! They aren’t sincere in all that friendliness! Trust me! It’s a salesmanship thing!” And with all the other outreaches or great Bible studies and ministries they dismiss them away as ruses or salesman tricks or window dressing.

And this has hurt Catholicism. Catholicism has had a “you come to us, we’re not coming to you” mentality for decades. Catholic Answers and EWTN have tried to reverse that so I applaud them. The need to evangelize has been dormant for quite some time. The medievel model of how to operate isn’t effective. People with adulterous spouses who need counseling find little solace or help in many parishes. People struggling with marital problems or the loss of a job or a death in the family or AIDS or whatever the problem is find deaf ears at times. I read it all the time in CAF here and I see it at my parish. The pastoral care is abysmal in my entire diocese. I lost my job years back, got laid off, and my pastor said, “look, you’ll find another job. relax. Look, I can’t talk now, football game’s on. Make an appointment or something ok?” I had a priest tell my mom at confession, “get to the dang point already lady!” We had another priest say, “there’s nothing I hate more than visiting these old people at convalescent homes and I can’t stand going to the hospitals. I shouldn’t have to do that. Lay people should!” When my wife and I struggled, I mean STRUGGLED with NFP to a high degree the priests wouldn’t call us back, wouldn’t meet with us, could care less, all four of them. It was sickening. And then when we finally got in to speak with one (my wife literally had to force her way into his office) he said that nobody follows NFP anyway, who really cares, use birth control, don’t even bother confessing it. Go for it?

The liturgy of the Mass, IMO, is the least of the problems. The Church has had some fundamentally bad problems. If we could get rid of the heaps of gay priests, the pedophiles, get some married clergy who understand the problems of couples and normal folks, down to earth bishops and clergy who are dynamic and into preaching the word, coffee hours, greeters, mid-week fellowship, better evangelism, outreach, catechesis that is actually fun and engaging for kids as well as meaningful, and an improved liturgy, etc. the Catholic Church would be vastly improved in my opinion.

l

Well, yes, it is a chicken and egg problem. Where did the yahoos that developed these new liturgies get that idea from anyway?

The only thing I would say is that it isn’t just the sermon that is didactic, and that isn’t primarily what I was thinking about. (And I must say that is very Protestant of you to think that is what I meant!) I was thinking of the text of the liturgy itself - and also occasional services, and daily offices. Neither the Anglicans or Orthodox have a “CCC” to rely on, we expect to hear and speak the substance of our belief in public prayer. (At least that is my understanding of the OC view.) It isn’t just the mechanics of the Mass, which seems to be such a strong emphasis in Catholicism - “what is the least we can do to have a valid Mass?”

Also, it is interesting to me that this pastoral and also fellowship problem is not just something different from Protestantism, but it is rather different from Orthodoxy too. The difference between confessing ones sins to a Catholic priest where the emphasis is on penance and it is explicitly NOT supposed to be counseling, and an Orthodox (or even Anglican if you bother) one large. The focus there is really on the person’s spiritual battle over time, and Orthodox individuals relationships with their spiritual father’s seems to have little to compare in Catholicism. The congregations, even the large ones, also seem to take care of each other in a way that gets missed in Catholic parishes.

Of course there are great Catholic priests who work hard - probably too hard. But as was pointed out in another thread, the Catholic understanding actually IS that priests are sacrament machines, not pastors or spiritual fathers to their congregations.

 

[larkin31]

…The liturgy of the Mass, IMO, is the least of the problems. The Church has had some fundamentally bad problems. If we could get rid of the heaps of gay priests, the pedophiles, get some married clergy who understand the problems of couples and normal folks, down to earth bishops and clergy who are dynamic and into preaching the word, coffee hours, greeters, mid-week fellowship, better evangelism, outreach, catechesis that is actually fun and engaging for kids as well as meaningful, and an improved liturgy, etc. the Catholic Church would be vastly improved in my opinion.

l

a great argument for the Protestant approach!

 

[Contarini]

What I meant by that last bolded part is this - The Catholic Church has also adopted the same style of modern liturgy, which I think is based on a theology that is fundamentally different than traditional catholic Christianity.

Could you articulate that–maybe in a separate thread?

I have heard these claims before, but have never found them convincing. To say that there are theological problems behind some of the assumptions that shaped the liturgical revision is one thing–or that, as Pope Benedict has said, getting a committee together to put together a “revised liturgy” is the wrong way to go about it in the first place.

But I can’t see that the fundamental theology is different.

Gurney, can it be that you and I agree on this one?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

He was the pope my whole life.

Another point where I need to revise my picture of you! Somehow I thought you were older than I am!

I like B16 better than you seem to–but he’s certainly less avuncular!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have to disagree. In the Anglican Church the theology behind the liturgical changes has been pretty well documented, though it was not openly admitted at the time , and the RC liturgical changes were nearly identical. I can’t think that was just chance. Now, I don’t think there was much of a change in theological focus at the top of the hierarchy in the case of the CC, but I am pretty sure that the people who developed the NO had the 20th century liturgical movement ideas in their minds, even if they didn’t express them.

Yes, but how do you understand the liturgical movement to be heretical? I think that it was pompous and arrogant and imposed a particular vision of theology with the false assumption that it was *the *theology of the early Church instead of a particular reading of that theology through 20th-century eyes, but I don’t think the theology in question was fundamentally heretical. I think that in a number of ways it was an improvement over the theology of the Protestant Reformers, which (whatever Anglo-Catholics claim to the contrary) fundamentally shaped the BCP. And in more limited and nuanced ways, it may even have been somewhat of an improvement over the older Latin theology that shaped much of the pre-Vatican II RC liturgy.

For instance, Aidan Nichols admits that the traditional Roman Mass was *never *easily intelligible by the people in the sense that the Byzantine liturgy originally was–it was formalized at the time when the Western Church was coming under the control of the old Roman aristocracy, and it was written in a deliberately ornate and classical Latin that was already something quite different from the speech of the people.

Edwin

 

[Bluegoat]

Could you articulate that–maybe in a separate thread?

I have heard these claims before, but have never found them convincing. To say that there are theological problems behind some of the assumptions that shaped the liturgical revision is one thing–or that, as Pope Benedict has said, getting a committee together to put together a “revised liturgy” is the wrong way to go about it in the first place.

But I can’t see that the fundamental theology is different.

Yes, i can, I likely won’t get to it tonight though.

Gurney, can it be that you and I agree on this one?

Edwin

Another point where I need to revise my picture of you! Somehow I thought you were older than I am!
Edwin

So did I - perhaps because I always picture him as a grimy Patrick Stewart?

 

[SteveVH]

Now, in Catholic Answers Forums there is a lot of sour grapes. I hear this all the time: “those Pentecostals and Baptists only have soccer games to try and rip Catholics and other folks away from their faith into their folds!” or “Those Lutherans and Anglicans have greeters. That’s a stupid concept! Those greeters are trying to sell you something! They aren’t sincere in all that friendliness! Trust me! It’s a salesmanship thing!” And with all the other outreaches or great Bible studies and ministries they dismiss them away as ruses or salesman tricks or window dressing.

Gurney, while different parishes can vary greately, you might or not not be surprised to learn that there are Catholic parishes doing these very things. We have greeters at our parish and also have an extraordinaty Bible study group. In addition, we provide a very exciting catechetical program for our youth (complete with guitar Masses ). I am getting ready to take 25 teens to a youth conference in Tucson, AZ this weekend. Our approach is completely different than the CCD classes of yesterday and we have amazing participation. The program is bearing much fruit. We have had entire families convert because of their teenagers who were involved in our program. Our teens don’t just learn about Christ, they actually meet Him and that makes all the difference.

And this has hurt Catholicism. Catholicism has had a “you come to us, we’re not coming to you” mentality for decades. Catholic Answers and EWTN have tried to reverse that so I applaud them. The need to evangelize has been dormant for quite some time. The medievel model of how to operate isn’t effective. People with adulterous spouses who need counseling find little solace or help in many parishes. People struggling with marital problems or the loss of a job or a death in the family or AIDS or whatever the problem is find deaf ears at times. I read it all the time in CAF here and I see it at my parish. The pastoral care is abysmal in my entire diocese. I lost my job years back, got laid off, and my pastor said, “look, you’ll find another job. relax. Look, I can’t talk now, football game’s on. Make an appointment or something ok?” I had a priest tell my mom at confession, “get to the dang point already lady!” We had another priest say, “there’s nothing I hate more than visiting these old people at convalescent homes and I can’t stand going to the hospitals. I shouldn’t have to do that. Lay people should!” When my wife and I struggled, I mean STRUGGLED with NFP to a high degree the priests wouldn’t call us back, wouldn’t meet with us, could care less, all four of them. It was sickening. And then when we finally got in to speak with one (my wife literally had to force her way into his office) he said that nobody follows NFP anyway, who really cares, use birth control, don’t even bother confessing it. Go for it?

I think the new priests coming out of the seminaries today are a different breed and give me a lot of hope. Unfortunately, there are still many in place just as you have described above. Many are so resistant to change of any kind. They truly can destroy faith and will have to answer for that. I am truly fortunate to be in my small parish with a priest that has all of six years experience. He is always looking for new ways to reach out and places catechesis at the top of the list, both for youth and the parish in general.

The liturgy of the Mass, IMO, is the least of the problems. The Church has had some fundamentally bad problems. If we could get rid of the heaps of gay priests, the pedophiles, get some married clergy who understand the problems of couples and normal folks, down to earth bishops and clergy who are dynamic and into preaching the word, coffee hours, greeters, mid-week fellowship, better evangelism, outreach, catechesis that is actually fun and engaging for kids as well as meaningful, and an improved liturgy, etc. the Catholic Church would be vastly improved in my opinion. l

Again, the seminaries right now are intensive in their screening processes. As far as married priests; you don’t become a pedaphile because you can’t get any at home. That is a sickness. Marriage is not the answer, even in having an understanding of what it is like to be married. I think many priests understand it more than the married couplse themselves just beause of the number of married couples they must speak to over the course of years. When I pound on my priest’s door, I really don’t want to hear the screaming kids in the backround or a wife telling him he needs to spend more time with his family. The priesthood is a unique vocation, IMO, and I think the Church’s judgment concerning the discipline of celibacy in the priesthood has a lot of wisdom behind it.

In any event, I share your frustration to a large extent but, at least in my neck of the woods, dramatic changes are taking place fo the better.

 

[rtconstant]

I think that this really should have been an assumed event. While I realize many were hoping it wouldn’t happen because of the theological tensions within the global Anglican communion, in the end the denomination accepts women priests so there is no intellectually honest reason for them not to have women bishops.

If its not OK to have women bishops then one would need to immediately ask why its OK to have women priests. Further if women were denied access to the episcopacy because of political reasons then that would suggest a rather “unmanly” approach by the denomination’s leadership.

We as Catholics may think this is a bad sign, but for the Anglicans this is simply an exercise in consistent theology.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks for a great post, as usual, Steve. Always positive and enlightening. You know, you’re right. My parents, as I think I mentioned, went to a parish in Monterey on vacation (that is in the Monterey Diocese removed from our Fresno Diocese that is absolutely a lousy diocese if you ask yours truly) and my parents were JAZZED up about going there. It was as you described.

Also, my chiropractor and his wife are good Catholics. They say our diocese is pathetic next to the Orange County parishes they visit on their vacations down south. So you’re right. It’s awesome in some parts, backwards and lame in others. Lucky me! Here it is mostly pandering to the Hispanic community and is very bland. Lousy pastoral care, lousy preaching, weak education, I have little positive to say.

As far as the ordination of married men, here’s my view. Keep in mind this is just my opinion and I could be wrong easily:

You’re right that not getting any at home won’t keep one from being a pedophile. I never meant to even imply that at all. I agree with you 100% that pedophilia is purely individual and not even a gay issue. It’s a misnomer to think gays are pedophiles, etc. just like thinking married men can’t be pedophiles. Plenty are! But here’s my view…As a pedophile, it’s very easy to HIDE inside a group of ‘celibate’ all-male priests. It’s a great place to access little altar boys and no one questions why you’re not married. And not only have I seen from experience but statistically speaking the Catholic Church is LOADED with gay men. And while many gay men are not pedophiles like I said earlier, I believe they have more of a propensity toward it. Like I said, not scientifically empirically proven, my opinion. There is abuse from married men, no doubt. But I think allowing married clergy would have a triple affect. First, there are A LOT of men I know who are passionately wanting to be priests who know a lot about theology, who are GREAT at pastoral care and youth ministries, etc. who would be fabulous priests but these men are married already or want to be. So, the quality of priests overall (not everywhere) would improve. Secondly, there’d be less gay clergy. You’d have more married, heterosexual men in the pool. That would cut down on the homosexual hiding place mentality and most likely reduce (not eliminate by any means) the child predator stuff. I have observed over the years that most of the priests we’ve had have been SO feminine. Our local EWTN affiliate has a daily Mass show from Fresno and that priest is the GAYEST man I’ve ever seen in my life. Our former associate pastor came out to most of the congregation throughout his four or five years there and admitted he had a gay lover. He was honest about it. Then across town the pastor of that parish had a boyfriend. We all knew it. His boyfriend bought him an expensive BMW, jewelry, all sorts of things. When California was debating whether or not to ban gay marriage (which we did …for now) he came out and spoke to a pro gay rally (!!!) up in nearby Fresno and admitted he was gay, had a lover, and was quitting the priesthood to be a full-time activist and be out of the closet). Our pastor is very gay-acting, our current associate is very very effeminant, and when we go out of town it always seems that way with other priests. Our other former associate that came to us from Fiji and left about two years ago was so gay that he could’ve been a back-up for Elton John. It was BAD. I would hate to know how many homosexuals we have in the ranks. I think many of them are pedophiles, but by no means all. Would married clergy solve it 100%. Heck no. Would it reduce it and envigorate the Church with enthusiastic, exciting, healthy heterosexual men who have a calling but cannot be priests at this time? I think so. Just my two…or fifty cents

Now I’ll duck and get ready for a salvo from the pro-celibacy crowd who will commense to light me on fire like Joan of Ark…

Gurney, while different parishes can vary greately, you might or not not be surprised to learn that there are Catholic parishes doing these very things. We have greeters at our parish and also have an extraordinaty Bible study group. In addition, we provide a very exciting catechetical program for our youth (complete with guitar Masses ). I am getting ready to take 25 teens to a youth conference in Tucson, AZ this weekend. Our approach is completely different than the CCD classes of yesterday and we have amazing participation. The program is bearing much fruit. We have had entire families convert because of their teenagers who were involved in our program. Our teens don’t just learn about Christ, they actually meet Him and that makes all the difference.

Again, the seminaries right now are intensive in their screening processes. As far as married priests; you don’t become a pedaphile because you can’t get any at home. That is a sickness. Marriage is not the answer, even in having an understanding of what it is like to be married. I think many priests understand it more than the married couplse themselves just beause of the number of married couples they must speak to over the course of years. When I pound on my priest’s door, I really don’t want to hear the screaming kids in the backround or a wife telling him he needs to spend more time with his family. The priesthood is a unique vocation, IMO, and I think the Church’s judgment concerning the discipline of celibacy in the priesthood has a lot of wisdom behind it.

In any event, I share your frustration to a large extent but, at least in my neck of the woods, dramatic changes are taking place fo the better.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your post is in error in one key area: you used “consistency” and “Anglican” in one paragraph!

I think that this really should have been an assumed event. While I realize many were hoping it wouldn’t happen because of the theological tensions within the global Anglican communion, in the end the denomination accepts women priests so there is no intellectually honest reason for them not to have women bishops.

If its not OK to have women bishops then one would need to immediately ask why its OK to have women priests. Further if women were denied access to the episcopacy because of political reasons then that would suggest a rather “unmanly” approach by the denomination’s leadership.

We as Catholics may think this is a bad sign, but for the Anglicans this is simply an exercise in consistent theology.

 

[Soldier_X]

Your post is in error in one key area: you used “consistency” and “Anglican” in one paragraph!

Indeed…a fatal flaw

 

[Holly3278]

There are plenty of good Biblical reasons for the rejection of female ordination:

Jesus only ordained males. Here is the list of the 12 disciples as recorded in the Gospel of Saint Matthew:

(Mat 10:1 RSV) And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.
(Mat 10:2 RSV) The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;
(Mat 10:3 RSV) Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
(Mat 10:4 RSV) Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Also, in the Bible only a male could become a Jewish priest as is clearly shown in the Old Testament in numerous places.

And then we have the following verses which are pretty clear:

(1Ti 3:1 RSV) The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
(1Ti 3:2 RSV) Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
(1Ti 3:3 RSV) no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.

We also have this:

(1Ti 2:11 RSV) Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
(1Ti 2:12 RSV) I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

And then there is the fact that Mary was the closest woman in all the Bible to Jesus but yet she was not ordained and neither was Mary Magdalene who was also very close to Jesus.

(Joh 20:19 RSV) On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
(Joh 20:20 RSV) When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
(Joh 20:21 RSV) Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
(Joh 20:22 RSV) And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
(Joh 20:23 RSV) If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Again, Jesus clearly ordained only those who were male as is shown here.

Also, there are plenty of early Church fathers who testify to the fact that only men are to be ordained:

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for a great post, as usual, Steve. Always positive and enlightening. You know, you’re right. My parents, as I think I mentioned, went to a parish in Monterey on vacation (that is in the Monterey Diocese removed from our Fresno Diocese that is absolutely a lousy diocese if you ask yours truly) and my parents were JAZZED up about going there. It was as you described.

Also, my chiropractor and his wife are good Catholics. They say our diocese is pathetic next to the Orange County parishes they visit on their vacations down south. So you’re right. It’s awesome in some parts, backwards and lame in others. Lucky me! Here it is mostly pandering to the Hispanic community and is very bland. Lousy pastoral care, lousy preaching, weak education, I have little positive to say.

As far as the ordination of married men, here’s my view. Keep in mind this is just my opinion and I could be wrong easily:

You’re right that not getting any at home won’t keep one from being a pedophile. I never meant to even imply that at all. I agree with you 100% that pedophilia is purely individual and not even a gay issue. It’s a misnomer to think gays are pedophiles, etc. just like thinking married men can’t be pedophiles. Plenty are! But here’s my view…As a pedophile, it’s very easy to HIDE inside a group of ‘celibate’ all-male priests. It’s a great place to access little altar boys and no one questions why you’re not married. And not only have I seen from experience but statistically speaking the Catholic Church is LOADED with gay men. And while many gay men are not pedophiles like I said earlier, I believe they have more of a propensity toward it. Like I said, not scientifically empirically proven, my opinion. There is abuse from married men, no doubt. But I think allowing married clergy would have a triple affect. First, there are A LOT of men I know who are passionately wanting to be priests who know a lot about theology, who are GREAT at pastoral care and youth ministries, etc. who would be fabulous priests but these men are married already or want to be. So, the quality of priests overall (not everywhere) would improve. Secondly, there’d be less gay clergy. You’d have more married, heterosexual men in the pool. That would cut down on the homosexual hiding place mentality and most likely reduce (not eliminate by any means) the child predator stuff. I have observed over the years that most of the priests we’ve had have been SO feminine. Our local EWTN affiliate has a daily Mass show from Fresno and that priest is the GAYEST man I’ve ever seen in my life. Our former associate pastor came out to most of the congregation throughout his four or five years there and admitted he had a gay lover. He was honest about it. Then across town the pastor of that parish had a boyfriend. We all knew it. His boyfriend bought him an expensive BMW, jewelry, all sorts of things. When California was debating whether or not to ban gay marriage (which we did …for now) he came out and spoke to a pro gay rally (!!!) up in nearby Fresno and admitted he was gay, had a lover, and was quitting the priesthood to be a full-time activist and be out of the closet). Our pastor is very gay-acting, our current associate is very very effeminant, and when we go out of town it always seems that way with other priests. Our other former associate that came to us from Fiji and left about two years ago was so gay that he could’ve been a back-up for Elton John. It was BAD. I would hate to know how many homosexuals we have in the ranks. I think many of them are pedophiles, but by no means all. Would married clergy solve it 100%. Heck no. Would it reduce it and envigorate the Church with enthusiastic, exciting, healthy heterosexual men who have a calling but cannot be priests at this time? I think so. Just my two…or fifty cents

Now I’ll duck and get ready for a salvo from the pro-celibacy crowd who will commense to light me on fire like Joan of Ark…

Gurney, you always seem to make me laugh. You have a lot of good points but I will always chose the wisdom of the Church over my own. I think you are very correct that, even in the recent past, the priesthood was a perfect hiding place for sexual deviants. I also think the Church is aware of that and I know for a fact that they are trying to screen out homosexuals for the very reasons you have given. In the past they basically held the principal that regardless of your sexual leanings, all were called to celibacy anyway. The fact is that homosexuals do tend toward pedophilia more than hetero’s. John Paul, II and Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict, XVI) really came down on the seminaries who were being run by radical feminist nuns and liberal priests. I think we’re going to see some great priests in the near future, much like I am experiencing right now.

I think the problems we have now stem from the whole 60’s mind-set and have little to do with marriage or celibacy. We all need to pray for our priests; for chastity, integrity and courage.

God bless.

Steve