Over 6,000 believers in Belgium, including at least 211 priests, have signed a manifesto calling for reforms in the Catholic Church. They decry parishes without priests, Eucharistic celebrated at unsuitable times, and Sunday prayer services without Communion. They ask why necessary reforms are not happening, and they call on the bishops to break the impasse. The manifesto calls for church leadership, including ordination, to be opened to women and men, married and unmarried, professional and volunteer, provided there is adequate training. They call for the admission to Communion of divorced and remarried believers of good will, and for permission for qualified lay people to preach: “We need the Word of God!”
“The Faithful Speak Up” – A Manifesto from Belgium
Comments
171 responses to ““The Faithful Speak Up” – A Manifesto from Belgium”
-
Siobhan Maguire
Two thoughts:
1. What do the writers/signers mean by “Eucharist celebrated at unsuitable times”?
2. When this document is translated by Google, it reads a little like RM2010.-
I’m right there with you! “Unsuitable times?” When is Mass celebrated in Belgium?
-
-
I consider it a sign of hope that almost every section of the Manifesto begins with “Wij begrijpen niet waarom…” (“We do not understand why…”), which implies that they are open to hearing why the Church practices and teaches what she does.
-
Jeffrey,
if we’re going to hold to the concept of literal translation, then you have to admit that:
“Wij begrijpen niet waarom” does not mean “We do not understand why..”
It means “We understand not why…”
-
No, we don’t Sean, and not everything has to be discussed through the lens of “literal translation”.
-
In Dutch the primary verb always has to go in what they call “the second position.” My wife knew a non-native Dutch-speaker who was very excited to when she had learned enough Dutch that when her Dutch husband said “Ik hou van jou” (I love you) she was able to respond “Ik ook hou van jou” (I also love you).
He immediately corrected her, “Ik hou ook van jou” (I love also you).
-
Thanks guys. I’m sure most people here would say that they understand language is definitely more than simple translation of the words. Sentence structure is also part of what makes it up, and that it’s not only proper to word things a certain way, it’s incorrect if you do not.
I was simply pointing out that literal vs. dynamic translation has been a big topic of controversy lately, and that people, of differing opinions, are adhering to one versus the other at varying times, when it appears to suit their own objectives.
-
I just wanted a chance to share my story about how ridiculous the Dutch can be.
-
Sean, I don’t think a “literal” translation is the same as a “word-for-word” translation, if the latter implies keeping word order as well. Others here have called that sort of translation (speaking, of course, of the new English translation of the Mass) both “slavish transliteration” and “interlinear translation”.
“And with your spirit” is a literal translation of “Et cum spiritu tuo”, but it is not a strict word-for-word translation (slavish transliteration / interlinear translation). That would be “And with spirit your,” like your Dutch suggestion above.
-
JP: Yes, you’re correct that literal does not mean “word for word”.
Translating “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “And with spirit your” would not be grammatically correct in English.
However, translating “Wij begrijpen niet waarom…” as “We understand not why…..” could be taken as grammatically correct, albeit it sounds a bit more like Elizabethan English, rather than modern English.
Similarly, much of the new missal has that non-modern sound, because of its literal translation and the way that Latin is structured. I will admit that it’s the loss of modernity, and acquisition of that old fashioned sound that causes many to dislike the new missal, and it is probably part of what makes many of the people who appreciate the new missal to like it.
-
-
-
I think it is safe to say that a great number of Catholics would accept, and even welcome, married clergy. But would they be willing to accept the financial responsibility of housing, feeding, clothing, educating and providing health care for such families? Also, a married clergy is probably not going to be as mobile as what we’re used to. I’m not bringing these points up as reasons against married clergy, but simply as issues that I think few Catholics have thought seriously about. Obviously, Protestants have already dealt with these issues, but the clergy model is very different with them.
-
It’s my understanding that the average American Protestant puts far more into the basket each week than the average American Catholic. Of course, spending in most Protestant churches is firmly in the hands of an elected lay board. Also, most Protestant congregations have some say (if not final say) in the selection of their clergy.
-
I agree totally. My point was that in order for a married clergy to work in the RCC (Latin Rite), a paradigm shift re: clergy would have to take place. Bishops would no longer be able to transfer clergy at a moment’s notice. Parish giving would have to increase. And parishioners would have to be willing to live with their pastor for a long time. It could be done; it’s just not as easy as saying “let’s have married clergy starting tomorrow” as some have done. Also, I wonder if there are any reliable studies to show how many more men would become priests if they were allowed to marry.
-
Tony, one has to wonder what the surprisingly low number of permanent deacons augurs for the number of married men interested in and well-fitted to be clergy?
-
This is all conjecture…
Simon, perhaps the relatively small number of permanent deacons has to do with poor formation of the laity about what the diaconate is.
What does the average lay Catholic know about the diaconate? What do they regularly see deacons doing that they don’t see the non-ordained doing? Reading the Gospel… preaching at Mass… and what else? So it’s not “worth it” to be a deacon.
Or, perhaps there’s a perception that there’s no “power” in the permanent diaconate.
-
That theory would also explain the paucity of instituted acolytes and lectors—what would be the point?
-
For me, the priesthood has always been tempting, and has been a constant low-level call in my life. I am married, so I can’t be a priest. The diaconate is something of a second-class option and one I’m not hugely drawn to. It’s something of a “you can’t be a priest, here, have this instead” option.
-
1) Simon: I’m not sure what you mean about the low number of permanent deacons. In diocese where there are good diaconate formation programs there are at least as many ordinations to the diaconate as to the presbyterate.
2) Paul: at least theologically speaking, the diaconate is a distinct order from the priesthood, rooted in a distinct calling, and not a second-class form of priesthood. In people’s perceptions, however. . .
-
Paul: at least theologically speaking, the diaconate is a distinct order from the priesthood, rooted in a distinct calling, and not a second-class form of priesthood. In people’s perceptions, however. . .
There is something to that though, isn’t there? It seems legitimate to view them also as degrees of the priesthood.
The Eastern Churches (who have a much more robust use of “permanent deacons” and other minor orders than we do), call the order of reader “the first degree of the Priesthood” as the Bishop says at the ceremony: “My son (NAME), the first degree of the Priesthood is that of Reader.”
Certainly what is true of the reader is true a fortiori of the deaconate?
Even the CCC speaks of “the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees” quoting Lumen Gentium and of course we speak of a Bishop as having received “the fullness of the priesthood.”
To be called to the one class rather than another can be a unique calling and a difference in degree both, no?
-
Paul: maybe you could go over to the Anglicans, become a priest there, then move back to the Catholic church as a married priest?
Fritz: what can a deacon do that neither a lay person not a priest can do? If there is nothing, then it’s hard to argue that it’s a unique calling, it seems to me. (By the way, I’m just curious. I understand that you’re a deacon?) Or – are deacons more uniquely dedicated to preaching than priests? Isn’t it true that when both a priest and a deacon are present at a liturgy, the deacon is the one who is supposed to preach?
-
Paul: maybe you could go over to the Anglicans, become a priest there, then move back to the Catholic church as a married priest?
Claire: JP2’s pastoral provision, as far as I understand it, specifically excludes that possibility.
-
Claire, deeply cynical, but I have considered it. As Jeffrey points out, though, that’s a closed door. It seems that, when the Magesterium decides to knife its own clergy in the back, it does so with gusto and no chance of avoiding the knife.
-
Part of me has always wondered whether the invitation for married Anglican priests to be able to become RC priests has been an experiment that the church is trying because they realize that they must do something or risk the fact that the number of priests in the world would become so few and far between that they’d never be able to fill the needs of all the people.
-
On a few points:
The code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church were both revised in recent years to make it clear that while deacons receive the character of Orders they do not minister in persona Christi. As one early source (Hippolytus, I think) puts it, they receive the laying on of hands “but not unto the priesthood.” So the current thinking of the Church (and at least some ancient thinking) is that, no, the diaconate is not a “degree” of priesthood.
As to Claire’s questions: yes, I am a deacon. No, deacons do not always preach at Mass. In fact, we only preach when the priest-celebrant allows us to. As to what deacons can do that priests or lay people cannot do, one might also ask what a priest can do that a bishop cannot do. Ordination is not about function, but about identity. The deacon is — if I might wax a bit lyrical — an icon of Christ the servant who is to awaken in the faithful their own vocation to share in the ministry of service. I don’t think a deacon can do anything that a layperson cannot, at least in principle, do.
-
-
-
What I find fascinating from a historical point of view is how these kinds of reform movements eventually end up breaking communion with the Catholic Church. One obviously thinks of Martin Luther whose movement brought about the Protestant Reformation and the multitudes of (many) denominations of Protestantism all seeking to be purer and more holy than the last off-shoot. Or we might think of the Old Catholics who separated from the full communion of the Catholic Church after Vatican I and the Lefeberite movement which is similar to the Old Catholic movement but in a different way. The only problem with the more “progressive” reformers such as those in Austria, Belgium and here is that they are so all over the place that once they have broken communion with the Catholic Church in a definitive way, they’ll continue to fragment. Lutherans to a certain extent have avoided that, although there are many various theological strains from ultra-conservative to the ultra-progressive and the same with the Anglican Communion. But despite it all, the Catholic Church remains in tact, makes adjustments and reforms where it is possible and clarifies what can’t change. I’m sticking with the Holy Father, my bishop and the bishops in union with the See of Peter.
-
Yet these days, anyone who suggests reform is often meant with the suggestion that they should leave the Church. We reformers would like to stay, but are being shown the door.
-
No one is forced to leave or forced to stay–it is called free will and one can even push Jesus out of their lives if they wish.
-
That is because in the case of most of those who demand reform, , it is the subject who truly needs to be reformed and not the object. I don’t want you to leave, I want to you conform yourself to the Church instead of demanding that she conform to you particularly and ‘the spirit of the age’ (cf. Romans 12:2) generally. In the conflict between the Church and the modern world, it is not the Church that must reform but the world that must be formed to her.
-
So the magisterium is always right, and calls for reform come from the spirit of this age?
Then we can all stand with the Pope when he condemns religious liberty, democracy, free speech, free press, free elections, and approves of slavery? I sure hope the Pope doesn’t change his position on any of those things, then, and give in to the spirit of the age.
awr
-
-
Amen to that, Father.
-
What I find fascinating is that all that these reform groups are seeking is what we studied as “speculative theology” in the seminary in the 1970’s as almost a clairvoyant look to the future and what the “future church” would be. Of course that hasn’t happened on the institutional level, but the diehards from the 1970’s and those of us influenced by that theology back then are reasserting a hoped for but failed future out come. I think it is the last hooray of a dying movement that thought it could actually chart the future course of the Church independent of the Magisterium.
-
Fr. Allan – you could have said the same thing in the early 20th century about folks such as Congar, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Dulles (to name a few), the worker priests of France, etc. Did these folks do “speculative theology” as you define it (or denigrate it?)? That is part of the root understanding of theology – points to the future; not really about actual nuts and bolts implementations. How many times and how often did the curia (Ottaviani et alii) and local bishops silence and call these thinkers – dying movements?
We seem to be back in your alternative universe – where you “endured” your theology classes led by all those speculative teachers who didn’t agree with your Vatican I ideas.
-
Bill, none of the theologians you write were shrill or schismatic and were authentic theologians who did not see themselves as a parallel Magisterium or church. They put forth their theology for consideration and made no big deal at least publicly when challenged. And they were the most successful in the long run weren’t they? Now Hans Kung will not fall into that category nor the futurechurch movement symbolized by dissidents in Austria, Belgium, here and elsewhere. They on the other hand remind of Charlie Sheen and his “wining” boast.
-
-
I’d be referring to defined truths of both the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium of the Church and also canon law. What you write Fr.Anthony would not be binding on any Catholic as far as I can tell, although Catholics might be influenced by these sorts of things until there is a more authoritative teaching. For example, we know married men can be ordained priests, we have them already. We can certainly encourage a broader application of that according the the tradition of the Eastern Rite and our own earlier tradition.
Things of a canonical nature that are purely for the unity of the Church, law and order, but not necessarily of divine and therefore unchanging law certainly can be adjusted. I think the Belgium group some of whom already practice their future-church proposals have gone way beyond in promoting legitimate reform that is consistent with the Catholic Faith and canonical processes for change.-
Exactly. It’s one thing to propose reform like “the competence of dicastery X over issue Y should be transferred to dicastery
Z,”* or “the present dioceses of Ireland should be liquidated and and new dioceses erected in their place with new staffs and bishops.” It’s quite another to demand reforms motivated by the spirit of the age that are at odds with the teaching of the magisterium or scripture. The Church has no authority to ordain women—period. It is settled. One must simply get over it. Reforms that are at odds with that teaching are plainly not offered in good faith, which, as I said above, is an indictment of the petitioners.It’s also quite another to presumptuously criticize the Church for failing to adopt one’s preferred reform, even a merely ecclesiastical issue reform, recognizing the parochial limits of one’s viewpoint. For instance, IIRC, the Vatican was spanked by Americans for failing to insist that abuse be reported the police; the complaint was desperately parochial in failing to recognize that such a policy has very different implications in, say, Beijing than it does in Boston.
_______
* Presumably, the Congregation for Z to be helmed by John Card. Zuhlsdorf.
-
-
Don’t fool yourself, Father Allen. The Roman Catholic Church has never been as polarised in its history as it is now.
“What can’t be changed” is a euphemism for what the powers-that-be don’t wish to change – until it suits them.
-
Gerard, you might want to look a bit more deeply into that history. The 4th century? The 11th century? The 14th century?
-
-
Your historical pessimism is not warranted. Many reform movements from below did in fact reform the Church without grave mishap — the movements that solved the antipope problem in the 15th century and the movements that led to Vatican II are examples.
-
And of course Franciscanism was a movement from below, and pretty much every monastic foundation or religious order — think even of the Irish monks like Columbanus who scolded popes quite boldly.
-
Joe, the reform movement of the “reform of the reform within continuity” certainly has a grassroots bottom-up momentum and paralleled that which was happening at the other end of the spectrum in many parishes and religious orders in the 1970’s and today. I’m not denigrating that at all. Martin Luther’s reform as a Catholic led to schism as well as John Calvin and John Knox. One could also say that about the Wesley brothers as it concerns the Anglican Communion. That was not the case with reform within fidelity to the Church and her Magisterium with Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena. They are saints precisely because they called for fidelity to the truth and strict Church discipline applied to all, not just a few. I see this loose band of “we are church” people so all over the place that even here on this blog when people are commenting, no one can single out anyone thing that epitomizes the good of this movement and what is within the realm of possibility and what is not. In fact there is some outright movement away from truth and fidelity under the guise of “what would Jesus do” which is very saccharine and pious but not a good way to do theology.
-
-
-
Petitions that include demands that the Church do something Catholics must definitively believe that she lacks any authority whatsoever to do are perplexing; inevitably they indict the petitioners not the respondent. I don’t know why the people who frame these petitions don’t understand that such demands ensure that they are dismissed right out of the gate.
Like Fr. Allan, I decline the invitation to join this presumptuous minority (who do they think they are to pretend to speak for “the faithful”?) in heresy and rancor.
-
On what basis does the church claim that it lacks such authority? I know that it does make that claim, but what does this claim stand on?
I read a fascinating article a while ago (and have now lost the URL, sorry) that suggests that the Vatican’s own scriptural committee was asked to provide evidence supporting the ban on women priests. After a while, it provided a report that said, basically, they concluded that there is no scriptural basis whatsoever to support the ban. If the Vatican’s own scriptural committee reaches that conclusion, it’s time to sit up and listen.
-
It stands or falls on the authority of the Papal magisterium—read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Lumen Gentium. If one rejects the authority of the Papacy to settle doctrinal questions, then the question of ordaining women remains open, but is of course moot since one would have ceased to be a Catholic.
-
Aah, yes. That which has been called infallible yet meets exactly zero of the five requirements for infallibility…
See here for an interesting discussion on teaching authority as applied to the question of women priests.
-
Actually it meets all five, and you might find http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=835 a more productive read than silliness from the WomynPriests people. I suppose that one could have made an argument to the contrary immediately after its publication, but that possibility evaporated on the CDW’s confirmation the following year.
-
-
I don’t understand why they don’t shut up — seems to be the underlying sense.
-
-
Even when people do leave, in significant numbers, it affects the Church which they left.
So it is not a case that the Church which does not want/believe in these changes will simple serenely go its way un touched.
Not history ( “which is, nevertheless, the teacher of life!”)
Mark MIller
-
I’m also in favor of a married clergy but since my first comment was removed where I said I wanted women priests and wanted to get rid of the clown suits the priests wear, I guess this post will be removed as well. What do you want to bet the moderators are men? grrrrr
-
Marci, comments in favor of women priests have not been banned from Pray Tell. I don’t even think it was the “clown suits” remark, although I’ve seen some priestly ghastly vestments on women ministers too. It might have been the “souls” remark.
And the comments policy at Pray Tell has nothing to do with the gender of the moderators. Nor whether they wear “clown suits” or not.
-
Marci, if you have no respect for tradition or the magisterium, what do you respect?
-
Human dignity, I should think.
-
Just because something is tradition does not mean it is always a good thing or that it should never be changed.
-
Indeed, but the fact that it is traditional, that it has been washed smooth by the approbation of generations, entitles it to deference and respect. Tradition can be overcome in some instances, but snide comments about “the clown suits the priests wear” betray a fundamentally defective mindset that Oakeshott called “rationalism” and the Popes have chosen to call “modernism.”
-
-
-
When I was in college one of the priests told us that there was a time when it was thought women had no soul because of the argument – only rational animals have souls, women are irrational therefore women have no souls – I don’t make this stuff up Jeffery, that’s what I was told.
-
There may have been a time when that was the view, but it isn’t now. You know that women have souls and church views you as having a soul.
-
And so because some priest in college told you what I imagine was a joke (but maybe he was sincere), that’s what the Pope believes.
-
Jeffrey, it may be unpalatable, but that doesn’t make it false. Women have been crushed by religions since religion was invented.
-
Paul, what Marci said — that Pope Benedict XVI believes that women don’t have souls — was false.
-
Where does Marci say that B16 believes women don’t have souls? She said that she was told by a priest that “there was a time when it was thought that women had no souls….”
She doesn’t mention whether or not the priest told her that this belief stemmed from the church or was it simply a commonly held cultural belief, much like the viewpoint in some cultures that a married woman could not legally own property.
Assuming that this was the church’s (or a Pope’s) opinion, at one time, does that means we are always supposed to be subject to the whims and personal opinions of each Pope, without question?
-
Sean, it was in a deleted comment of hers: “hard to believe the current occupant of Peter’s chair would even recognize women have souls.”
Moderators: sorry for bringing up the content of deleted posts.
-
Aaah. I see. Or, I now see that I didn’t previously see, and I now see what I didn’t previously see. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
-
Not a joke. But not true either. The myth of the Council of Maĉon.
See reference made to it here:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=4629
-
-
What I find fascinating is that all that these reform groups are seeking is what we studied as “speculative theology” in the seminary in the 1970’s as almost a clairvoyant look to the future and what the “future church” would be. Of course that hasn’t happened on the institutional level, but the diehards from the 1970’s and those of us influenced by that theology back then are reasserting a hoped for but failed future out come. I think it is the last hooray of a dying movement that thought it could actually chart the future course of the Church independent of the Magisterium.
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
When these topics come up, what people seem to be concerned with are the following issues:
A priesthood open to women and married men
Acceptance of gays including formal recognition of permanent, loving relationships
Acceptance of the divorced, without dragging them through the coals for making a mistake
A more open Church government: local selection of bishops, more lay control of finances, accountability to the laity.
A liturgy meaningful and understandable for each parish that is also recognizable to the rest of the Church.Would a Catholic Church that encompassed these things be so far from the Christ?
-
I’m not a gnostic, so I have no inside track on the truth that the Magisterium doesn’t seem to have but you do.
-
Name calling is a poor answer.
-
What a pathetic, self-righteous and snide response – no, reaction! As Chris Grady often asked before, Have you no souls nearby to save?
-
Well, I will pray for you to receive some vision of that inside track, Allan. Your comments here seem less than charitable, in tone. Even if you wish to stand by your beliefs, you seem less than priestly in your responses.
-
It’s not an inside track, it’s the widespread finding of the people of God on the basis of long study, dialogue, listening and consultation, and attending to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Just because some who appeal to the Spirit are misguided does not mean that the Spirit must be quenched.
-
-
Amen, Brigid — that would be a truly holy institution, not this MAN-made abomination we have now.
-
Beware, my daughter, of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
-
As already stated, ignore the dear father, Sandi….seems that a number of nerves are being touched and the Fr. Z crowd is reacting. One always wonders what fears are being challenged by these sympathetic comments about a part of the church that feels that is is in pastoral need….where or where is the humility, mercy, and kindness to actually ask, listen, and support before automatically condemning these folks with anathemas.
Refer to Rita Ferrone’s excellent comment and distinctions below.
-
Ordaining Women???
Even if I favoured the priesly ordination of women (which I emphatically do not) I shouldn’t think that those who express such virulent contempt for ‘this MAN-made abomination’ do much to commend their case. Such people seem to think that ordination is just another prize for them to snatch from inherently evil males; as if the world would become a second Eden if it were ruled by women. Quite the contrary: history reveals as many women monsters as saints – just the same as it does for men. You need an argument for ordination that doesn’t have its roots in a rather transparent feminist soil and a blanket contempt for manhood. One can just imagine the excoriation which a man would suffer for speaking of womanhood in this manner! I hasten to add that I think women are wonderful creatures, but I honestly don’t see their ordination as compatible with Jesus’ example. -
MJO, whom, exactly, did Jesus ordain? Women? Men? Anybody?
You seem keen to take one comment made by one supporter of women’s ordination and apply it to all. That’s not particularly charitable towards the rest of us.
Personally, I have no contempt for manhood (it would put me in something of an awkward situation if I did) and very little time for feminism, yet I am vehemently in favour of equality of ordination. Not as some prize to be grabbed, but as a just response to the undeniable calling of the Spirit felt by some people, regardless of gender.
On a final note, be very careful when you say that you think women are wonderful creatures. In doing so, you state that all women are inferior to you, and you are going to get something of a hostile reaction from people who believe that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus.”
-
Hi, Paul. Jesus ordained the apostles priests of the new covenant to offer His body and blood. The Council of Trent places the anathema on anyone who denies this (22d Sess., 1562), so for your sake I hope your comment above was ill-considered rhetoric rather than a statement of your actual position.
-
I guess I’m going to Hell then. Hey ho.
From reading the scripture, it looks rather like Jesus was instituting the Eucharist in the bit quoted by Trent 22. I also note that there is some debate about whom exactly was present in the room at the time. In Luke, he says “I have ardently longed to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”, so that looks like a Passover meal and not, as I have seen here, a pre-Passover meal. If it were a Passover, there would, almost certainly, been women and children present, so they would have been included in the “do this in remembrance of me”.
But hey. I’m only an engineer.
Is anyone going to attempt an answer to a question I have asked a few times: Can a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome be ordained in the RCC? She has testes and XY chromosomes. She looks like a woman, but is genetically male. Is she in or out?
-
-
Yes. Yes it would. Sorry, Brigid, but it is inconceivable that any well-formed Catholic could have written this—refresh your familiarity with the catechism and you will see why what you’ve written is risible.
-
The group that made the rules also wrote the catechism listing the rules. If the rules are wrong, constant repetition that they are right will not make it so.
-
“The group”! You make it sound like an ad hoc corporate think tank. The Church that teaches also wrote the catechism summarizing her teaching. If you have no respect for her, if you don’t believe the essential ecclesiological claims of Catholicism, you aren’t a Catholic. It’s really as simple as that.
-
Ignore him Brigid.
-
Better to ignore Brigid.
-
-
BR –
This is not sarcasm: There already exists the church which you describe above! It is called the Episcopal Church. What is it that is distinctively Roman Catholic that prevents you from being quite as at home in Canterbury as in Rome? What makes you a faithful (?) Roman Catholic?And, Fr Ruff: did the Pope really say all those things?
-
MJO-
Fr Ruff was not referring to Pope Benedict XVI. However each one of those references made by Fr Ruff has been said or written by popes of the RCC in the past.
We are forever told about the importance of adhering to the Magisterium: the writings of the popes are to be “assented to by faithful Catholics”
it is for this reason that Hans Kung blasted the concept of Papal infallibility: the fact that popes through history have held beliefs that are so contrary to what we would nowadays consider to be basic human values
-
Elias, the only problem with that is that it fails to recognize that different papal statements even within the same writing have different levels of magisterial authority. The problem is in the implicit dichotomy “infallible” and “ignorable,” which is wildly at odds with Lumen Gentium and all common sense; it does not follow that if the Pope writes an encyclical using a shorthand reference to something tangential to the object of the encyclical that seems in tension with a conciliar pronouncement that he is invoking his authority to overturn the council. Sometimes the Pope is acting as a teacher, and sometimes he acts as a judge; we are ill-served to forget that. I can’t think of any good examples and don’t have time to search this morning, but hopefully my meaning is clear. But there’s a huge difference between, say, Spe Salve (Pope as teacher) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope as judge), something that is manifest on the face of the documents.
-
-
As Chris Grady often asked before, Have you no souls nearby to save?
And your ministry?
(Failure of threading, in reply to Gerard Flynn’s December 1, 2011 – 5:11 pm)
-
-
What’s called for in the document is not “speculative theology” 🙂 it’s how the church began, with the disciples married, with non-priests presiding at the gatherings, with women like Junia as apostles.
It’s in no way taken for granted by everyone that the church has no power to make women priests. Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission voted 12 to 5 that if the church ordained women, it wouldn’t be acting against the will of Jesus. Sandra Schneiders has an article on this – “Did Jesus Exclude Women from Priesthood?”
-
Crystal, it must be taken for granted by Catholics, because the Pope has definitively settled the question. Protestants are welcome to continue to debate the issue in their own ecclesiastical groups, but in the Catholic Church the question is settled. It’s of absolutely no relevance what the PBC did or didn’t do in the 1970s—that argument died with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
As to the practice of the early Church, I think James McCue got it right in a Theological Studies article years ago: It’s not a safe conclusion that the early Church immediately and understood everything passed on to them (which is why we spent nearly a thousand years literally fighting to the death over details that are taken for granted today), let alone that she could freely act consistently with that. I’ll give you an example. Just as a practical matter, Pope Benedict has more direct authority over the universal Church than most of his predecessors, perhaps more than St Peter himself when “the church began.” Right? Michael Buckley, SJ, has suggested that given a relational understanding of the episcopate and the primacy, we might think that Papal authority over appointments was appropriate in ages past, because of the external pressures of secular rulers, but not so much today. Well, I would argue that, in the same vein but to the contrary, it is equally possible that the limits on Papal authority over appointments that were necessary or indeed imposed in ages past, because of the external pressuers of secular rulers and technological limits, are now defunct and that technology has freed the Pope to exercise the full authority of the Petrine ministry.
-
No Pope has the authority to say what other people will or will not debate. When they attempt to it’s only the most glaring manifestation of their lust for control. Most times it’s more covert.
-
Defintely settled – please….do you understand church history? Papal pronouncements come and go – B16’s comment linking this to a dogmatic truth was, is, and will be rejected by theologians and the ordinary catholic.
Your papal authority over appointments arguement is weak, at best. It could be argued from either side and the first century of the church practice may actually have had more value than the over-centralization we now experience.
-
Gerard, you can debate it until you’re blue in the face, but the Pope has the authority to definitively settle the underlying premise of the debate, and he has in fact settled it. No one has the authority to tell you that you can’t debate the point, that’s true. No one can tell you not to argue that the earth is flat, either, but while you can debate it to your heart’s content, the question of whether it is or not flat has been settled.
Bill, I’d be careful faulting people’s understanding of Church history when you don’t know who was Pope in 1994 (“B16’s comment linking this to a dogmatic truth was, is, and will be rejected by theologians and the ordinary catholic”). By the way, no Catholic rejects JP2’s teaching. A lot of ex-Catholics reject it, including many who don’t want to admit to themselves that they’ve left, but you can’t reject the Papacy and be a Catholic, and you can’t reject Ordinatio Sacerdotalis without rejecting the Papacy–indeed, without rejecting the papal magisterium as Vatican II described it.
-
Simon – B16 reiterated JPII’s statement; it came in one of his MPs…..that is what I was referring to.
You said: “A lot of ex-catholics…..etc” ……you have a certitude and such rigid and narrow definitions it makes SPPX look like kids. Sorry, you can remain a catholic in good standing even if you don’t agree with such “loaded” statements as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. There is a hierarchy of beliefs – you have little nuances; no distinctions, etc. Not every statement, MP, pronouncement or canon law, or even cathechism item, etc. carries the same weight or obligation…it is sad to see you pontificate in an area you obviously do not understand.
Coupled with “orthodox” catholic moral theology – calling and telling folks who and who is not a catholic is a serious violation of catholic morality. For your penance – say 100 Hail Marys.
-
Bill,
(1) Benedict has issued thirteen motu proprios; none of them cite Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which is the 1994 apostolic letter to which you were actually referring.(2) No, you do not remain a Catholic in good standing if you reject Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. To reject that teaching is not only to reject a teaching that must be held definitively by all Catholics, but also, as I’ve said, to reject the teaching office of the papacy, a constituent component of the Catholic faith.
(3) Lastly, in light of your other comments, it’s not surprising that you would misunderstand your office as a layman, a capacity in which you lack any authority to impose a penance. I will, however, happily say a hundred hail marys on behalf of the lapsed faithful with you in mind.
-
Sorry for my imprecision – was referring to this:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm
CDF Reply Letter concerning JPII’s Motu Propio:
Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger at the time) attested to the certitude of the doctrine that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women in his Responsum ad Dubium on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1995: “This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium . . .”
It is sad that you continue to repetitively outline your catechism…..there are distinctions between pronouncements and just because a pope and CDW said it was dogmatic and not discipline; well; popes have been wrong before and this is just another example. Even papal pronouncements have to be accepted – and this one has not been.
My baptism and creation as a human person gives me the right to give penances, when appropriate. Penance has both a broad and narrow sense – it is not just something you given in the sacrament of reconciliation by a cleric. Penances have been given in the church’s history by abbesses, religious brothers & monks, non-clerical teachers, etc.
-
Simon: it’s interesting you use the “flat earth” argument. For a long time, the church firmly held that opinion. Clearly, the church lacks authority to change the shape of the planet just because someone thinks it’s round.
A related argument looks at the fact that the Earth is, obviously, at the centre of the universe. Again, the church has no authority to move the planet just because someone thinks that the sun is at the centre of the solar system. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Surely, if the Earth was in orbit around the sun, it would leave the moon behind.
-
Bill,
In the document to which you linked, then-Card. Ratzinger didn’t make a “comment linking [OS] to a dogmatic truth.” The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded in its official capacity to a dubium as to the magisterial authority of OS. Ratzinger added some comments, to be sure, but the “payload” is CDF’s authoritative response. (As John Allen has noted, the Prefect of the Congregation is expected to sign such documents regardless of their personal opinion.) So, the Pope has definitively settled the question, and the Vatican Congregation which acts for the Pope in this area has definitively stated that the Pope has definitively settled the question; one is left to wonder why this is still treated as an open question. (Perhaps because people insist on characterizing these documents as “comment” and “opinion” by individuals, rather than authentic and authoritative acts of the magisterium?)
-
-
-
Brigid, some things are harder than others to get around. If the church says no “artificial” birth control, you can ignore it. If the church says no sex b4 marriage, you can ignore it. If the church says you can’t get divorced and remarried, you can ignore it. We already have women priests but not very many of them because the church management in Rome is behind the curve. So we can ignore what the church says about women priests but it makes it harder to have a whole lot of women priests if upper management doesn’t give its “blessing” so to speak. I know at least one married priest who still says mass and does marriages and all but again until upper management gives the official “okay” a married clergy will take a long time to develop.
Essentially, by doing goofy things like the new translation, church management is ironically forcing decision-making further down the chain of command so that every individual can now make his or her own decisions. That’s a good thing but probably an unintended consequence on the part of management in Rome!
-
Ooops – I forgot to mention the ban on contraception! I think if the truth were told, most of the disagreements are a result of the hierarchy wanting to keep and/or increase control and deciding that the best way to preserve its authority is to claim that it never made a mistake.
A thought experiment is called for here: what if God is indeed calling women and married men to the priesthood but the bishops refuse them? We pray for more priestly vocations, we close parishes and limit the Eucharist because we don’t have enough priests and then we tell a large group of people that they obviously can not be priests. What’s wrong with this picture?
-
Maybe the Catholic Church is an abomination and God has been trying to eradicate it all along and now the Belgium group and others like them have the key to its eradication and God will finally succeed in 2012 or when the Mayan Calendar runs out. 🙁
-
I used to think about the contraception thing as a no brainer – Catholics use various forms of birth control all throughout the Western world whether they are married or not 🙂 but where Church management becomes pernicious is when it preaches this stuff to the underdeveloped nations and in essence becomes a willing partner with AIDS in committing genocide!
-
So, doctrine is determined by sociological practice, now?
Here’s a thought experiement. What if the hierarchy is actually doing what Christ wants it to do and those calling for doctrinal change are not? -
Oh for cryin’ out loud. In those countries where the church has a strong presence, the AIDS rate is lower than in other more libertine countries.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/mar/07030610
-
-
-
Maybe the Catholic Church is an abomination and God has been trying to eradicate it all along and now the Belgium group and others like them have the key to it eradication and God will finally succeed in 2012 or when the Mayan Calendar runs out.
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
I don’t think anyone who seeks change wants the eradication of the Church. Rather, we understand that we are a Pilgrim Church that needs to discard some man-made rules to continue our journey to God. I am sorry that you see this as such a threat.
-
Brigid, at my age I see nothing as a threat since everything is passing away including me, but I will exercise my free will to associate with the Pope, bishops in union with him and my own bishop and accept whatever changes they decree or not. You can do whatever you want too. 🙂
-
History has shown us that adherence to a system of blindly following religious teachings or blindly following the dictates of religious leaders, without question or reasoning, leads to such things as men hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings.
-
-
I don’t really find Fr McDonald’s approach very helpful on this. I’d like to zero in on the last piece, “permission for qualified lay people to preach: ‘We need the Word of God!'”
This should be a stinging indictment on the overall quality of homilies in Belgium. Regardless of one’s awareness of or adherence to the legislation on persons who are authorized to preach at Mass, this is as damning as anything I could read. And hopefully, the bishops and cardinals (or whomever) reading this get past their usual careless dismissal of the ordination issues to fully absorb what the Belgian laity are telling them.
I for one would be fascinated to know what Fr McDonald has to say about a matter for which he and his brother clergy bear a grave responsibility: preaching. I’d like to know if he would support lay preaching if and where the clergy proved themselves unable or unwilling to provide the Church what is needed.
I can safely say that I would encourage any colleague, a parish liturgist or music director to be at the very top of their artistic, theological, and pastoral abilities in order to serve a faith community fruitfully. Do the clergy who profess here to be so effective in ministry feel they can make a similar statement about their brother priests? Or will they close ranks and hide behind one another’s skirts/cassocks?
-
Todd, not to worry, I take preaching and teaching very seriously and just finished an RCIA class, but I have others on the team, many qualified lay people, men and women who are catechists as well. And yes, I have had lay people speak a religious message at Mass and usually during the homily time after I’ve given about a 30 second homilet. But there was no authority issues involved and yes, they gave a great message as did the Rabbi at our Interfaith Thanksgiving Service last Wednesday at our Church. But excuse me if I don’t see the world as an “us against everyone else” that seems rather pre-Vatican II to me.
-
“But excuse me if I don’t see the world as an “us against everyone else” that seems rather pre-Vatican II to me.”
Well, on that point we agree. It’s why I find the current fad for apologetics to be so tiring.
-
-
As someone actually living and working in Belgium, I note two things about the document that started this series of comments. I) It is in Flemish/Dutch and comes therefore from only one part of the Belgian Church. [The Flemish speaking side tends to be a good bit more liberal/left wing theologically than the French-speaking side of the Church in Belgium]. 2) Most of what is being suggested/demanded by that manifesto makes good sense considering the context from which it comes (not all of it however). What is at root of most of it is the serious ‘aging’ of the clergy and the lack of young priests to take their place. Belgian Clergy have the ’75 age rule’ applied to them seriously — forcing retirement regardless of health, etc. This is partly because the Belgian Clergy (thanks originally to Napoleon I) are paid by the Belgian Federal Government and they are put on pension at 75.
-
I’d be wary of assuming that French-speaking Belgian Catholics do not also think the same things. Indeed, my experience of them is that they are even further ahead, though perhaps not as vocal about it.
-
I would agree that the French-speaking side does have many of the same complaints and problems and that they are quieter about it. One of the reasons is that the French-speakers do attract French speakers from Africa to serve in their parishes while going to Lumen Vitae or the Université Catholiqlue de Louvain, etc. So in fact the ‘lack of serving clergy’ is a less obvious problem. The Flemish/Dutch speakers do not generally have this ‘source of supply priests’.
-
re: Philip Sandstrom on December 2, 2011 – 6:59 am
Perhaps disestablishment of the Church in Belgium would’ve headed some of these issues off at the pass. Sweden disestablished its Lutheran national church early in the previous decade. I would not be surprised if the Church of England disestablishes after Elizabeth’s death under the pressure of a liberal government. It has been said that a good number of C of E priests have not swum the Tiber because of the financial benefits afforded to British public servants. While disestablishment carries with it a loss of benefits, the severance of church and state also allows clergy to act freely according to their consciences and vocations.
The Flemish petitioners should call for disestablishment of Catholicism in Belgium first, and then seek clerical and liturgical reforms.
-
-
Somewhat related – last night at choir practice we were practicing our Christmas music and it occurred to me – what have we missed over the centuries when we have never had a licit Christmas homily by someone who has actually given birth? I’m not saying homilies by celibate males are wrong; I’m saying that they do not reflect the entire spectrum of human experience.
-
-
I think the big story here is not the items which are being called for, but rather the fact that so many people have DESPAIRED of being heard in any way within the NORMAL functioning of the Church that they are resorting to these extraordinary measures.
This suggests two things at least, maybe more:
1. It’s a vote of “no confidence” in the system.
2. It’s giving notice that if the leadership remains unresponsive to the pastoral needs of the people, the people will cease to follow their leaders. Really, could there be any clearer warning that something is about to break?
The favorite responses of the authorities, which we have seen before, are stonewalling and denying the problems. These will not work indefinitely.
-
If this is so, one must wonder why is it that some people seem incapable of understanding that there is a big difference between being heard and getting one’s way. I have no doubt that the Church in Belgium, and indeed everywhere else, has heard these complaints and suggestions. Oh, for pete’s sake, modernism and americanism were condemned a century ago, and “liberal Catholicism” was considered an exhausted project long before Francis Card. George described it as such; these aren’t new ideas! They’ve been heard. They have also been rejected, but unable to handle the rejection, I suppose, some people continue to say “why haven’t they heard us?!” Heard and rejected.
And just as it is not true that a Church that has rejected these demands has not failed to hear them, one might also not that the “leadership” (a coy euphemism for the Church, presumably) is not unresponsive to the pastoral needs of the people if they don’t do what a few people want. It’s often the case that we are the last person to know what our pastoral needs are! The pastoral needs of the Church today require that the whip be cracked, but when it is, I’m sure that the people on the receiving end won’t feel that way.
-
Simon, if there are demands for preaching the Word of God, what of that? It looks to me like the whip is getting cracked over the heads of the Belgian bishops and the curia. I’m sure that they don’t like being told their kerygmatic ministry is judged insufficient.
I might mention to an addict friend or loved one time and time again that’s it’s time to give up the booze, the sex, the gambling. She or he is likely to blow me off, or even to suggest I’m the one with the problem.
It could be that we’re witnessing a poor embattled hierarchy. But it’s also likely that we’re dealing with an addictive system that seems very satisfied to give the people it serves snakes and scorpions.
Let’s be really clear here: we’re not talking about petulant uppity children. This is millstone and ocean depth material for the bishops. This is gravely serious.
-
You obviously know very little about the recent history of the Belgium and Dutch churches since the election of JPII. The Dominican community approved and published a liturgy when there was no clerical presider because of the pastoral needs and lack of institutional response….Rome squashed it without listening. It began a series of moves to replace most bishops with men who met a certain litmus test by Rome – the church has suffered much.
-
Bill,
At least some of the suffering of the Church in Belgium has been at its own hands, not the hands of the Vatican. I lived for two years in the Brussels-Mechelen diocese while it was still headed by the progressive Cardinal Daneels and they were two of the bleakest years of my life in terms of church-going. It was virtually impossible to find a liturgy at which there were more than a handful of elderly people (except the local French-language Mass, which was packed to the gills with Francophone Africans). The University Parish in Louvain was a bit younger, and that is where I usually went, but so many liberties were taken with the liturgy that there were a few occasions when I had serious doubts about the validity of the Mass — and I set the bar for validity pretty low (ordained priest, bread, wine, words of institution).
So the evil-Vatican narrative for the low countries is far too simple. There is a lot more going on in the secularization of northern Europe than an unyielding Church hierarchy.
-
Thanks, Deacon, and would agree that there are many layers here. Just trying to re-balance earlier comments that seem to have been made in a current and historical void in terms of the actual facts on the ground.
Even your memories – things have changed. Appreciate Philip’s comment – it goes to one of the issues among many.
And contrary to Fr. Allan’s comment below, I was not trying to be clairvoyant altho it is enjoyable to try in his specific case.
-
Yes, and see my response to Philip above. The French-speaking Catholic Church in Belgium is not without vitality.
-
Paul,
Indeed. When we couldn’t stand it any more (about every six weeks) we used to drive to Brussels and go to mass with the Monastic Fraternities of Jerusalem, whose liturgy comes about as close to my ideal as I have even found.
-
-
Simon your response (@6:52, 12/1), focussing as it does on inessentials and imaginary problems, is similar to that of the hierarchs who have been so unsuccessful in their roles that they are actually driving away the very people whom Christ came to save.
Let me assure you, “being heard” is 9/10 of the issue. Read the literature on the sex abuse scandal. Have you really missed the point of all those heart-rending stories about how people who were wounded were not listened to, and THEREFORE went to court… because THEY COULD NOT GET A HEARING from the representatives of the Church hierarchy?
Hardness of heart is lambasted in the New Testament, yet you are implicitly recommending it here by saying there is literally no point in listening to the people of the Church because they only want to be “get their way” and they already lost their cause in the modernist controversy or some such crisis years ago. You have not given the time of day here to people who are wounded — yes, wounded — by the fact that they have never been genuinely consulted on matters of the utmost importance to their spiritual lives. Shame on you. Shame on you for not taking seriously how dire the problems are that people are facing in their lives. Shame on you for pouring contempt on Catholics who desire the Word of God and the Holy Eucharist in their communities, but are given instead sterile responses of the kind you’ve offered here.
Crack your whip. Go ahead. But in the end you will be called to account for it — not by me or by anyone on this blog, but by the one who said “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”
-
Let me assure you, Rita, that “being heard” is not the problem in this case. I have heard what they have to say, and I find it dull, trite, and vapid; I have heard it and rejected it. There is little reason to suppose that Rome feels any differently; they’ve ben hearing and rejecting these demands for decades if not centuries. So I can say with total conviction based on personal experience that being heard is not nine tenths of the battle. I can also say with something approaching certainty that the message has been heard; your phrasing (“people who are wounded — yes, wounded — by the fact that they have never been genuinely consulted on matters of the utmost importance to their spiritual lives”) seems to imply a suggestion that no decision can be made until every individual has personally pressed his case, which is obviously unworkable and redundant. It reminds of the old saw that “everything has been said but not everyone has said it yet,” and the Pope is not obliged to hear out the billionth trivial variation on the same argument before dismissing the argument.
In every generation, including in our Lord’s, there have been those for whom Christianity was a hard message to hear—those who either walked away or demanded that the message conform to their sensibilities. Cf. Mt 16:22; Jn 6:60; Jn 13:8. It is for the faithful to conform themselves to Christ and his bride, not vice versa.
I am well aware that we will be called to account; frankly, that is the lion’s share of why I am here: We will be judged, among other things, for our silence at times that speaking up was required.
-
Many of the issues have been raised anew by new cultural currents in the 1960s. They won’t be going away any time soon.
The last time new issues were raised by new cultural currents in a big way- the second half of the 19th century with the fall of Catholic monarchies and the call for secular states with separation of Church and state and respect for individual liberties – the papacy got it wrong on pretty much every issue.
The similarity between these two situations is that in both cases the first response of the papacy/hierarchy was defensive and reactionary. Of course it’s too soon to tell whether that response is as wrong this time as it was last time.
But I repeat: the issues won’t go away. Many priests, theologians, and dedicated lay people will make sure that is the case.
awr
-
BRAVO to both Rita and Fr. Anthony, for their show of compassion!
-
Rita, your response to Simon is really unfair. His point is not that the Church should not listen to people, particularly those demanding
that, as quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood. We, people of faith, desperately need them now!
The Church has listened to those who made this demand. And the Church has responded at nearly the highest level short of a conciliar document (or some argue that the Church has responded at actually the highest level short of a conciliar document).
First the Church published Inter Insigniores and then Pope John Paul II put out the Apostolic Letter Ordination Sacerdotalis. He makes it clear that he’s responding to a continuing discussion
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
The Church has listened and has said, “No.” At some point we need to move on, because there are desperate problems in the world and the Church that need our attention.
It’s also hardness of heart to “not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again,” those men who having seen the true light, having been illumined by the Holy Spirit, and having found the true Faith bear witness to this unbroken tradition in the Church: St. Iraneus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Bonaventure, et al. Doctors—teachers—of our Faith, Saints of God.
-
And “many priests, theologians, and dedicated lay people” will remain dedicated to ensuring that the Catholic Church remains Catholic, that the modernist assault is turned back. If “the issues won’t go away”—which is to say, if the progressives continue to press their attack—it would appear that we can look forward to decades of strife, turbulence, and turmoil. What would Christ say to those distressing his bride, do you suppose?
Oh, the 1960s. The sooner we sift that decade’s meager harvest of good from the vast bulk of its satanic chaff (cf. Mt 3:12), the better we’ll be.
-
Satanic chaff aka Vatican II ????
-
My sentiments entirely, Rita! Bravissima!!
-
-
-
It seems that much of what is asked for in this manifesto was at one time normal practice in the church except perhaps women priests but even then I remember studying that there were a large number of women priests in North Africa up to about the 8th century. St. Augustine often preached as a lay person as many did in the 4th century.
Perhaps where there is precedence we can begin to make changes to restore some of these practices.Earlier there were comments as to how we would support married clergy. How is it done in our Eastern Catholic Church, anybody have any info on this? They seem to be much smaller parishes so how do they afford it?
-
I suspect that you mean precedent, but in any event, Mediator Dei’s warning about antiquarianism would seem appropriate.
-
Mediator Dei’s warning deals with liturgy including elements form the illegal Council of Pistoia. I fail to see how this addresses the concerns of married clergy and other issues addressed in the manifesto.
And no, I meant precedence as I stated, not precedent. In other words the fact, state, or right of preceding, priority given to earlier forms. -
What about “traditionalism”? you seem to confuse tradition and traditionalism. One is based upon discernment, listening, the sensus fidelium – the other is based upon rigid conformity and making the past into a sacred museum; it confuses the core of beliefs and how they are lived and acted upon (which changes with time, cultures, knowledge, etc.)
-
-
Could you cite your sources?
North Africa had been overtaken by the Muslims in the 7th c.
And St. Augustine did not preach as a layman, but as a presbyter at the bishop’s liturgy in Carthage – which was quite unique for the time.
-
-
In other words, appeals to the earlier practices of the Church are irrelevant, unless you’re appealing to that pale imitation of Byzantine court etiquette that had accreted around the Papal Court by the time that great personification of Christian Virtue Pio Nono was kidnapping young Jewish boys to save their souls.
God spoke to God’s Church, once and for all time, in 1871 and it’s been downhill ever since. Yessiree Bob, that’s the ticket.
-
“Essentially, by doing goofy things like the new translation, church management is ironically forcing decision-making further down the chain of command so that every individual can now make his or her own decisions. That’s a good thing but probably an unintended consequence on the part of management in Rome”.
A very good point. Expect to see liturgical creativity flourish in the months ahead!
-
The Belgian statement is very mild, and seems a sincere expression of the distress of ordinary layfolk.
“Wij begrijpen niet waarom – waar geen priester voorhanden is – een woorddienst met communie niet zou mogen.” Surely this is totally within current provisions — if there is no priest, hold a liturgy of the Word and distribute the Eucharist — are the Belgian laity being deprived even of that?
“Wij begrijpen niet waarom bekwame leken en gevormde godsdienstleerkrachten niet zouden mogen preken. We hebben het woord Gods nodig.” Hearing one priest’s voice week in week out is a formula for greyness. Let others join in the task of breaking and sharing the bread of the Word.
-
“Wij begrijpen niet waarom – waar geen priester voorhanden is – een woorddienst met communie niet zou mogen.” Surely this is totally within current provisions — if there is no priest, hold a liturgy of the Word and distribute the Eucharist — are the Belgian laity being deprived even of that?
Joe, I suspect that what is going on is that people are being told something like: “Rather than having mass every Sunday at 10:00 in your parish church, celebrations will alternate between your parish and the neighboring parish, 3 km down the road.” And people are responding, “well, then, on those Sundays when Mass is not celebrated in our parish Church, can we just have een woorddienst met communie rather than have to go to the neighboring parish.” And the answer is coming back, “Nee, want een woord met communie service is geen Mis.”
-
Of course it is “geen Mis” but do we need the Mass every Sunday? Would not the liturgy of the Word with communion create a breathing space that would allow the full Mass to be better appeciated on the Sundays when a priest is there?
-
I guess anything is possible.
-
-
-
Elias Nasser :
MJO-
Fr Ruff was not referring to Pope Benedict XVI. However each one of those references made by Fr Ruff has been said or written by popes of the RCC in the past.
We are forever told about the importance of adhering to the Magisterium: the writings of the popes are to be “assented to by faithful Catholics”
it is for this reason that Hans Kung blasted the concept of Papal infallibility: the fact that popes through history have held beliefs that are so contrary to what we would nowadays consider to be basic human valuesOnly comments with a full name will be approved.
Not only popes! I have read saints’ writings which would make the papal utterances quoted here seem like Sunday School parables. Bernard of Clairvaux on the crusades, for instance, often sounds like a raving mad man, a mediaeval Christian version of the Ayatollah Khomeni. We have indeed become a more Christian race – Thanks Be To God!
-
Deacon Fritz, I’m fascinated by your experience in Holland. When I was in the seminary in Baltimore way back in the pre-historic times of the 1970’s, there was alarm even amongst the more liberal theologians at the seminary about what was happening in Holland. Of course the Dutch Catechism was apart of that discussion. (And contrary to Bill DeHaas clairvoyant description of me back then, I was rather progressive and intrigued by all the new stuff I was learning). Many of us today who have moved away from the “speculative theology” that was in fact already being practiced by the Dutch in the 1970’s will explain the whole reason that the Church of that area is in such dire straights with dwindling priests and elderly congregations is precisely the loss of the Catholic identity and priestly identity that has led to such a malaise. The Dutch Church’s reform made it irrelevant in the face of secularizing influences. (At least that’s the take of many who comment on it). It just seems that the Belgium proposals are just more of the same for a sinking ship that already has embraced so much of what it pleads. I throw that out for your comments.
-
And yet, it seems the clergy are singularly unprepared to preach and to inspire evangelization. Perhaps we can dismiss three strains here: pre-conciliar Catholicism before reform, excesses of the 70’s, the clampdown of the past generation. Time for a 4th way, don’t you think?
-
Fr Allan, was it Reform that made the Dutch Church irrelevant or the crackdown from the Vatican. They forced the Dutch Church to bow to arch-conservatives like Bp Geissen. What do you mean by Dutch “speculative theology” — yes, there were the ill-judged construction of Piet Schoonenberg, but theologians like Schillebeeckx were the opposite of “speculative”.
-
-
Permission is not needed. Why does a programmed Laity think it needs it?
-
This is all conjecture…
Simon, perhaps the relatively small number of permanent deacons has to do with poor formation of the laity about what the diaconate is.
What does the average lay Catholic know about the diaconate? What do they regularly see deacons doing that they don’t see the non-ordained doing? Reading the Gospel… preaching at Mass… and what else? So it’s not “worth it” to be a deacon.
Or, perhaps there’s a perception that there’s no “power” in the permanent diaconate.
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
It occurs to me – married deacons are not allowed to remarry should their wives predecease them. Maybe married men don’t want to make that provisional committment to celibacy?
-
Neither are married deacons allowed to remarry if they die before their wives. 😉
-
Though this is the ‘written rule’ for widower deacons in the Roman Rite — in fact there are exceptions made and dispensations given for second marriages. I know at least two men who are beneficiaries of this ‘generosity’.
-
-
You heard it first at PRAY TELL!
But, fyi, NCR now has the story, with some additional detail.
You can read it here:http://ncronline.org/news/global/belgian-catholics-issue-reform-manifesto
-
They demand that “Communion services be held even if no priest is available”; if a priest is available, why would a communion service be held at all? They demand that “Laypeople be allowed to preach”; they already can, just not at Mass. They demand that “Divorced people be allowed to receive Communion”; they already can. And they demand that women “be admitted to the priesthood,” which is not a tenable demand for Catholics.
-
They demand that “Divorced people be allowed to receive Communion”; they already can.
I suspect they mean divorced people who remarry without first getting an annulment. But, I could be wrong?
Or can they also receive communion?
-
No, you mistranslate.
“Wij begrijpen niet waarom – waar geen priester voorhanden is – een woorddienst met communie niet zou mogen.”
“We do not understand — when no priest is at hand — why there should not be a service of the word with communion.”
-
” They demand that “Communion services be held even if no priest is available”; if a priest is available, why would a communion service be held at all? ”
They would agree that if a priest is available Mass should be held.
-
When they refer to “a word service with communion” are they referring to a distribution of communion that has previously been consecrated by a priest?
-
Sean – I would imagine they must be.
-
-
-
That was not the case with reform within fidelity to the Church and her Magisterium with Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena.
—————————————————-
Religious orders played a very large role in the earliest rumblings leading to Lollardy in 14th century England, the Huss revolt in Bohemia, and deep divisions within the Franciscans at Oxford provided fertile ground s for the growth of Lutheranism there and at Cambridge, e.g. leading to Henry VIII’s persecution of what he viewed as Lutheran heretics following Thomas Barnes. So much for fidelity to the “magisterium”. -
The pope’s tenacious stand on continuing to restrict priestly ordination to those who will state in writing a commitment to chaste celibacy flys in the face of good sense. There are bishops all over the planet who would willingly train and ordain married men rather than follow the present practice of closing and merging viable parishes and importing celibate priests from other countries. I have read of bishops and cardinals who begged on bended knee to be allowed to do this because of true need and were rebuked. If true, this is certainly shameful. When the faithful ask for daily bread and are offered scorpions and stones, there will be hell to pay.
I was hungry and thirsty and you drew up a list of forbidden practices. I was naked and away from home and you had an argument about amices, lace, and maniples. I was sick and in prison and rather than attend to my needs, you wasted good money on a gratuitous and questionable translation of the Mass.
Life is, as a matter of fact, quite messy and disordered. Some argue for a legislated and authoritarian solution to this mess by insisting on a “return” to the good old days before Vatican II. This is resulting in a de facto schism within the body whereby people rely increasingly on their own better angels rather than depend on authorities whose answers to the mess are no longer credible. This is tragic and I wish it weren’t so. I love the church which birthed my faith and I will serve her with zeal and fidelity to the day I die, but I will not say up is down or that black is white.
-
I have read of bishops and cardinals who begged on bended knee to be allowed to do this
Cite?
-
-
Needed is a new Leo XII- to say something new to a new situation. Without him– how could any renewal have happend in all its various forms in the XXth Century?
( yes I know, condemned “Americanism.” I would pay no attention to that.)
His teaching about human dignity- the person, laid the groundwork for the new statments later on conscience, liberty of religion, and democracy. Something good the Catholic church has done for the world. That was John Paul’s weapon aganst Communism, not Ottaviani’s excommunications. And all the social teaching has been an enticement to some to hear the Gospel and repsond. “Valid matter?” Faithfulness to Latin syntax?! Who will be drawn to God’s mercy and call by that?? -
Rita, your response to Simon is really unfair. His point is not that the Church should not listen to people, particularly those demanding
that, as quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood. We, people of faith, desperately need them now!
The Church has listened to those who made this demand. And the Church has responded at nearly the highest level short of a conciliar document (or some argue that the Church has responded at actually the highest level short of a conciliar document).
First the Church published Inter Insigniores and then Pope John Paul II put out the Apostolic Letter Ordination Sacerdotalis. He makes it clear that he’s responding to a continuing discussionAlthough the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
The Church has listened and has said, “No.” At some point we need to move on, because there are desperate problems in the world and the Church that need our attention.
My response to this is that it needs to be re-phrased for clarity: In the above quote, the word “Church” should properly be replaced with the word “hierarchy”. The lay people (and clergy including priests, bishops and Cardinals!) who are begging for change are as much “Church” as the Vatican bureacrats!
-
Which cardinals are “begging” for the ordination of women?
Also, it’s helpful in quoting if you set off the words that are not yours with quotation marks or italics (<i></i>) or blockquote (<blockquote></blockquote>).
-
Cardinal José da Cruz Policarpo of Lisbon, Portugal, a veteran European prelate at one point considered a contender for the papacy, reportedly has said there’s “no fundamental theological obstacle” to the ordination of women as priests in the Catholic church. http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/cardinal-sees-no-theological-obstacle-women-priests
-
Of the apostles chosen personally by Christ, one turned out to be a dud. So if his bride picks one dud in twelve or better… she’s doing well. I know nothing about his eminence, but if his reported remarks are correct, he knows nothing about the magisterium.
-
a) Saying that there is “no fundamental theological obstacle” is not the same as “begging” for the ordination of women.
b) 1 Cardinal is not “Cardinals”
c) The Cardinal retracted his statement.
-
-
-
So what happens if the Catholic Church were to remove the laws on celibacy and allowed all Priests to marry? What happens when seperation and divorce start to afflict Priests and their families. Inevitably it will happen to some of them. Divorce can be painful and messy. We can not assume that just because they are Priests that their marriages will be perfect. What happens then to the Churches message and position on Divorce? How will the Priest be able to deliver or council the Churches postion on divorce if he himself is going through it? The advice may become biased. What happens if scandal is involved in the breakup of a marriage? Will the Priest be distracted or distaught with grief? Will he continue to be able to perform for his Parish and folks to whom he ministers in the same way? Will information about the life of the parish that is sure to be shared amongst married persons, what may be at first glance harmless and trivial, become part of divorce preceedings if a spouse is embittered or feels unjustly divorced? It just seems that more may be lost than gained when taking a realistic approach to it. Marriage in todays world unfortunately opens up a can of worms including anullment, divorce, and finacial settlements. Even for a Priest. Some will say, well we already have some married clergy. True, but expand the numbers exponentially to include everyone and the risk of the problems cited above as well increases.
-
If she needs a divorce – she gets one – nobody pays any attention to what the church teaches on that issue any more. Priest will have to deal with the reality of being in the world with the rest of us. I’m a manager, if I break up w my BF it would be tough but I’m a professional; it wouldn’t affect my ability to function. If it did, I’d get therapy. If she commits adultery – so what – join the rest of us sinners; that’s why we have confession! Shit happens! I don’t want perfect priests, I want priests who know what’s going on and can preach Christ’s message of social justice.
-
What happens then to the Churches message and position on Divorce? How will the Priest be able to deliver or council the Churches postion on divorce if he himself is going through it?
You seem to suggest that the position of the Church on divorce will be untenable once confronted with reality.
If your assessment is correct, doesn’t that mean that there is something wrong with that position?
-
I don’t think Mitch meant that the Church’s teaching on divorce (and I think the more sensitive teaching is on re-marriage after divorce) would be shown to be untenable, just that it would be sorely “tested” by the priest’s own (in)ability to live up to it.
-
Jeffrey,
The laity is expected to live up to it. Are you proposing that the church’s policies on divorce are hard to live up to? (And I suspect you are correct that they most likely refer to the policies on remarriage after divorce). A priest who wanted to remarry after divorce would be able to submit a request for an annulment like anyone else.
-
Sean, what I mean is, whenever a “person in authority” talks about some rule or law (usually in the field of morality) and then fails to live up to it himself, it chips away at the worth of that rule or law.
“Do as I say, not as I do,” that sort of thing. It’s like a priest preaching chastity and sexual purity, and then being found out to be a pedophile. Or a married priest preaching marital faithfulness, and then being found out to have been carrying on adulterous relationships.
A lot of what Christ taught (e.g., about divorce) is hard to live up to. It was easy when the commandment was “Thou shalt not kill,” but Jesus had to go and say that insulting your brother makes you liable for judgment. It was easy when the commandment was “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” but Jesus had to go and say that even looking at another person lustfully was to commit adultery in your heart.
So yes, God’s law of love — and the Church’s interpretation of it — is not easy to live up to, partially due to all the other sinners around, but mostly due to this sinner: me.
-
-
A celibate clergy gives us one set of problems, a married clergy will give us a different set. I think the benefit of a married clergy is that at least we will no longer be denying a person’s vocation.
-
-
Hey – Mitch…..that will happen; it is part of life. They are called to minister; not be perfect. But, would suggest that, although no divorce or family breakup is easy, it will be no where near as difficult as the clerical abusers & episcopal cover ups in which parishes, dioceses have had to recover.
Like Protestant denominations over the last 40 years, divorced ministers can continue & their churches have learned from this. Sorry, don’t agree with your comment….”just seems that more may be lost than gained when taking a realistic approach to it.” Actually, more may be gained than lost – clergy who understand marriage; more comfortable working with women; understanding family tensions, children and the challenges life brings with it.
We already have a serious clerical & “ism” problem – what comes with that is loneliness; depression, anxiety; poor health in terms of obesity, lack of exercise. Serious problems as they age with few relationships or support. Would suggest that we might experience some real growth if things changed.
-
I don’t think a deacon can do anything that a layperson cannot, at least in principle, do.
First and really obviously, deacons can do several things that about one-half the laity cannot now in principle do— unless there are women deacons in the churches that have deacons. One of the most salient effects, it seems to me, of removing women altogether from the altar is that it encourages speaking of the laity as though women are absent there too, or do not count, or are somehow “invisible.”
Second, it seems to me that Deacon Bauerschmidt might agree to some extent with Giovanni Franzoni’s idea of ministry as service, following. I find Franzoni’s “dream” of a church in which service is the norm— for all— an attractive alternative to the hopelessly polarized debate over whether any pope has uttered the final word about women’s ordination: “The priesthood, in fact, doesn’t exist in Jesus’ mind. He talks about other things, talks about a community of brothers and sisters, talks about “reciprocal service”. The New Testament speaks of “overseers” (bishops), “presbyters” (elders), “deacons” (servers). Well, today the hierarchy, which is determined to keep a sexist and patriarchal structure to safeguard its sacred power, is opposed to that Church. Thus, although they want priests, they say “No” to women priests. We, on the contrary, dream of that Church without priests or priestesses, where women and men, single and married, minister in the service of the ecclesial community. Is this utopia? Is it heresy?” http://iglesiadescalza.blogspot.com/2011/09/vatican-ii-lost-and-betrayed.html
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.