Any comments on the investigation due to hit the seminaries?

[hedgehog]

The last time there wa a purge (After the Birth Control Encyclical was released) we lost half our priests. Now the Vatican wants to chase out gays? How will they decide who has to go? The entire premise is absurd, ignorant and insulting, since the reasoning is that gay priests have a harder time being celibate than straight priests. This is so screwed up in so many ways I can't even begin to list them. Once they purge the gay priests, will they purge the straight priests next? Maybe just the straight priests who are under 93.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. In his previous job,

Pope Benedict had to review the cases of priests accused of sexual impropriety so he is presumably acting on inside information about improper screening of seminarians and/or improper teaching.

Here are some quotes from Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger (CR) speaking in an interview with Peter Seewald (PS) in 1997; in the second paragraph, he talks about selecting candidates for the priesthood and about how they must accept celibacy freely with faith.

CR . . . When one aims so high, there are failures. I think that what provokes people today against celibacy is that they see how many priests really aren't inwardly in agreement with it and either live it hypocritically, badly, not at all, or only live it in a tortured way. So people say . . .

PS: . . . it ruins them . . .

CR: The poorer an age is in faith, the more frequent the falls. This robs celibacy of its credibility and obscures the real point of it. People need to get straight in their minds that times of crisis for celibacy are always times of crisis for marriage as well. For, as a matter of fact, today we are experiencing not only violations of celibacy; marriage itself is becoming increasingly fragile as the basis of our society. In the legislation of Western nations we see how it is increasingly placed on the same level as other forms and is thereby largely "dissolved" as a legal form. Nor is the hard work needed really to live marriage negligible. Put in practical terms, after the abolition of celibacy we would only have a different kind of problem with divorced priests. That is not unknown in the Protestant Churches. In this sense, we see, of course, that the lofty forms of human existence involve great risks.

The conclusion that I would draw from this, however, is not that we should now say, "We can't do it anymore," but that we must learn again to believe. And that we must also be even more careful in the selection of candidates for the priesthood. The point is that someone ought really to accept it freely and not say, well now, I would like to become a priest, so I'll put up with this. Or: Well then, I'm not interested in girls anyway, so I'll go along with celibacy. That is not a basis to start from. The candidate for the priesthood has to recognize the faith as a force in his life, and he must know that he can live celibacy only in faith. Then celibacy can also become again a testimony that says something to people and that also gives them the courage to marry. The two institutions are interconnected. If fidelity in the one is no longer possible, the other no longer exists: one fidelity sustains the other.
**************************************************************************************

Interesting point about how abolishing priestly celibacy would only lead to the problem of divorced priests, just as Protestants are having to deal, more and more, with divorced ministers.

[hedgehog]

2. With regards to the possible problem of divorced priests, I can only say

So?

[DemBones DemBones]

3. You really have to ask?

As you know, marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholics, as you also know, are expected to marry for life. What kind of example would it set for the laity to allow priests to marry, divorce, and remarry?

Priests are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior, as are clergy of all faiths. Even Protestant churches which permit members to divorce and remarry hold their clergy to higher standards, defrocking ministers who do so. I believe this is also true for rabbis, certainly among the Orthodox Jewish community.

Many people seem to think that the Roman Catholic Church should adopt an "anything goes" philosophy to be more popular.

It was Jesus who said the Way is narrow and who called everyone to be saints. Not just to be pretty good, but to strive for sainthood. Jesus also castigated his people for being so weak that Moses had allowed them to divorce. The Roman Catholic Church follows Christ's teachings. Remember that Jesus also said the world would hate those who follow Him; true Christianity can be unpopular for the steadfastness of its belief, for not saying "anything goes."

[hedgehog]

4. You mean the laity might start thinking that priests are human, too?

I can remember the old strict Church and saw how it tore families apart. I think a Church that recognizes that humans make mistakes is closer to what Jesus had in mind. By the way, a sister who worked with couples going through annulment shook her head when she spoke of the process. It's no picnic, and certainly not the Get out of Jail free card some think it is.

[Matilda]

5. I think annulments are the height of hypocrisy.

I've read Sheila Rauch Kennedy's book, and allowing for some
understandable bitterness on her part, the whole process she was
put through was very demeaning to her as a wife and a mother.
And looking at the number of annulments granted to the rich and
famous, one can't help but feel that money does talk.

There's the issue of children too - an annulment means the marriage
was never lawful, yet the children are not illegitimate - that's
just semantics. I would feel dreadful for myself and my children
if it happened to me - I'd rather have an honest divorce and be
done with it.

I think the Orthodox church seems to have struck a sensible
balance on sexuality and marriage. Priests can marry, but only if
they don't aspire to the highest offices, so I guess that makes
sure that there are enough priests on the ground to handle parish
duties, but the top jobs command total allegiance to the church.
With marriage, they allow one mistake - a divorced person can marry
a second time in the church but further remarriages are not allowed,
and not recognised if they take place outside the church.

They seem to manage the balance between setting a high standard and
recognising some human fallibility.

[shrike]

7. The Diocese of Detroit charges nothing for an annulment

Can't speak for all dioceses, of course, but it's hardly a procedure for the rich and famous.
My husband annulled his first marriage so we could get married by a priest. Cost was $400 (we're in Indiana), and those of a certain income pay much less or nothing at all.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. Do you really want the Church

that Jesus wanted. or do you want the Church to conform to your opinions?

Over the months, you've posted a lot of complaints about the Roman Catholic Church, both the Church you remember from childhood and the present Church. Your issues with the Church would, IMO, be more appropriately discussed with your priest or spiritual director.

I'm posting the guidelines for the group here to remind you and everyone else of what the purpose of the Catholic Group is, and also what it is not meant to be. There are, after all, dozens of groups and forums at DU where others would be very glad to join you in criticising the Roman Catholic Church.


"The DU DU Catholic and Orthodox Christian Group is for those who wish to hold respectful discussions of Catholic and/or Orthodox Christian beliefs, share faith experiences, post prayer requests, discuss Catholic/Orthodox liturgies, traditions, saints, etc., talk about Catholic education or organizations (Knights of Columbus, Pax Christi, Legion of Mary, the Catholic Worker movement, etc.), or in any way positively explore issues having to do with the Roman Catholic Church or any rite of the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

Participants need not be practicing members of one of the Catholic or Orthodox rites but should be respectful of the beliefs and structures of the rites, especially in advocating any changes, such as allowing women to serve as priests.

This group is intended to be a venue for those who desire to discuss stated topics and is not intended as a forum to argue against Catholic/Orthodox belief or the Catholic/Orthodox Churches, members, or clergy."

Emphasis added.

[shrike]

8. Dem Bones have a point

The DU groups were put together for a very specific purpose. (Drop in on the AA group, for example, lol.)

I see nothing wrong with reasoned and constructive criticism of the church, though. Perhaps the CO group is the place to do it, maybe not. However, DU does give us very specific guidelines.

[hedgehog]

9. Are you saying that there is no room for discussion?

Look back to the Act of the Apostles. If it wasn't for Saint Paul, none of us would be eating ham on St. Patrick's Day! If we don't start tossing ideas around, there will be no change. Pope John XXIII said something to the effect that the Church is meant to be a living garden, not a museum. I would remind you that all baptized Christians are invested with the Holy Spirit, not just a group of Vatican bureaucrats.

[shrike]

10. Of course there is room for discussion

However, the DU groups WERE put together for a specific purpose. And the bylaws do list a very specific line of discussion.

However, you may have noticed that none of your posts have been deleted. Ergo, the administration does not think you've violated any rules. So if I were you I'd continue to post away -- although you and Dem Bones will probably continue to disagree. Hopefully you can both be polite about it.