Free Republic

If they believed in what Jesus intended when he said “this is my body” , then they should come more often, thus getting you to Mass too.

History fully supports a married priesthood. For the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married. Celibacy existed in the first century among hermits and monks, but it was considered an optional, alternative lifestyle.

The effort to consolidate church power in the medieval hierarchy and to seize the land assets the married priest families saw its victory in 1139. The legislation that effectively ended optional celibacy for priests came from the Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II Many have argued that the true motivation for these laws was the desire to acquire land throughout Europe and strengthen the papal power base. The laws demanding mandatory celibacy for priests used the language of purity and holiness,, following the example of monks (many of whom probably enjoyed a gay lifestyle).

Was the intent ministry or control? Many historians argue that the true intent was to solidify control over the lower clergy and eliminate any challenge to the political objectives of the medieval hierarchy. Few would argue that a married clergy would be much harder for the bishops to control today, but the question is which is more important the spread of the Gospel and ministry to the people of God or control ?

One brave man, the Italian bishop Ulric of Imola, argued that the hierarchy had no right to forbid marriage to priests and urged bishops and priests not to abandon their families. Bishop Ulrich said that, “When celibacy is imposed, priests will commit sins far worse than fornication.” The recent number of highly publicized convictions of priests involved in sexual misconduct have given credence to good Bishop Ulric

While all would welcome the newly ordained priests, we are naive if we do not see a problem here in the paucity of American born ( and more specifically locally born) priests. Ideally the priests should come from the people not imported from elsewhere.

Note how these Christians love one another. Herein lies true scandal. Yet some of these will dare to receive communion. It has been well asked “what would constitute unworthy participation more than doing so while anathematizing one’s fellow Christians”

Considering that Jesus said something about a great commandment being “Thou shalt love thy neighbor” and St. Paul taught that those who eat and drink of the body and blood of Christ unworthily are guilty of “profaning the body and blood” what would constitute unworthy participation more than doing so while anathematizing one’s fellow Christians?

Biggirl is correct. I think the point is that those who are so dogmatic and absolute about what OTHERS should do, ought to be pretty precise and accurate about their own positions and statements. Know what you are talking about before you tell others what they should do or should not do.

Learn your religion. Diocesan priests take no vows.

We used to say ‘ Lord I am not worthy “ before Communion. The Eucharist was considered “Bread for healing “

What is it now - Only us good boys and girls get it
and who judges the consciences of those approaching the table of the Lord.?

Considering the quality of our current crop of bishops, the arbitrary and autocratic manner some of them exercise their authority, the disregard for any concern for Justice (guilty or not, he is guilty) which you seem to allow given the bishop's absolute canonical authority in his diocese, why would a lapsed Catholic even think twice about “coming home” to such a sick organization.

Agree totally. However rather than making assumptions, there should be full truth telling, without regard to political correctness.

Let’s all learn a new word - ephebophilia — sex with post-pubescent young people, almost always males — priests are rarely guilty of pedophilia except in the subset - ephebophilia - Which may point to a dominant “gay subculture“ in the celibate Catholic Priesthood, which just might be a good argument for the return to active ministry of heterosexual married priests.

I think you may be very correct when you say: A small, vocal minority determines the agenda and imposes its ideology on the silent majority who are either too apathetic or too afraid to counter it.

That small, vocal and powerful minority, many of them vatican bureaucrats with little or no pastoral experience send out directives to submissive bishops who are concerned more about their careers and neither listen to nor care about their priests who struggle in parishes.

Control, control, control.

Besides the gay priests do not want married men and their wives snooping around.

It seems to me that Jesus said “preach the Gospel to all, baptize all “ . Is it not strange that the Code of Canon Law is longer than the New Testament. Is the Church to announce the Good News or to enforce a body of law? I strongly suspect you will find the reason so many no longer participate in our faith community in the various comments in these posts. Attitudes like do it my way because my way is the Church's way ( is it really? ) or get out. Check with those who are so arrogant about being right and ask if their own children and other family members go to Church. Are not many gone because we have driven them away?

Fr. Casimir is the one who is dangerous. Who would want to belong to a religion that believes what he believes.

Is it not time that we begin to teach why abortion is wrong, in stead of demonizing those with who we do not agree. Something about honey catching more flys. Remain friends, explain calmly, try to understand their position, and then point by point discuss. Even if you still end up not in agreement, end as friends so you can try again another day. Burke's record in St. Louis is not the greatest in calm logical non-authoritive dialogue. I doubt that his tran-ocean comments help matters. Roman bureaucrats do well to remain in Rome.

Where are all the feminists? Why has not the war begun?

You are right. Unless the boys have been feminized or forced, they, at that age, do not want to be a part of a group that eventually become predominantly female. The same thing is true of what used to be patrol boys as school crossing guards, etc.

Altar boys were the chief source of vocations to the priesthood. They saw not only the liturgy but many other aspects of the life of the priest as they "helped out" around the parish. Until the gays took over and changed everything, many heterosexual priests left, and women began to run things, there were strong vocations. Now look at the mess. Those in seminary work report some increase in numbers (job market bad) but the quality is not the same.

Boy Scouts don’t get particular religious training in the scouts, do they? Well, the answer is or probably should be YES. The Boy Scouts is a program that can be used by Churches etc. to enhance and supplement their religious education programs for their youth. There are specific religious rewards for each Faith which are a regular part of the program, in addition to the usual scout awards. The sponsor (Church) owns the unit, they use the program. While some, maybe many sponsors do not utilize the full potential benefits for their Churches, they lose out and usually have weaker units.

The LDS Church is the best example of proper and effective use of the program, and their youth involvement is especially strong. Witness how many of their missionaries are former scouts, and Eagle Scouts at that.

The song goes “They will know we are Christians by our love”. I fear as we read some of the posts here some will again suspect that some of the so called Magisterium Catholics ( the ones who are the “real” Catholics - all the rest are CINO ) are anything but Christians.

I know not Thomas Storck or what may be his credentials but he comes across as a little too academic and not too practical or pastoral, some what like our current President

I think I would rather trust the following as being more pastoral and much more a correct understanding of this aspect of our Faith.

Lest we do not highlight sufficiently this important fact. Vatican II was an ecumenical council, i.e., a solemn exercise of the magisterium of the church, i.e. the college of bishops gathered together with the bishop of Rome and exercising a teaching function for the whole church. In other words, its vision, its principles and the direction it gave are to be followed and implemented by all, from the pope to the peasant farmer in the fields of Honduras.

Since Vatican II there has been no such similar exercise of teaching authority by the magisterium. Instead, a series of decrees, pronouncements and decisions which have been given various "labels" stating, for example, that they must be firmly held to with "internal assent" by the Catholic faithful, but in reality are simply the theological or pastoral interpretations or opinions of those who have power at the centre of the church. They have not been solemnly defined as belonging to the "deposit of the faith" to be believed and followed, therefore, by all Catholics, as with other solemnly proclaimed dogmas. For example, the issues of celibacy for the priesthood and the ordination of women, withdrawn even from the realm of discussion. Therefore, such pronouncements are open to scrutiny -- to discern whether they are in accord, for example, with the fundamental theological vision of Vatican II, or whether there is indeed a case to be made for a different interpretation or opinion.

At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world -- on the basis of a developed conscience. And, as an invitation to an appreciation of conscience and conscientious decisions about life and participation in what is a very human church, I close with the formulation or understanding given by none other than the theologian, Fr. Josef Ratzinger, now pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II:

"Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism". (Joseph Ratzinger in: Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II ,Vol. V., pg. 134 (Ed) H. Vorgrimler, New York, Herder and Herder, 1967).

Bishop Kevin Dowling C.Ss.R. Cape Town, June 1, 2010

NO, How about a little Bible Study, Catholic Dogma (like the Eucharist ), a little Church History, what it means to be a member of a Faith Community, Ecclesiology, some ideas about the ten commandments, - stuff like that.