Posted on 04/05/2012 10:40:02 AM PDT by marshmallow
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI denounced priests who have questioned church teaching on celibacy and ordaining women, saying Thursday they were disobeying his authority to try to impose their own ideas on the church.
Benedict made the rare and explicit criticism from the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in his homily on Holy Thursday, when priests recall the promises they made when ordained.
In 2006, a group of Austrian priests launched the Pfarrer Initiative, or pastor initiative, a call to disobedience aimed at abolishing priestly celibacy and opening up the clergy to women to relieve the shortages of priests.
Last June, the group's members essentially threatened a schism, saying the Vatican's refusal to hear their complaints left them no choice but to "follow our conscience and act independently."
They issued a revised call to disobedience in which they said parishes would celebrate Eucharistic services without priests, that they would let women preach, and they pledged to speak out publicly and frequently for female and married priests.
The group now claims more than 300 Austrian priests and deacons as well as supporters in other countries, and its influence has grown to such an extent that top Austrian bishops met with Vatican officials in January to discuss how to handle them, Italian news reports said.
So far, neither the Vatican nor the archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn have imposed any canonical penalties on them.
In his homily, Benedict said the dissidents claim to be motivated by concern for the church. But he suggested that in reality they were just making "a desperate push to do something to change the church in accordance with (their) own preferences and ideas."
"We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the church, that they are.......
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Criticism seems warranted when, during a time of dire need for filling offices, otherwise entirely qualified men are rejected for the single offense of having a wife.
“Otherwise” qualified men. That’s quite a word, “otherwise.”
But, hey, if you don’t like the policy, that’s fine. I was only responding to those who were treating it like it was counter-biblical, or a discernment the pope was unauthorized to make.
“Otherwise” qualified men. That’s quite a word, “otherwise.”
But, hey, if you don’t like the policy, that’s fine. I was only responding to those who were treating it like it was counter-biblical, or a discernment the pope was unauthorized to make.
It is counter-biblical. It’s blocking religious service solely on grounds of marital status - a rather serious non-sequitur, seeing as Paul encouraged those inclined to do while giving absolutely no exclusionary basis (he said service may be harder for those who marry, but in no way indicated such people should give up service). Note also the warnings against associating with those who would prohibit marriage for religious reasons.
How do you know that Peter wasn't a widower when he was called.
See, you’re thinking like a liberal, like one of those who talks about the “right” to serve in the military. The priesthood is no-one’s right, nor a moral necessity, and if anyone’s thinking of it as a means to power or authority (as the womynpriest moment incessantly does), they’re the last people we want to be priests.
I don’t know of any passage of Paul’s encouraging the reader to seek the priesthood, so I wish you’d include a passage or citation to support your assertion. That passage about celibacy is actually for everyone, not just priests.
>> Note also the warnings against associating with those who would prohibit marriage for religious reasons. <<
No-one is prohibited from marrying. It’s like military service in one way: The first amendment gives our military leaders the freedom of speech. But they have chosen a vocation which is incompatible with expressing contempt for their commander in chief. If they want to campaign against the president, they still have that right, but not as a military leader, because the two roles are in conflict.
You also make the mistake of equating, “not expressly stated in the bible” with “contrary to the bible.” The bible explicitly gives Peter, singularly, and the apostles, collectively, the authority to declare that what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven. The doctrine of sola scriptura, is self-contradicting inasmuch as it is not in the bible, and is actually additionally contrary to the bible. Were it only a matter of people saying, “I cannot find that it in the bible, therefore I will not base my faith on it,” it would hardly have been the danger and destroyer it has been. But how destructive is the further leap that “I cannot find that in the bible, therefore it is contrary to the bible, and all those who assert it are promoting heresy, and must be opposed!”
>> How do you know that Peter wasn’t a widower when he was called. <<
Yes, Natural Law. In fact, the entire passage seems quite strange if you suppose Peter still had a wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.