Translate

Thursday, October 28, 2010

"Not enough Catholic priests? End celibacy, ordain women"/Baltimore Sun


"Parishioners need to speak up to remove a theologically dubious barrier to the priesthood"

By Dan Rodricks/The Baltimore Sun

October 27, 2010


"Their church is not a democracy, but Catholics who still care about this can do something about it. They can speak up. They can demand change. They can present their bishops with sensible solutions."

"The Rev. Richard McBrien, a professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, has suggested that the church could welcome back the many priests who, over the last few decades, left to marry and might still be willing to serve as married priests. Celibacy needs to go, and so does the equally theologically dubious ban on the ordination of women."


3 comments:

The Catholic Apologist said...

So let me get this straight:

Richard McDissadent is calling on the Church to change it's teaching on the following: (Which ultimately means he is calling on the Church to profess a different Faith)

1) Abortion
2) Homosexuality
3) Women's Ordination
4) Celibacy
5) Divorce and Re-marriage
6) The whole notion of what a
priest is
7) The nature of the Church as
heirarchial

I am sure you could name others, but I think I hit the big issues he wants changed.

Alright- fine, now my question to Richard McDissadent and his supporters: Why be Catholic? What sets the Church apart from the secular world? How is the Church a light on the hilltop if it adopts the ways of the world? What truth is there, if the Faith the Church professes one day is changed the next? How is Faith an anchor in any meaningful sense? How is Faith a virtue, when it depends on what is in vogue in society?

My understanding has always been that the Church is supposed to change and influence the culture, not the other way around. I have always believed that when the Church adopts the ways of the world, the Church ceases to be Church. Did not our Lord say "Preach the Gospel in season and out of season?" Did he not say "If the world hates you, know that it hated me first?"

I don't know what those words mean to you BM, but to me, I would think that in light of these words, a mark of the true Church is going to be precisely that it is DIFFERENT from the world, it is going to preach and hold DIFFERENT VALUES from the world, and therefore HATED by the world. The Church is ALIEN to the world becasue it is IN The world but not OF the world. Don't these words mean ANYTHING to you?

That's just me BM. A uneducated, uncool, backwater, unelite, degree from a non-ivy-league school, old fashioned, 1950's lover, pro-life, uphip idiot who is just too stupid to think for myself and must have people like you and Richard McDissadent do the thinking for me.

I guess if I was part of your elite crowd with your fancy degrees, and your "education" and fancy chairs at prestigious universities, I would learn that Truth is in fact NOT eternal, objective, unchanging, or knowable, but rather truth is relative, subjective, an illusion and dependant on whatever happens to be in fashion at the time.

Really BM, what does your crowd have to offer someone like me?

Ravensbarque said...

Apologist --

You certainly know how to read words that aren't even there. I read the Baltimore Sun article and I read what Bridget Mary posted. All McBriend is addressing is the celibacy rule -- which, I am certain, even you know is a man-made rule that could be obliterated with the flick of a pen -- and the ordination of women when he claims as theologically dubious.

Why do you throw in so many other points? I simply do not understand how abortion, homosexuality, and so many of your other topics fit into this article.

You actually sound rather jealous of the women priests. So what if they are well-educated? Do you want them to stay dumb and docile? Or are you making a misogynistic statement about women who have studied longer and harder than the average priest?

Your crack about fancy degrees and fancy chairs at prestigious universities is dripping with the green ink of envy. It also clearly demonstrates that you have not studied the women's backgrounds. Very few have fancy degrees -- unless you consider an ordinary PhD or DMin to be a fancy degree. Could you give some examples of fancy chairs at prestigious universities? How many? Sure some of the women priests were and are university professors. Is there something wrong with that?

If you want to know what RCWP has to offer you, I suggest you attend one of their masses. You just might learn something.

The Catholic Apologist said...

RAV,

Stop playing Psycologist. Some of the greatest and most brilliant teachers and professors I have had are women and I respect them greatly.

What is it with Liberals and the need to find the "underlying psycological reason" for why some people reject the tennents of liberalism? It is like anyone who is not Liberal, or disagrees with the philosophy has a psycological disorder. No- I just think for myself. Liberalism is not consistent, it is contrary to the Word of God, and it is gutless. That is why I reject it.

True, the original article said nothing about the points I raised- but McDissadent believes the Church should change her teaching on those points anyway, so I broadened the topic, to simply pose the question: WHY be Catholic?

In other words if the Church is going to base her teaching, not on the Word of God, but on the trends and fashions of society- if the Word of God is going to be held captive to the trends and fashions of society, how is "The Church" a "Chuch" in any meaningful or substantive sense? The Church in such a senerio is just a human organization like any other- in which case it becomes litte more then a social club that happens to do some social work.

I wrote what I wrote about the fancy degrees and chairs not out of envy (though I would like to pursue a PhD some day) but to make a point: Just becasue BM and pals have those fancy degrees does not mean those who do not possess those degrees do not know how to think, or cannot think for themselves. Degrees prove that you know how to research and teach particular topic. Degrees prove "education" not "intelligence." Education means you can read a book and take a test. At the graduate level it proves you can be trusted to do research on your own and teach. Intelligence has to do with the ability to think and evaluate arguments.

When I wrote of "fancy chairs at prestitigious universities" I was thinking of McDissadent, and the like.