A group of 112 Cincinnati diocesan and religious priests have written a group letter calling for married and female priests. Okay, we can discuss the suitability of a married priesthood in the Latin rite, and whether it’s a practical exercise. But for them to be challenging what has been established as infallible doctrine and not discipline in women’s ordination is beyond the line. My question is what Archbishop Pilarczyk is doing to ensure that his priests actually understood the Church’s teachings and preach it. After all, if the priests aren’t believing it, then the people certainly aren’t.
One of the reasons given for this change in ordination discipline and dogma is that closing parishes and making “mega-parishes” hurts formation of community. Baloney. What it means is that you have a larger pool of people to draw on with which to form relationships. Nobody’s going to get to know everybody in a parish anyway, unless we’re talking parishes of less than 100 people. So make the parish larger, and you have more resources to draw on, more talent, more donations, more everything.
Only when the dems fear the complete loss of power will they become pro-life….it’s not principled but it works.
Domenico,
Crossroads is actually no longer part of American Life League. The group in Boston is a different group which is affiliated with ALL:
http://www.all.org/hp3.htm
Here are this year’s Crossroads walks:
http://www.crossroadswalk.com/plans.asp
I walked with Crossroads in 2001; it was an excellent experience. It’s nice to see that there are more groups doing these kinds of walks now. The Northeast sorely needs this kind of witness.
Bryan
Patrick—
As far as I know Kerry has never expressed anything but unswerving devotion to Roe v. Wade. I don’t recall whether it was at the same NARAL mentioned above, but he did address NARAL at the start of the primary season, swearing that he was the only one of the candidates who never “played games” with abortion. I saw a clip on TV, and he was rousing them to cheers (yes! Kerry!); it looked like a pep rally.
Kerry may not be pro-abortion, but only in the sense that such a position means absolutely nothing – in terms of any action to oppose that which he says he does not personally support.
The truth – he’s sellin’ his soul for votes.
And – a bit of (OK?) pride as a parent. My son marched in the Right to Life march in Washington this year – and we saw him on EWTN! Wow!
Will let him know about Crossroads…
kerry’s NOT pro-abortion…he’s pro-choice…………Orwell would have slashed these creeps into ity bitty pieces…
I disagree. Kerry has shown by his ardent embrace of the abortion rhetoric that he’s not just for women being able to make one choice over another but that he regards abortion as a positive good, not the least for population control of inconvenient populations.
There is no such thing as “pro-choice.” That’s an empty euphemism dreamt up by the abortion industry. It stands to reason that if something is legalized, the incidence of that thing will increase. Abortion certainly has increased in incidence since 1973. (I don’t know of any statistics, but currently, 1/4 of all pregnancies end in abortion; there is no way that could have been true prior to 1973.) Therefore, voting in favor of abortion “rights,” voting against any limits on access, etc, is a pro-*abortion* stance, not “pro-choice.” And again, as Dom notes, anyone who extols abortion as a means of population control, or says things like, “Well, it’s better to abort than bring kids into a bad situation…” is pro-*abortion,* not “pro-choice.”
Gary Wills, canon theologian for the New York Times, casts yet more darkness on this issue for the reading public with his piece in today’s Times. Since he disregards the principle made famous by St Thomas, that natural truths can also be revealed and believed by faith, he claims that “the issue of abortion” is a scientific one that faith has nothing to do with. It’s wonderfully convenient for him that modern science is intrinsically inductive, that is, unable in principle to come to a settled position on anything. Wills also cites Thomas and Augustine’s uncertainty about the beginning of personhood, though he keeps from readers the fact that Thomas and Augustine rejected the legitimacy of abortion, not only on faith, but because they didn’t think human beings or states had the authority to decide when, after conception, personhood came about. That’s the real horror, the appropriated “right” to decide that something that becomes a human being isn’t at one moment but is one the next.
If I were the Bishop I would tell each of these priests to go door to door in their parishes preaching the Gospel and entreating the people to repent, believe the good news and show up at mass Sunday morning ready to support God’s church. That is what they should be doing if they have so much time to spend writting silly letters.
MS
After many priests see HBO’s Celibacy special, there may be more than just letters being sent to Bishop Gregory, our clairvoyant of history.
This is what I would like to say to these priests:
Jesus will bless the Church with many good and holy priests if He is adored and loved on our Altars day and night. Hurry fathers! Promote Eucharistic Adoration in your parishes before the prophesy of Daniel is fulfilled!
The apostles fell asleep on the night our Lord was taken from them because they were not in the habit of prayer. Teach us to pray as Jesus wants so that He will not be taken from us! Show us by your example how to worship, adore and love Jesus Christ, Truly present so that we might never witness the day the Daily Sacrifice is lost.
You are our spiritual commanders. Defend your divine mission! Do not give up and never give in!
We are praying for you because we know the battle against the Eucharist centers around the priesthood and God will hold us accountable for any priest that falls who has not had the benefit of our prayers and sacrifices.
I’d like to see the names of the priests on this document. If one of them is the pastor from my family’s hometown… stay tuned.
Joe Mc Carthy lives on.
Cincinnati is a mess. There’s no other word for it.
They need plenty of prayer if they have this many priests agitating for what the magesterium considers a closed subject, Scripture’s precedent is clear on, and which every Pope of recent memory has affirmed is impossible: “women’s ordination.” Oxymoron that it is.
It’s noteworthy that these priests appeal to the Holy Eucharist and its centrality in Catholic life to cloak their rebellion. Groups of dissidents, like FutureChurch (check their website), use the same strategy to advance a married priesthood, the ordination, and lay masses. I have even read remarks by liberal bishops lamenting the decline in answered vocations since it “deprives” the faithful of the Holy Eucharist. Really it seems to me such bishops are using the Holy Eucharist as a cover for their attempts to sabotage the priesthood (through poor vocation programs and dismal seminaries) thus creating a crisis which they’ll suggest can be remedied with married priests, women priests, or an end to priesthood all together. This is the truly ‘political’ use of the Holy Eucharist. It’s evil. Let’s pray for reparation.
Evry June my Knights of Columbus Council (539) hosts the Crossroads walkers for a twon hall meeting and dinner when they come through Denver. They are truly inspiring.
They remind me ofthe Mendicant Friars of the late middle ages: they werar the clothes of a puaper (wich is now jeans and a t-shirt), they walk from place to place and live on alms, and the preach the Gospel to whomever will listen. It is no surprise that it all began at Franciscan U.
My K of C council also has a brother knight on the ALL walk that just came through Boston (last year he did Crossroads).
Peterforrester,
Your remarks reminded me of the following.
“Priests who love the Eucharist are the most influential in leading others to the priesthood”. Pope John Paul II
If these priests are truly concerned about the lack of priests, maybe they should love the Eucharist.
Your post was excellent and I must wonder if there are wolves in sheeps clothing in the Cincinnati diocese. Heaven forbid!
sorry for the abundant typo’s above—-it has been one of those days.
Somebody wrote on a Mark Shea vocations thread the other day that young people respond to heroism. When bishops and priests start behaving like heroes instead of time-servers and warmers of the hapless bench, perhaps we’ll see more vocations.
Last week, we were lucky to have visiting us overnight an old friend who is a priest. It was great to see him again. We stayed up late into the night talking, and of course spoke of the crisis in the Church at length. I tell you, we’ve been close to several priests for so long, it’s hard to imagine what the Situation looks like to those who don’t know any priests as intimate friends. I keep noticing that the priests we count as our close friends—all deeply orthodox men—don’t at all share the defensive view expressed by many on the various blogs, e.g., that the Scandal is, to some degree or another, whipped up by the anti-Catholic media, and isn’t as bad as we’re made to think. To the contrary, these priests believe it’s worse than most Catholics grasp, and they, who are so familiar with the institutional workings of the Church, see far less reason to hope for substantive improvement anytime soon. Every time we receive these friends into our home, I am reminded that I am not doing enough to pray for them in their ministry. Just holding your head above water today as a faithful, orthodox priest in today’s Church is heroic.
Anyway, I was kind of ashamed to tell Father X. the other night that I do not want either of my boys, or any boys we might yet have, to be priests. If God calls them, I will support them in their vocation. But I don’t hope for it. I don’t want them to have to suffer as our priest friends have. Back when we had our firstborn, in 1999, I thought, “Maybe he’ll be a priest. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?” Now I don’t think that at all. I don’t want them to be subject to the corrupt episcopate, or to have to go through the sewers of our lavender seminaries, and so forth. It would be an honor for them to be persecuted by the world as a faithful priest of Christ, but to be persecuted by the Church? That’s too much to wish for.
Like I said, if that’s the Cross the Lord has for any of my boys, I pray for the strength to accept it and to encourage them to do God’s will. I will not pray against it. But I hope that God has something else in mind. I’m wondering how many more Catholic fathers out there have the same thoughts as I do: that we would like our sons to consider the priesthood, but for the priests and the bishops, and the ecclesial world they have made.
I noticed that Fr. X. didn’t dispute a word I was saying, or try to talk me out of it. And yet, I have to say that if it weren’t for the good priests we know like Fr. X., I don’t know where I and my family would be. Who will be there when Fr. X. and our other good priest friends pass away? This whole thing is so difficult to deal with, to think and pray through…
Peace, Dom.
Unless you have another source on this letter, I have to challenge your journalism again. In treating the subject of women’s ordination in this letter, The Catholic Telegraph only mentions the letter asks for openness to pray and discern the issue. That is far different from directly advocating for women priests.
In succession, Bernardin and Pilarczyk. Cincinnatti needs prayers, and several hundred gallons of Lysol.
I’ll say it once again slowly for those who can’t keep up: Blogging … is … not … journalism. I am opining on what I read and hear. Journalism is reporting the news by interviewing and consulting primary sources. Perhaps the liberal rags you rely on for news don’t do that.
The Holy Father has spoken infallibly on the subject of ordaining women. The subject is closed. Any call for further prayer and discernment on the issue smacks of disobedience and a failure to recognize papal authority to pronounce infallibly on this or any issue.
The style and tone of the article is indicative of a boilerplate letter pinched from CTA or NCRep. Absence of direct articles tip the hand and the absence of original thought is glaring. Openeness to prayer and discernment, as well as ‘dialogue” is in vain. The Holy Father, Bishop Gregory, and their predecessors have responded to this issue before: No. What, you want God Almighty to write a personal letter on the issue? Case closed. Next? These ‘priests’ might have had a moment of ‘discernment’ that they find troublesome: they looked into their mirrors and discovered they’re terrible recruiters! Failures as fishers of men. They failed to replace themselves and failed the Church in Her search for men to carry on the rich Tradition of Holy Mother Church. Reaped what was sown and the price is being paid today. Quit sniveling and get on with it.
That these priests openly proclaim such disobedience only reflects how poorly their formation must have been. I would like to ask each of them how many vocations they have fostered and whether they pray the breviary and go before the Blessed Sacrament each day.
They sound like secular men with secular ideas and desires. I am not surprised.
Our Lady of Akita,
pray for us.
What excuses do these priests offer for their failure to inspire and nurture vocations to the priesthood and religious life? None, and that shows they don’t begin to understand the problem.
Peace, Dom.
“Iopening blog entry and you’ll see the call from the priest in Cincinnati for the Church to be open to the idea of ordaining women. If the priests signed this letter, that is what they desire. That is like asking the Church to “reconsider” other infallible issues and it is of a rebellious nature to ask publicly for something so contrary to the faith. How was Dom in error?
With a boss like Pilarczyk who worked for Bernardin and Moeddel as Pilarczyk’s auxiliary the priests below need our prayers.
Priests: Diocesan active in diocese 209
Priests: Active outside diocese 7
Priests: Diocesan in foreign missions 2
Priests: Retired, sick or absent 83
Number of diocesan priests 301
Religous priests in diocese 242
For me I pray that Bishop Sheridan might be the answer for my wife of 47 years come October 5th and me.
Pilarczyk knows how I and others feel about him. I respectfully expressed my feelings face to face at Xavier University on 3/29/03 and the University of Dayton on 3/29/04.
The root cause of this (and many other) problems in our Church, and especially in America, is lots and lots of priests who don’t understand and don’t believe what the Church teaches. And this means that they simply don’t believe in the Church. And if that’s the case, they shouldn’t be or have become Catholic priests.
I’m still in shock from our pastor telling us, in a Bible study group, that he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth of Christ, since such a belief might diminish people’s belief in the ‘wonder’ of human sexuality.
Don’t we deserve priests who actually believe Catholicism?
And Rod – I know of two teenage boys in my town and the next who strongly wanted to become priests – but their parents wouldn’t let them – as they, the parents, were afraid. When a Godly parent’s love prevents a child from serving God, you know there is something really, really wrong goin’ on… (And, of course, there is…)
Peace, all.
Ah yes; this discussion is humming along logically. A suggestion that the host’s headline and commentary is incorrect and suddenly we’re talking slander. Attorneys defend criminals in the interest of a just legal system, but it doesn’t follow that lawyers think all offenders are innocent.
I followed the link, and sure enough, these naughty guys are just suggesting we all pray about it. Instead of openly advocating a break from the CDF, they’re willing to meet the curia half-way. That’s a little different than a defense attorney believing all her clients are angels.
And the silly priests who have said and done silly things through the years? Excuse me, but wasn’t it bishops who harbored pedophiles? If I’m going to distrust a whole order because of the criminal absurdities of a few, I think bishops are a bit deeper in the doo-doo.
What use is assigning blame when the Church in the United States is in crisis? Yes, bishops protected gay priests with histories of statutory rape, and bishops hired and promoted rotten seminary faculties that poisoned a few generations of priests. But it is the priests themselves that are responsible for the day to day needs of the people of God. So when priests stand in pulpits across America and preach a gospel indistinguishable from what laypeople hear on Oprah or on MTV they’re hurting real live individuals in their care. So if we’re going to blame and judge, Todd, yes, let’s go after the bishops – and the priests and of course the laypeople aren’t innocent either. We’re all killing Christ again, over and over and over.
And furthermore, Todd, I take exception to writing off the ineptitude of many priests as “silly priests who have said and done silly things through the years.”
There’s nothing silly about them or what they’ve said or done. They’re pathetic, and what they’ve said and done has ruined millions of souls.
We will never be so desperate for priests that we have to take this ****.
Um, every priest in the USA has a microphone and could say Mass for a thousand people at a shot. Most people no longer go to confession, so you know what? We don’t need that many priests anymore.
The Vatican needs to tell these priests to shut up under pain of sin, and then if they don’t, they need to laicize them.
They are worse than no priests at all. We don’t NEED them. Period. They are not living out their vocation, and they’re doing their best to screw up ours too.
Out with them.
I guess the irony in my little post above didn’t come across well….sorry…kerry’s NOT pro-abortion and the slaveowners were not really pro-slavery….there just wasn’t any other way………to be followed by croc tears.
Peace, Peter.
“What use is assigning blame when the Church in the United States is in crisis?”
Well, that would be my point. The people who assign blame (to the priest who disbelieves the virgin birth) are quite selective in their application of blame, aren’t they? Many Catholics also conveniently blame Vatican II when the evidence points to a long history of child abuse by priests trained before the council. Let me ask you, which is it: gay priests taking over seminaries in the 40’s or in the 80’s? Do you want clergy to speak out only when they agree with you? I have to admit it: MaChurch tying itself up like a pretzel over these issues just slays me.
Are the names of the priests who signed this letter available anywhere online?
Leonard
No, Todd. The problem is that believe it or not the Catholic faith has truths. Yes, honest-to-goodness truth claims. We do believe SOMETHING. It’s part of being Catholic. And when a man who’s SUPPOSED to be leading people and teaching people says something as absolutely ignorant, stupid, illogical and idiotic as what this priest says, people get upset. Why do they get upset???
1) He’s supposed to know enough of the faith not to say something that idiotic.
2) He’s supposed to be teaching people the Catholic faith, which he obviously either doesn’t know, or hates.
3) We pay this sucker for nothing, apparently.
4) If he doesn’t get cornered and punished by his bishop, we’re probably paying the bishop for nothing as well. (Wow big news there.)
5) And laypeople get punished for pointing this out. Go figure.
But you work for the church in some capacity, don’t you? That might explain your stance, I would think.
As has been established on Mark Shea’s blog in recent days, Rochester “Todd”, an apologist for “one of his favorite” bishops Matthew Clark (who like Pilarczyk cannot bring himself to defend the priesthood), dissents from the Church’s teachings on the family and sexuality. So it’s no surprise he waffles on this issue too. Your best bet is to ignore him.
My piece from a couple of weeks ago on Cincinnati’s priest shortage and the call for “priestesses” and married priests may be found at the following link: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/20/editorial_rich.html
Rochester. Heh heh. Ok.
Leonard, also the link that Domenico used above has some of the names. Names of such letters are usually made public now that we have the internet. It would be good to keep them and/or post them somewhere. People need to be protected from these guys.
Well now hold on, Rich. Not apologizing for him, but Todd’s link goes to his webpage which goes to the parish where he works and he’s not in Rochester, but instead out in Missouri someplace. Right, Todd?
Just wanted to correct the record. I got the impression Todd worked for Bishop Clark, I guess. Don’t want to participate in any misleading statements, etc. y’all.
I went to Mass a while back at the Church at Newman club, which was associated with the local university. It turned out that it was not a “Mass”, but it was said entirely by a lady. I don’t know the technical term for the celebration, but many of the prayers and ceremony were quite similar to the Mass, except for the Consecration, as the Hosts were taken from a reserved place. I was told that Cardinal Ratzinger has approved such a session, said entirely by a female celebrant. At least there was no loud profane rock music to distract you from the prayers, and the lady celebrant was dressed very modestly and in good taste. I am not in favor of women priests or of altar girls, but I would have to admit that this ceremony did have a certain amount of dignity to it, if I compare it to a rock Mass, or a clown Mass, or a Halloween Mass, or a monkey Mass held in Zaire where the report was that the priest was dressed in a costume with a monkey tail. Not to mention a Papal Mass where the female reader was dressed extremely immodestly by Western standards.
Anyway, it does seem a bit confusing to me: on the one hand the Pope declares definitively against the ordination of women, while on the other hand he allows altar girls and allows celebrations such as mentioned above. I doubt that many Catholics would have thought that these things were possible before Vatican II. The Catholic authorities have changed their minds on so many things since Vatican II, I am not so sure that they will hold to the teaching of a male priesthood in the future. In fact I have heard a respectable priest in our local area speak quite strongly in favor of women priests.
“That.224
2004-12-08 09:45:10
2004-12-08 13:45:10
Kerry WAS in Steubenville in October. The Jefferson County Democratic Party Chairman, John Abdalla, ushered in Kerry and directed the Pro – Lifers to keep the signs down. Fortunately, it was determined that was against the 1st admendment so the vedeo was edited to ensure the liberal left was embraced here.
“I got the impression Todd worked for Bishop Clark”
Rochester is my diocese. Todd would fit in perfectly.
The people who assign blame (to the priest who disbelieves the virgin birth) are quite selective in their application of blame, arenment_author>
opinion415@hotmail.com
67.51.97.189
2004-06-30 09:44:56
2004-06-30 13:44:56
Ah, yes. The homosexualist agenda and radical feminista propaganda. This type tries to reconcile truth and error all the while never denying the truth. In short, they try to be slick.
When will this type just have the courage to leave the Church?
As a follower of trends, the RCC is in a lot of trouble. We claim 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide and 60-62 million in the US, but here in America weekly church attendance is somewhere around 24%. It is even lower in our major urban areas such as NYC at 18%. And yet we do not want to even consider any changes that would perhaps reinvigorate a Church that is not exactly running with any precision.
If these priests are honest enough to put their names on a letter calling for a study or even an honest discussion among their fellow clergy, this should not be ignored. Anytime anyone calls for any thing the does not originate at the Vatican, most immediately lump it with some radical group that wants something that is impossible, therefore so are they guilty by association.
By the way the trends I referred to are all pointing to the wrong direction.
I have searched the internet and what I have found is this:
2003 – 67% attend Mass weekly; 22% almost every week; 7% once a month; 2% 3-5 times a year and 2% 2 times or less.
2002 – 80% weekly; 20% almost weekly
2001 – 79% weekly; 21% almost weekly
The figures represent those that participated in the FADICA/Gallup Survey for 2003.
While the numbers are declining, they are most certainly better than those that are listed: “somewhere around 24%.”
Mass attendance in the US is far better than most of the world.
Hardhead…..“The homosexualist agenda and radical feminista propaganda.’
I agree that there is a feminist adgenda with this, but where are the homosexuals? Not every issue that is presented in the Church deals with homosexuality.
If we are to promote vocations, we should pray. We should pray. We should pray. There is a beautiful prayer that I would add to this discussion:
LEADER: Let us ask God to give worthy Priests, Brothes, and Sisters to the Holy Church.
OTHERS: O God, we earnestly beseech Thee to bless this arch/diocese with many priests, brothers, and sisters who will love Thee with their who strength and gladly spend their entire lives to serve Thy Church and to make Thee known and loved.
LEADER: Bless our families; bless our children.
OTHERS: Choose from our homes those who are needed for Thy work.
LEADER: Mary, Queen of the clergy!
OTHERS: Pray for us. Pray for our priests and religious. Obtain for us many more.
Doesn’t that just about say it all?
Camilam
Larry,
Dioceses like Cincinnati and Rochester suffer from vocations crises due to their heterodox reputations. That’s why the number of diocesan priests in Cincinnati is expected to decline from around 200 to about 100 by the end of the decade, and that’s why Rochester, a diocese of 350,000 Catholics, ordained *one* priest this year.
Conversely, orthodox dioceses like Denver, Arlington, and Fargo have overcrowded seminaries and an abundance of orders.
If these priests are alarmed by the trends you point out, they should take on the mind of Christ and His Church and preach orthodoxy, not dissent.
Thank God the Holy Spirit doesn’t follow trends.
It’s not that we don’t want to consider changes, it’s that the doctrine of the all-male priesthood has been infallibly defined, i.e. it is the will of God that it be so. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to pretend that we change that. Other solutions are necessary, first and foremost as someone else said, by prayer and then by heroic leadership of our current priests.
Peace, Rich.
I’m not sure why you put quotation marks around my name. It was the name my parents gave me and I have no problem using it. I’m sure you’re curious about a good number of things, but keeping to the topic rather than stooping to personal attacks, cute interpretations, and minor falsehoods would do you more credit. I repeat my challenge of a few days ago: If you want to pin me down on the issues in question, just e-mail me with your thoughts and I’ll post it in full with a reply on my web site. Lacking that, I think you’re satisfied to avoid the discipline of a specific thread and start bringing up curiosities when the argument is tilting against you.
I think blaming Vatican II and “dissent” is wishful thinking. The Church wasn’t perfect before the council. The reform agenda wasn’t perfectly forumlated or carried out. And the Body remains in part a sinful expression of our humanity. The decades after every Ecumenical Council has been marked by those who wanted to cling to the fleshpots they knew in Egypt. Egypt was a very good place to Joseph and his brothers. But the time came to move forward. Likewise today: we should honor the essential Tradition of our faith, but be ready for the new challenges we face. In a century, we will have a clearer view of the struggles of these days. But would I place my trust in a religious philosophy that advocates blacklisting names, misrepresenting the views of one’s adversaries, and favoring eyewear with reddish tint? Give me Jesus.
FYI:
According to Gallup, 45% in 2003 and 35% in 2004 of US Catholics claim to attend mass weekly.
Camilam,
Perhaps you’d like to share the lin kto where you got that data, because it’s way out of whack. I don’t even have to go to a third-party to show that. The Archdiocese of Boston’s own statistics show less than 20% attendance.
And this article from the National Catholic Reporter quotes a Gallup survey that shows Mass attendance at 35% last year.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_10_40/ai_112450677
Time to change the prescription on those rose-colored glasses.
Here’s another survey showing similarly low numbers:
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question13.html
And another one from 2002 showing attendance at 31 percent, weekly.
http://www.miamiarch.org/news/columndetail.cfm?abc_id=80
Again, your figures are obviously faulty.
Todd, why do you insist on blaming “before the council” for things that manifestly arose out of the “reform agenda” that you and others from your generation cling to? What exactly do you see in the time “before the council” that has led to the crisis in the Church? And what do you think the crisis in the Church is, if you think there’s one at all? From your remarks I’d think you believed the Archdiocese of Denver must be the worst patch in the Church. And yet in Boston, where I’m from, we’ve been one of the most progressive places in the country – and look what it got us. Proponents of the “reform agenda” here continue to claim that we haven’t gone far enough! Heaven help us!
Todd,
Do you believe that a significant number of priests who were faithful to the magisterium were mostly the ones involved in the sex scandal?
http://www.fadica.org/FADICAGallupSurvey.htm
Peace, peter.
You asked, “(W)hy do you insist on blaming that in not getting the post, I was given the better portion. For culture and history, though, you have a lovely city: I’ve enjoyed both my visits there. But most dioceses in the northeast (I include Rochester NY in the list) are more hidebound than they need to be.
By the way, I was baptized several years after the Council, so I consider myself a “next generation” Vatican II Catholic. I think some of the first generation screwed it up, and I’m not ashamed to tell them where they did it.
“Do you believe that a significant number of priests who were faithful to the magisterium were mostly the ones involved in the sex scandal?”
Mostly? I wouldn’t know. A significant number were, certainly. I do know that the shame and guilt of molestation are a burden on the predator, and often causes the person to compartmentalize their life. I think some conservative clergy were able to convince themselves of the lie of their lives. And I think (and know of) others who in their circles were proud of their conquests, be they children or women. For predators with a pathology of internal repression, I might think that the odds would be slightly greater in finding a so-called “faithful” priest in trouble. But I think psychology, not theology is the driving force on most all of this.
And on numbers, I’ve seen a lot of statistics from two midwestern dioceses. Sunday Mass is likely to have 35-40 percent of registered parishioners (excluding the elderly and homebound). Inactive, unregistered Catholics drop that percentage down, obviously. Cities are doing worse than suburbs and rural areas. Rural parishes are all over the place, and it’s hard to tell how much is the shrinking Mass schedules. My current parish is off from 37 to 33 percent as a result of the sex abuse scandal.
Camilam,
I think the flaw in your data is that the FADICA findings were not based on a random sampling of all Catholics, but is based on a survey of their constituency. That’s the only way to reconcile that data with the rest of the Gallup data found in many other places.
OK. Permit me to blow the whistle and call off the Todd Squad.
He is who he says he is, and the cheap shots need to stop. Rich, I was particularly surprised by a couple of your comments—please, avoid the personal.
That said, I think Todd would be the first to admit that he rather enjoys being a stinging gadfly, and sometimes it comes off a little barbed. Also, the document (as depicted in a very badly written article) says this on the subject of women’s ordination:
“Church leaders need to openly address this subject, as well as the issues of optional celibacy and the ordination of women, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Father Meyer said, while at the same time, keeping the Eucharist central.”
Weeeeell, this goes a little beyond the seeking of prayer on the issue—it says the topic needs to be “openly addressed.” Last time I checked, it had been—twice—in two decades by two different popes. I’d say that these fellows in Cincy haven’t heard the gavel rap twice on their case—as in “dismissed.” It is at best (and I’m being excessively charitable here) gravely suspicious, as would be a letter that asked for the issues of transubstantiation and regenerative baptism to be “openly addressed,” to continue the sacramental analogy. What’s crippling the discussion is the fact none of us has the actual text of the letter.
Anybody else notice something? The location pattern for where these petition drives get started: Milwaukee, Rochester, Cincinnati. Hmm. Any bids on where the next one starts?
Hardhead…..“The homosexualist agenda and radical feminista propaganda.’
I agree that there is a feminist adgenda with this, but where are the homosexuals? Not every issue that is presented in the Church deals with homosexuality.
Dissent is tied to irregular relationships and irregular disires. All heresy begins below the belt.
All this dissent is because folks want to commit sin and not feel guilty. So, they attempt to nuance the issues hoping they will win over opinion.
“Thereo take it anymore.
“I hate to disabuse you of your sense of Boston, but I’ve never found it to be a particularly enlightened diocese in most things, especially liturgy. …For culture and history, though, you have a lovely city: I’ve enjoyed both my visits there. “
I’m amazed that you can see and grasp the tone and timber of a Diocese or Archdiocese the likes of Boston in two visits.
“Many midwestern dioceses have embraced Vatican II more fully”. Which? Care to share?
“But most dioceses in the northeast (I include Rochester NY in the list) are more hidebound than they need to be.” By whose criteria? Yours? Explain.
“By the way, I was baptized several years after the Council, so I consider myself a “next generation” Vatican II Catholic. I think some of the first generation screwed it up, and I’m not ashamed to tell them where they did it.” Take your best shot, pal. That first generation that screwed it up includes your parents.
“Do you believe that a significant number of priests who were faithful to the magisterium were mostly the ones involved in the sex scandal?”
Mostly? I wouldn’t know. A significant number were, certainly.” If you “don’t know” then how can you be “certain”? Which is it son, one or the other?. Either you DO know and can be certain, or you DON’T know and you’re not.
““And on numbers, I’ve seen a lot of statistics from two midwestern dioceses. Sunday Mass is likely to have 35-40 percent of registered parishioners (excluding the elderly and homebound).”
Two diocese’s hardly represent a random sampling. “Likely” leaves your data open to question.
Firm up your ‘facts’ before your posit an opinion.
In the final analysis, no matter what the priests from Cincy, Rochester, Southern Illinois (my diocese) or Timbuctu cry, sniovel and whine for, their hopes for ‘optional celibacy’ are as likely to occur as the Sun’s rising in the west.
Todd, you’re a walking repository of dissent. Don’t make me laugh.
And hey Todd, what if there were a fair number of bad priests before the council and even more after? How would you explain that? Because it sorta looks like that happened. Heck, I know that’s what happened. That mess didn’t just come out from underneath a rock. No pun intended.
Something interesting. I think sometimes people use dissent as a way to make themselves stand out—be “fashionable” or trendy. You know, it supports their ego in a weird (& sinful) sort of way. It makes a nobody who wishes he knew more feel like a bigshot with a circle of powerful people explaining for him. I’ve seen it over and over again……….
Your point about using the language of faith to cloak misdeeds in right on target, Peter Forrester. There is a flowery language that Catholics are accustomed to, but it is being used badly by some, to mislead others.
It’s why I object to imprecision in religious talk. Some of the phrases everyone uses are devoid of content or carry several different contents depending on who says them and when. This is why fisking is so funny. And why phrases like the “New Springtime” & “New Evangelism” and “Culture of Death” (whatever that means) crack me up and disgust me all at the same time. We need to listen to scripture and say what we mean, mean what we say……
Isabel, yes there are, as they are everywhere. But we also have good ones everywhere……..
Hardhead & Sinner, you said:
2004-07-01 12:52:51
Todd,
date>2004-07-01 08:52:51
You want someone to talk to, here we go.
“I hate to disabuse you of your sense of Boston, but I. Protestantism has nothing to do in and of itself with sexuality or gender. It has to do with authority and disobedience to that authority.
Protestants, at their core, do not want to submit to the authority of Rome. They have all, in some form or another taken the reforms that Luther proposed and have bastardized them into subjectivism; if you look to his 99 Theses, you’ll see that he didn’t want to start another Church, he simply wanted a reform to the Catholic Church. Lest we forget, Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk and a priest.
Protestantism most certainly contains those who support homosexuality and contraception/abortion (I consider them to be linked, incidentally), and other morally deviant behavior, but it does not mean that is what is central to its doctrine.
BTW, the Church is not opposed to married clergy. The Roman Catholic Church has many, many married clergy. Permanent deacons, Uniate (Byzantine) priests, and those who have been included into the priesthood after a converstion (Anglican Use priests). The Church simply states that the norm is not to have married priests. But there is more to clergy than simply Latin Rite priests, within the Roman Catholic Church.
Camilam
Yes, but Luther also struggled with his sexual temptations, thus one of the first things to go when he did split off was celibate clergy. He married a former nun.
“The Roman Catholic Church has many, many married clergy. Permanent deacons, Uniate (Byzantine) priests, and those who have been included into the priesthood after a converstion (Anglican Use priests). The Church simply states that the norm is not to have married priests. But there is more to clergy than simply Latin Rite priests, within the Roman Catholic Church. “
No kidding, but that is not the issue. The Pope has stated his intentions many times, and yes I know it is a discipline, it is treated as though it could be changed tomorrow if we should scream loud enough.
You are searching for a reason to disgree with an old adage. Why? Do you deny that sexual issues are the chief issues of dissent today?
I was referring to those within the Catholic Church. Most of the heresies, especially today, revolve around sex or gender.
How many are dissenting because they deny the hypostatic union? Please do not strain my credulity.
Yep, Dom, Luther was an alcoholic ex priest shacking up with an ex nun.
Finally, I agree authority is the chief issue with Protestantism. So what? I was referring to those who claim to be Catholic, yet hold heretical views. It is almost always about sex today.
Struggled yes, but did not marry until many years later and after he was excommunicated. Also it is stated that His marriage to Catherine Von Bora was happy. With that we can assume that there was no sexual deviancy involved, but rather a genuine love that developed, we can infer that due to his scrupulosity. He would not allow any type of deviancy to enter into it.
Camilam
I forgot to add that many heresiarchs reject Church teachings on sexual matters. Luther is not the only one in history with sexual demons.
Take a peek around today at CTA, VOTF and some of the well known names who push error. They all have a common thread and it is to change the teachgings on sexual matters. It is no surprise why they want to change things. They are in irregular relationships themselves and they do not want the guilt.
hardhead,
“You are searching for a reason to disgree with an old adage. Why? Do you deny that sexual issues are the chief issues of dissent today?”
I will disagree with the addage when it is taken out of context. You most certainly put a homo-erotic twist to it. Actually, I don’t think that sexual issues are the chief issues of dissent. I think that lack of obedience to the Holy Spirit and to the Authenticity of the Church are. Sexual deviancy is merely an effect, not the cause.
What exactly do you think Protestantism is? It is not a religion within itself. It is a heresy. No one says, “I am going to the Protestant Church today.”
However, millions say, “I am going to Catholic Church today.”
They believe in Protestant doctrines. They attend a denomination of Protestantism, which is a heresy. A heresy of what? ROMAN CATHOLICISM!!!!
“How many are dissenting because they deny the hypostatic union?”
Millions……
“Please do not strain my credulity.”
Credulity – A disposition to believe too readily.
I don’t question that at all…..not in the least. I actually support that statement wholeheartedly.
Camilam
“I will disagree with the addage when it is taken out of context. You most certainly put a homo-erotic twist to it.”
No idea what you are talking about?
‘What exactly do you think Protestantism is? It is not a religion within itself. It is a heresy. No one says, “I am going to the Protestant Church today.” ‘
Yes, it is a heresy, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about those CATHOLICS who embrace heresy. That is those who are under a serious obligation to form their consciences with Church teachings, not those that may be invincibly ignorant.
“How many are dissenting because they deny the hypostatic union?”
Millions……
Again, see my above remark. We are talking about Catholics.
Nice attempt to spin your point, but not buying any of it. Keep at it though.
“I think that lack of obedience to the Holy Spirit and to the Authenticity of the Church are. Sexual deviancy is merely an effect, not the cause. “
Well, I agree with this. But wait, listen, I hear a hair splitting. My original point was to show that many, if not most of the dissent today has a connection to those who are immersed in some sexual sin. To accept the authority of the Church would mean giving up that sin or sins. They would rather try to nuance or falsify the true teaching, rather than change their lives. That was my point.
hardhead,
“No idea what you are talking about?”
Let me shed some light on it. I contend, “Not every issue that is presented in the Church deals with homosexuality.”
You respond, “Dissent is tied to irregular relationships and irregular disires. All heresy begins below the belt.”
I say that this “smacks strongly of homo-eroticism.” And that is what is the homo-erotic twist. Have an idea now?
No spin on my part, but you seem to continue yours, that sexual sins are the root cause. NO WAY, JOSE!!!!! Simply an effect. And you agree with me and turn around and disagree again. That is spin.
Spin – To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion.
As far as the whole Protestant thing goes, I was again responding to you. You ask, “Yep, point to a current heresy and show me it is not about sexuality or gender.”
And I give you Protestantism. Protestantism IS a heresy. What is it a heresy of, you ask? The Catholic Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
and
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ409.HTM
Heresy – An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
Uh, that includes Protestantism…..precisely because most Protestants are baptized. If one is baptized, they are in effect Catholic. For that is what can gain a “non-Catholic” admittance to heaven.
Keeping up with the conversation? Good.
“My original point was to show that many, if not most of the dissent today has a connection to those who are immersed in some sexual sin.” Again, it is an effect of a greater sin. NOT THE CAUSE!!!!!!
Camilam
Peace, camilam.
Running down your quick list, I see, by the numbers: 1. nope, 2. it’s a ritual option, 3. nope, especially on the “brotherhood,” 4. moved would be more accurate, and parishioner ownership is not completely out of the ordinary, 5. yes and no, 6. definitely no, 7. nope, 8. nope, 9. not temporary but permanent, 10. Tridentine yes, Latin, no, every Mass should be “High,” and certainly no, 11. maybe you need a bigger sanctuary, 12, no, no, and now clarified, no, 13. not to replace Scripture, no, 14. used to be; that’s a recent innovation to keep him in place, 15. with permission he can, 16. lots of fussing, I agree, 17. nope, but put into perspective, 18. nope, 19. not at all.
So there: I’ve condemned most all of your bugaboos. I’ve probably seen about half of them at one time or another, but I’ve seen very, very few in the past ten years. Seems like Vatican II is coming off as planned. Next list, anyone?
Todd,
Cute and curt, but you don’t really answer them.
PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS!!!!!
2)Ritual option, Not unless there is great need or necessity, not to simply replace.
4)Show me where it says to dismantle and “move” the high altar? I daresay, you cannot find it. And show me how a parishioner owns the parish.
5)Again, show me where it says that we were to remove the altar rails.
9)It says nothing about altars facing the people. It does say that NEW altars are to be freestanding. But where does it say that Mass is to be said, “versus populum?” So, “ad orientam” is still the norm. If you look to the GIRM, you’ll see that at points such as the Ecce Agnus Dei, the priest is to turn and face the people. How can he do that if he is already facing the people?
10)Again, show me where the Tridentine has been abolished. Also, do you even know what a High Mass is? It means that the Ordinary parts of the Mass are to be sung….that is what High means, also the use of the ususal trappings, incense, processions, etc….
11)Not funny….expressly forbidden by the committe on the liturgy April 1968.
13) Show where secular readings are allowable, sir.
14) Was an abuse that was demolished….
15) No sir, that breaks both Liturgical Law and Canon Law. I refer you to Redemptionis Sacramentum. http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html
16) Fussing? Fussing? Sorry that you don’t see reverance of the Blessed Sacrament as something more than a “fussy issue.” Also see, Redemtionis Sacramentum. http://www.adoremus.org/RedemptionisSacramentum.html
17) That statement is downgrading her.
You have answered no questions. You just tried to be cute. And these “bugaboos” are serious matters. You may have seen them, but as I can clearly see, you don’t know how to answer them in an adult, athentic, and sound manner.
Vatican II is not coming off as planned. There are still many things NOT properly instituted. Again, sir, prove yourself. If you cannot, you are merely a sham.
Sham – One who assumes a false character; an impostor.
I will take the time to give you a long lesson on each if you so desire, but don’t pass off authentic knowledge with curtness. Sometimes the bull does have horns.
Camilam
Peace, canilam.
If you want to continue a discussion off thread here, my suggestion is to e-mail me and I will print your points one by one with a reply. Just because you’ve seen or had bad dreams about these or nailed them to the door of your church or interpreted a church document as favorable doesn’t mean you have actually scored your point. I’m happy to take on all readers on my own site where I can organize posts and topics to a more logical degree. Cheers.
Todd,
“Just because youreignty of God. But when he makes it mean that God wishes particular people to be damned, we may say with restraint that he has become a rather morbid Catholic. In point of fact he is a diseased Catholic; and the disease left to itself would be death or madness. But, as a matter of fact, the disease did not last long, and is itself now practically dead. But every step he takes back towards humanity is a step back towards Catholicism. Thus a Quaker is a Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of gentle simplicity and truth . . .”
People who adhere to Protestants in and of themselves are not heretics. But, Protestantism as a doctrine, is rightly called a heresy. Why? Because it properly fulfills the requirement as the Catechism defines it.
CCC 2089: “…Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same…”
Notice that catholic is NOT capitalized. I will provide the link, lest you think that it is a typo on my part.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm
So, is the Protestant doctrine a heresy? Yes.
Camilam
michigancatholic,
“…the birth control thing is what really gave dissent wings though.”
I agree with that. Humanae Vitae was the starting point for dissent on birth control. But birth control has nothing to do in and of itself with homosexuality. They are mutually exclusive. They often times get lumped together, but it is not altogether accurate to do so.
Camilam
“Okay, we can discuss the suitability of a married priesthood in the Latin rite, and whether it’s a practical exercise. But for them to be challenging what has been established as infallible doctrine and not discipline in women’s ordination is beyond the line.”
For God’s sake, Dom, it’s not infallible doctrine.
Sister M. Immaculata Dunn
Sister: Indeed it is. See section 891 of the CCC.
Also see Sacerdotalis Ordinatio, where the Pope even uses the “chair of Peter” language, something that is rarely done. And then the followup from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that said the SO was an exercise of the infallible Petrine teaching office, just for good measure.
You can’t just say it’s not infallible and then make it so. It fits the definition.
Peace, all.
“You cane in the universal priesthod of Jesus Christ. The universal priesthood is wholly different and separate from the ordained ministerial priesthood.
“Priestly Ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying, and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.” (OS 1)
He then quotes from Mulieris Dignitatem, “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behaviour, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.” (OS 2)
Finally the Holy Father says (to Mr. Bettinelli’s point), “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. <Lk> 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” (OS 4)
Sacerdotalis Ordinatio
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORDIN.HTM
Mulieris Dignitatem
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2MULIE.HTM
As John Paul II rightly asserts, speaking to the above points, we are not looking to have ministers in heaven, but rather saints.
Camilam
The Sacraments are outside of the realm of faith and morals? Priceless.
Camilam
“People who adhere to Protestants in and of themselves are not heretics”
Here’s a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia
“The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval”
Can’t have it both ways Cam. You can’t call Protestantism a heresy but the people who actively promote aren’t heretics.
And while I’m a fan of G. K. Chesterton, (He got my boy T.S. to join up) I don’t recall where his opinion has been deemed infallible on faith and morals. Tons of respect for the guy but it is only an opinion.
Jaime,
While a person may adhere to a heretical principle like Protestantism, they are not necessarily guilty, on an individual level, of being a heretic.
How can this be? Protestantism is a heresy, by definition. See above. This does not change. This is a truth, so much so that the only correction for Protestantism is the recociliation of different Protestant denominations to themselves and then the “uber-Protestant” church to reconcile to Holy Mother Church.
If a person has no knowledge that he is not in a heretical state and is not taught that the defining truth is Catholicism, he is not a heretic. However, he is in adherance to a heretical prinicple.
In otherwords, a baptized Protestant churchman is not necessarily a heretic, but he does, de facto, adhere to a heretical prinicple.
This all changes when said churchman is exposed to Catholicism on both an intellectual and evangelical level and denies it. Why? Precisely because he is baptized. He then is deemed heretical, by definition. At any time before that he is in a state of either voluntary or involuntary doubt and/or incredulilty. Look to CCC 2088-2089.
Camilam
If a person has no knowledge that he is not in a heretical state…..”
sorry typo….It should read, “If a person has no knowledge that he is in a heretical state…”
Camilam
Sigh… I don’t mean to stray so much folks..
First of all, there aren’t too many protestants out there that aren’t aware of the fact that they do not believe in the priesthood or the pope or transubstantiation. (There would be a lot who would be shocked to find out that even though they were baptized Methodist, they’re really Catholic!!)
So by your definition, a grand majority of protestants know they are in disagreement with the Catholic Church.
Cam, would you like to enlighten us on the ultimate sentence for heretics?
The Sacraments are indeed part of the deposit of the faith. The ordination process, how you runs seminaries, things like that are part of governance and discipline. The nature of the priesthood is a matter of faith. If it isn’t then nothing is a matter of faith.
Jaime,
Here is a question for you? If those who are not Catholic are not in some form of error, why convert them? Why the evangelization and catechesis?
“….there arens in fact a heretical priniciple.
You ask, “What is the penalty for heresy?”
I answer that, “There is no salvation outside the Church.”
Camilam
Jaime,
After much pain and searching I have found something important….
You say, “You cannot have an heresy without the heretics. Heresy is not defined exclusively as an idea but as an idea actively promoted by.“balances” some restrictions on abortion with maintaining the right to abortion—like support for the Born Alive Infant Protections Act.
As far as I know, Kerry has not personally denied he is pro-abortion but pro-choice and personally opposed. I’ve only seen this attributed to him. Has he recently publicly affirmed that he is personally opposed to abortion?