|
Post by guillaume on Apr 6, 2012 6:41:32 GMT
Bad news for the Association of (liberal) Catholic Priests :
From the Irish Times :
The Vatican has moved to suppress dissent in the Irish Catholic Church by clamping down on two well-known liberal Redemptorist priests as well as the congregation’s monthly magazine, Reality.
Restrictions have been placed on Fr Tony Flannery, a founder of the Association of Catholic Priests, whose monthly column in the magazine has been discontinued. A clampdown has also been imposed on the magazine itself and its editor, Fr Gerard Moloney, who, it is believed, is no longer allowed to write on certain issues. Neither priest would comment when contacted by The Irish Times yesterday.
Fr Flannery, a brother of senior Fine Gael adviser Frank Flannery, is well known around Ireland through retreats he has conducted in Galway, Limerick, Belfast and elsewhere.
Yesterday Pope Benedict delivered an unusually direct denunciation of dissenting priests and laity in a sermon at a Holy Thursday Mass in St Peter’s Basilica. Responding specifically to a call to disobedience by Austrian priests and laity on celibacy and women priests, he said they had challenged “definitive decisions of the church’s magisterium”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 23:31:05 GMT
Couple that with the pointed remarks by the Pope in his homily condemning disobedient priests. It is thought he is referring to Austria where they are pushing for women priests. I don't understand why our priests want women in the priesthood, how badly catechised are they?? Maybe they're lonesome, and no I'm not being facetious.
So can anyone comment on where those orders would have come from? They have got away with it for so long now that unless there was a shifting about within the Redemptorists I can only imagine it came from outside.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2012 16:04:13 GMT
The MAIL on Saturday had an article and an editorial comparing Fr Flannery to Jesus "persecuted by the ecclesiastical authorities of his day" and a statement by the Redemptorist superior in Limerick backing Fr Flannery and his call for "debate" on various aspects of church doctrine and discipline. I would have more respect for this were it not for the well-known fact that when doctrinal "liberals" call for debate they usually mean that they want the debate to continue until authority endorses THEIR views, whereupon the debate is to be closed down forever. Similarly, whenever liberals get into positions of power within the Church they generally use them to penalise and silence "conservative" views - it is well-known that they often attribute "conservative" theological views to psychological dysfunction or repressed homosexuality. The IRISH TIMES today has another article in which the usual priestly suspects are rallying to Fr Flannery's defence. I am bound to say that the contempt for the teachings of the Church and the very idea of a magisterium on display in that article reminds me of a different Gospel figure - one who wound up being "suspended" during Holy Week.
|
|
|
Post by loughcrew on Apr 10, 2012 7:49:42 GMT
I am forever getting those ACPI guys mixed up with the PIPC (Prods in Priest's Clothing).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 11, 2012 18:28:13 GMT
The "800 priests" refers to the total membership of the ACPI, on the assumption that the leadership team speaks for all of them. Generally their statements, while calling for "debate" never address the argument against their proposed "reforms". They operate on the assumption that their rightness is self-evident and their opponents can be dismissed as "reactionary fringe groups", who are in opposition to a "growing consensus" and so need not be taken seriously. I seem to remember there was a general consensus in favour of Barabbas, but that doesn't mean it was correct. Fr Kevin Hegarty had an egregious article of this sort in the IRISH TIMES yesterday. I confess I was disappointed as I have somewhat more respect for Fr Hegarty than for most of his associates. I will comment on the article in more detail when I get time. Meanwhile, Mark Doorly has an article in the IRISH DAILY MAIL today defending the Pope, and there are three letters criticising the ACPI stance on Fr Flannery's case. Those of you who can get the MAIL and have not done so should do it, both to read the article and to encourage the MAIL to publish more like this.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 11, 2012 21:39:37 GMT
www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/04/kevin-hegarty-in-the-irish-times-april-10th/Kevin Hegarty in the Irish Times, April 10th THE PAINTER Tony O’Malley had a custom of creating an artwork every Good Friday. When news broke during Holy Week of the Vatican censure of Fr Tony Flannery and the Redemptorist magazine Reality, I wished I could paint a picture to express my sadness. [SOME OF US MAY HAVE DIFFERENT FEELINGS AT THE NEWS THAT SOMETHING IS FINALLY BEING DONE TO REIN IN THE SOWERS OF CONFUSION - PERHAPS THIS PICTURE MAY SERVE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Matissedance.jpg]Pope Benedict’s address at a Holy Thursday Mass in Rome copperfastened my gloom. Responding to a call to disobedience by Austrian priests and laity on celibacy and women priests he asserted that they had challenged “definite decisions of the church’s magisterium”. Church leaders often talk of the right of free speech, most recently the Pope himself on his visit to Cuba. The recent Vatican moves are designed to create a climate of fear among liberal clerics [YOU MEAN LIKE THE CLIMATE OF FEAR LIBERAL CLERICS CREATE AMONG CONSERVATIVE CLERICS AND LAITY WHENEVER THEY GET THE POWER TO DO SO?]. To echo a comment some years ago of the English writer AN Wilson , the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has “ways of making you not talk”.
I know Tony Flannery quite well. He has given 40 years of sincere service as a priest, mainly as a preacher of missions throughout Ireland. He is an engaging and empathetic speaker and an innovative liturgist [HIS SHREK MASS WAS CERTAINLY INNOVATIVE]. His columns in Reality, based on his commitment to the ideals of the Second Vatican Council [AS DEFINED BY HIMSELF] and his vast knowledge of the Irish church, were often thought-provoking.
He is one of the founders of the Association of Catholic Priests, set up in September 2010, and one of its leadership team. The association has provided a forum for debate and an independent voice for Irish priests. INDEPENDENT OF WHAT?
Among its achievements was its intervention in the case of Fr Kevin Reynolds, who was grievously libelled in the Prime Time Investigates programme last May.
I expect that Fr Reynolds would agree that without this help he would still be languishing in a limbo from which he might never have emerged.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the Vatican has moved to censure Fr Flannery. The Second Vatican Council promised an open and dialogical church, willing to engage with the secular world BUT NOT TO SURRENDER TO IT WHOLESALE. Since the 1980s there has been in Rome a retreat from its reforms. THERE HAS BEEN A PULLING-BACK FROM THE DISTORTIONS WHICH SOME PEOPLE PROMOTED IN THE NAME OF THE COUNCIL.
Pope Benedict has a jaundiced view of the council’s spirit HE HAS A JAUNDICED VIEW OF THE DISTORTIONS AND ABUSES PERPETRATED IN THE NAME OF THAT SPIRIT WHICH INVOKE THE "SPIRIT" TO IGNORE THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS PREDECESSORS. Last year he sent a team of apostolic visitors to examine the Irish church in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals. In the summary of their report issued recently, the visitors have a cut at liberal Catholics. They noted that a significant number of Irish Catholics held views at variance with “the teaching of the magisterium”. INVERTED COMMAS HERE INDICATE THE SUBSTITUTION OF A SNEER FOR ANALYSIS. THIS IS WHAT ONE EXPECTS FROM THE IRISH TIMES, BUT ONE EXPECTS BETTER OF A PRIEST.
They should be accorded full marks for their powers of observation. The many liberal Catholics in Ireland hope for a church that is open to married and women priests, a rethink on the issue of contraception as exhorted by Humanae Vitae, and a reversal of the harsh insensitivity of the teaching on homosexuality. PITY ABOUT ST PAUL. DEBATE ON MARRIED PRIESTS IS IMHO PERMISSIBLE, WOMEN PRIESTS ARE NOT. THE ISSUES OF CONTRACEPTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY BOTH INVOLVE THE VERY NATURE OF HUMAN SEXUALITY, AND WE SEE ALL AROUND US THE REDUCTION OF THE BODY TO A PLEASURE MACHINE WHICH DERIVES FROM BLINDNESS TO THAT DIVINELY-GIVEN NATURE. DO YOU SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AT ALL? NOTHING TO MAKE YOU WONDER WHETHER PAUL VI WAS A TRUE PROPHET?
We have come to these positions as a result of honest and honourable reflection OK, IT MAY DERIVE FROM HONEST AND HONOURABLE REFLECTION - BUT IS IT TRUE?. We are not seeking change for the sake of change. We believe that such reforms would aid the emergence of a church that is more humane, relevant and inspiring, a church released from the clammy grip of clericalism PRAY EXPLAIN.
Nor are these sincerely held views at variance with the fundamental doctrines of the church as the visitors claimed in their report. These doctrines relate, for example, to the humanity and divinity of Christ, the resurrection and the sacraments. HOW ABOUT THE NATURE AND MANDATE OF THE CHURCH? WHY IS THAT LESS FUNDAMENTAL?
I am not aware of any priest in Ireland who publicly dissents from these beliefs. I HAVE MY DOUBTS ABOUT THIS, GIVEN - FOR EXAMPLE, THE AMOUNT OF LIONISATION CERTAIN CLERICS CONFER ON HANS KUNG, WHO HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT HE DOES NOT CONSIDER JESUS ANY MORE DEFINITIVE THAN THE FOUNDERS OF THE OTHER ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS. MARK DOORLY HAS ALSO PUBLICLY CLAIMED THAT HE KNOWS OF PRIESTS WHO ACTIVELY DENY THE SACRIFICIAL NATURE OF THE MASS AND PRESENT IT AS A MERE COMMUNAL MEAL/CELEBRATION - THOUGH ADMITTEDLY THIS CAN BE EASILY MISUNDERSTOOD AND IT IS LEGITIMATE TO SPEAK OF THE HEAVENLY BANQUET.
There is a tendency of conservative church commentators to argue that liberal clerics are an ageing, disgruntled minority who have turned their misinterpretations of the Second Vatican Council into a kind of holy writ. THEY MAY NOT BE AGEING, THEY MAY NOT BE A MINORITY, BUT THE POINT ABOUT THEIR MISINTERPRETATIONS AND WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM IS SPOT ON
To them we are castaways on a remote island, brazenly holding aloft the tattered banners of the 1960s. They won’t like this but I have to disillusion them.
Anecdotal evidence, coupled with the results of a number of professional surveys, indicate that the majority of Irish Catholics support radical change in the church’s ministry and moral teaching. DO THESE INCLUDE THE ONES WHO HAVE STOPPED GOING TO MASS AND THE SACRAMENTS? AND WHEN DID DOCTRINE DEPEND ON OPINION POLLS?
To paraphrase Gerry Adams in a different context, we are not going away NEITHER IS PETER, NOR THOSE OF US WHO STAND WITH HIM. The Vatican has been a “cold house” for liberal Catholics in recent years. The least we expect is respect for our freedom of speech and conscience. INDEED - IF YOUR CONSCIENCE CAN NO LONGER ACCEPT THE MAGISTERIUM AND YOU WISH TO ADVOCATE THE VIEWS YOU HAVE EXPRESSED WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE, THE CHURCH OF IRELAND IS READY TO RECEIVE YOU.
A reform of the church which excludes these rights is a form of repression. It seems that Pope Benedict thinks “a creative minority” of Catholic conservatives will transform the church in Europe. To me that sounds like a polite euphemism for an assembly of Rick Santorum lookalikes. AND THAT IS A REAL LOW BLOW. I WOULD HAVE QUITE A FEW DISAGREEMENTS WITH SENATOR SANTORUM BUT HE HAS NOBLY BORNE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A HUSBAND AND FATHER, INCLUDING COPING WITH THE DEATH OF ONE CHILD AND THE GENETIC DISABILITY OF ANOTHER, AND HE HAS SPOKEN OUT COURAGEOUSLY AGAINST THE MODERN MOLOCH OF ABORTION. IT IS ONE THING TO DISAGREE WITH CERTAIN OF HIS POSITIONS - IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO SNEER AT HIM AS BENEATH CONTEMPT BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOUR READERS IN THE IRISH TIMES SEE HIM, AND TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT IT IS BECAUSE OF HIS WITNESS TO THOSE TRUTHS THAT THEY DESPISE HIM. BETTER TO BE WITH THE CRANKS, IN THEIR POLYESTER AND DENIM, SO LONG AS WE ARE WITH CHRIST, THAN TO BE WITH THE CULTURED DESPISERS WHO MOCK HIM. BETTER TO BE WITH THE CARPENTERS AND FISHERMEN THAN TO BE A COURT PROPHET. AS I SAID, THIS DISAPPOINTS ME. WHATEVER YOU THINK OF FR HEGARTY'S VIEWS, HE DID SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE ABUSE ISSUE WHEN IT WAS BRUSHED UNDER THE CARPET AND WAS PUNISHED FOR IT, HE HAS SHOWN HIMSELF WILLING TO TAKE UNPOPULAR STANDS WHEN HE BELIEVED THEY WERE RIGHT, AND I HEAR THAT HE HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ADVOCATE THE CELEBRATION OF THE TLM FOR THOSE WHO WISH IT, AND EVEN TO CELEBRATE IT HIMSELF, IN CONTRAST TO MANY OF HIS PSEUDO-LIBERAL FRIENDS WHO CALL FOR ITS FORCIBLE SUPPRESSION. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ONLY MISTAKEN, IT IS UNWORTHY OF HIS BETTER SELF.
——————————————————————————–
Fr Kevin Hegarty is a priest in the parish of Kilmore-Erris in Co Mayo, and a columnist with the Mayo News.
IN CONCLUSION, I ENDORSE THIS COMMENT ATTACHED TO THE ARTICLE AS IT APPEARS ON THE ACPI SITE:
Jim Stack April 11th, 2012 at 2:32 pm The best reply I can make to this article is to refer Fr Hegarty to Comment 28 (“A Rural Priest”) posted on this site on 9th April. This comment explains carefully, but without malice, why the ACP position is of such concern to some of us. As a traditional lay Catholic, who has tried (however unsuccessfully) to abide by the Church’s teachings, and to contribute to the Church (including to the upkeep of its priests), I would like to add my own personal comment. Fr Hegarty’s reference to Rick Santorum lookalikes is disgraceful. To me, he sounds much like the man who “has moved on” and, not satisfied with that, then publicly sneers at the wife who has tried her best to remain faithful.
HERE IS THE POST TO WHICH HE REFERS: A Rural Priest April 10th, 2012 at 10:06 am It’s all very well for the ACP to invoke Vatican II, but if Fr Flannery is under investigation for what he has been preaching about contraception, one has to ask whether he has been faithful to that same council which teaches VERY CLEARLY the immorality of contraception and the right of the magisterium to teach on these matters. See Gaudium et Spes 51. Likewise, the ACP statement does not seem to respect the council’s teaching about the magisterium of the Church as set out in Lumen Gentium & Dei Verbum. Let’s be frank here… The faithful have a right to expect their Catholic priests to teach Catholic doctrine. Priests promise to do as much. If a priest cannot teach in harmony with the magisterium, then surely he should question whether he should be presenting himself as one commissioned to teach, or whether he should have the courage to step aside from that role. Whilst there must be theological debate & discussion, there must also be a point where what one says no longer falls within the pale of Catholic teaching and there must be an authority to regulate that – that authority rests with the Pope & Bishops, according to the hierarchical charisms given them by the Holy Spirit. (Another teaching of Vatican II) Does this mean the CDF is infallible? Certainly not. However, it has a job to do and my prayer for Fr Flannery is that his engagement with this investigation will assist him in his vocation as a Catholic teacher and a son of St Alphonsus. I wish Fr Flannery well, but I cannot add my voice to those who condemn this investigation or who choose to privilege a nebulous “spirit” of a Council rather than what the Council actually teaches. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/04/press-statement-from-acp/#comments
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 12, 2012 9:16:05 GMT
A couple of comments - Fr Hegarty has not said the TLM himself, but he has allowed his co-PP in Belmullet, Fr John Loftus, go to places like Knock, Ballaghadereen and Loughrea to say it by substituting for him. This is a very big deal as the only active priests saying the TLM in Connaught are Frs Loftus and Kuzmicki - Fr Loftus is Killala diocese and Fr Kuzmicki is a Polish priest serving in Sligo.
Secondly, I won't fault Fr Kevin Hegarty's stance on sexual abuse of minors by clergy, but my recollection of the Intercom controversy was that there were other issues involved too - I may be wrong and am open to correction.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 12, 2012 9:30:49 GMT
To answer Fr Hegarty's substantive charge of liberal clergy somehow representing the majority of Catholics, there is a good piece in this week's Irish Catholic (12/04/12) by Rory FitzGerald (who I think deserves a lot of attention) on the phenonomen of cohabitation. As Mr FitzGerald points out, it is seen as common sense that by living with someone prior to marriage, one gets to know them better enabling the formation of a stronger marriage. The trouble is that all statistics point out that all cohabitation does is to destabilise marriage. Anyway, Fr Hegarty takes a 'vox populi, vox Dei' approach to justify the liberal Catholic stance - but fails to differentiate between listening to the voice of the faithful and the voice of the unfaithful. He also does not address the failure of liberal clergy to counteract the denigrating of Catholic teaching in the media (the only exception being the ACPI defending the seal of the confessional last summer). Whatabout several decades of the Church tolerating and even rewarding dissent? Is it a wonder that opinion polls register the results they do? Nor does he address the amount of liberal bulldozing that occurred over several decades - notably in the destruction of architectural heritage, catechetics and the selection of candidates for seminary. Finally, in regard to dissent, how unequivocally orthodox are the liberal clergy on areas of doctrine such as sin, the fallen nature of man, the reality of hell and Satan. To take two of the hobby horses (given Hibernicus addressed contraception/homosexuality well) - married clergy and female clergy, Catholic teaching is based on the sacramental understanding of both Holy Orders and Matrimony, shared by the Orthodox but not by Protestants which ACPI regard as models. But does Father Hegarty believe in the divinity of Christ? If so, can he not see that in advocating female clergy, he is undermining this divinity - Christ as God was not limited by the constraints and customs of His time.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 13, 2012 8:44:27 GMT
I wrote this last post before reading the Amárach poll results, a ACPI commissioned survey, which appeared in this morning's Irish Times. I could have written the script.
The one thing the ACPI are going to miss is that the results essentially point to a failure of episcopacy, clergy, religious and teaching establishment in getting the message across - in other words what they are using as their justification points rather to their gross incompetance.
I should point out that I am being charitable here - some letter writers in the Irish Times point in a different direction. I'll give an example from secular life. If a civil servant or local government official in a middle or higher grade publicly criticised government policy in a given direction and advocated the public undermine it, he would lose his job, entitlements and perhaps even go to gaol, with consequent hardship for his family if he had dependents. Some priests, in and outside the ACPI, don't seem to appreciate the privileged positions they are in.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 13, 2012 9:47:49 GMT
The survey results can be found on the ACPI website here www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/04/contemporary-catholic-perspectives/#commentsSome of the comments are quite illuminating. First, a couple that make the same point Alisdair has been making: EXTRACT Seminarian III (aka Patrick Anthony) April 12th, 2012 at 8:57 pm If the Irish Association of Maths Teachers publish a survey which shows a majority of Irish people believe that 2+2=5, do we conclude that a} our mathematical principles are dreadfully outmoded and need to be adapted to the 21st Century reality that 2+2 can equal whatever we want it to? or b)our teachers have been teaching maths very badly for the last few decades? Martin April 12th, 2012 at 9:13 pm I worked my way through that survey just now. There are two ways to look at it: as an indicator of the shocking failure of Catholics (particularly bishops, priests, schools, and parents) to pass on the faith over the last 50 years, or an enormous challenge for evangelism. I would expect very similar responses from some of my own family members as were given in the survey. That is, from Catholics who do not practise and who have no interest in the faith. END OF EXTRACT Then we have THIS comment, which unintentionally lets a very large cat out of the bag: EXTRACT Brendan Cunning April 13th, 2012 at 3:28 am Just want to say I am happy with the results of the survey. I am a married (28 years) priest who spent 17 years in the ministry. I would happily serve as a married priest. I told Fr. Tony Flannery that the Association should not just be for priests. It should be a movment of baptised catholics cleric and non cleric. You need the support of the the whole catholic community. The wall between clergy and lay should not exist. Break it. Tony argued that all kinds of right wingers would come in a take over the movement. We have an association of Catholics, clergy and lay, in the US…”Call to Action”. There is no way it can be taken over by right wingers..it is a Vatican Two progressive movement. Rome will isolate individual clerics in your Assoication. But it will be much more difficult for them if we have Catholics both clergy and lay from all the professions and trades, and in leadership roles all acting together.. please open up the Association of Priests. Thanks and blessings on Tony. Peace be to you. Brendan. END Leaving aside this gentleman's view that "the wall between cleric and lay should not exist" which can mean many things but which I strongly suspect in this context has overtones of the liberal-Protestant denial of the sacramental nature of ordination, the really striking thing is his report of Fr Flannery's rationale for not opening the ACPI to lay members - namely that "right-wingers would come in and take it over". I strongly suspect Fr Flannery's fears in this respect are unfounded, since many "right-wingers" would not touch the ACP with a bargepole and organising "right-wing" Catholics in Ireland is like herding cats at a crossroads. I suspect he suffers from the sort of mindset which sees groups like Opus Dei as a vast right-wing conspiracy with limitless powers of intrigue. But isn't it interesting to find out the following: (1) The ACPI talks a lot about democracy in the church - but Fr Flannery is not prepared to countenance the first principle of democracy within the ACPI, namely that sometimes your ideological opponents may win the elections and you may be defeated. (2) The ACPI talks about encouraging the active participation of the laity in the church, but Fr Flannery is unwilling to encourage the "active participation" of laity who have right-wing views. (3) The ACPI denounce the Vatican for cracking down on clerics and others who encourage dissent from Church teaching, but Fr Flannery is unwilling to open up the ACP to those who disagree with the "party line", because he is afraid this might lead to the ACPI being taken over by people opposed to the principles that the organisation was set up to promote. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 13, 2012 10:29:06 GMT
The major problem with this sort of survey is that it discounts the idea of truth in favour of relevance - i.e. if the majority think the earth is flat, young-earth creationism is true, etc that would not make these statements true in fact. The implicit message is that the teaching should change to fit public opinion, not that the public should be evangelised to help them understand the teaching.
Although the survey is professionally done, a couple of the questions strike me as extremely biased: In the question on "Relationship between Irish Catholic Church and Rome" the ends of the scale are "independent" and "subservient" on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is completely subservient and 5 is completely independent. This betrays an underlying assumption that Roman authority over the Church in Ireland is undesirable/to be minimised, and will shape the response since people do not want to describe themselves as "subservient". (A traditionalist equivalent would be to have the ends of the scale as "faithful" and "unfaithful" to Rome.) They would have done better to include two questions in this section - the first asking how close the respondent thought the Irish Church should be to Rome, the second asking how close in the respondent's opinion the Irish Church actually is to Rome.
Responses to the question on whether priests and laypeople should be more involved in choosing their bishop than at present is presented as showing "clear requirement for more involvement with minimal support for less involvement" - but the poll findings show that among priests the two "conservative" options - less involvement and status quo - has more support than "more involvement". By treating the "conservative" position as "less involvement" and overlooking "status quo" the presentation minimises "conservative" support. It also noticeably fails to define what is meant by "more involvement" (or for that matter, "less involvement" - lotteries with the Pope drawing names out of a hat?). "More involvement" could mean anything from a return to the nineteenth-century terna system (the priests of the diocese hold formal elections and the three names with most support are sent to Rome) to lay election of bishops without Roman confirmation.
In the question on "Addressing the Shortage of Priests" the only options which are offered are ordaining married men (i.e. the Eastern discipline), allowing priests to marry (a la Protestant denominations), ordaining women, and clustering parishes. The implication is that the only alternatives to the priest shortage are the "liberal" options. Now conservatives/traditionalists would argue that there are other ways of addressing the priest shortage: (a) Placing greater emphasis on priestly identity and the specific graces of priesthood, in order to inspire more men to come forward/persist - this is based on the argument that no-one will make sacrifices for what is unclear/undervalued. (b) More determined recruitment, including targeting younger candidates rather than telling them to "go away for a few years and come back when you've experience of the world". (There are even some conservative/traditionalist groups who want to return to the old system of minor seminaries, selecting candidates aged 12/13 and educating them towards the priesthood.) (3) More structured seminary education with a greater emphasis on orthodoxy, so as to reduce drop-out from seminary/subsequent defection by those ordained. Obviously cases can be made against these views (for example, the minor seminary system was highly problematic as it tended to produce emotionally-retarded delayed adolescents, and it posed problems both for those asked to make such a major commitment at such a young age, and for its tendency to attract some candidates who used it to gain an education at the church's expense without ever intending to be ordained) - but this is not intended to measure what would actually work but what people think might work. The way the results are presented implies that the only possible solutions to the vocations crisis are "liberal" ones.
Furthermore presenting the issues of clerical celibacy and women's ordination ONLY in terms of "addressing the shortage of priests" ignores the possibility that there might be substantive theological questions involved in these matters.
The question on liturgical attitudes doesn't discard those self-identified Catholics who never attend Mass (!), implicitly treats "Don't Knows" as agreeing with the "liberal" view, and doesn't ask WHY those who prefer the old translation do so (which would differentiate those who find it more familiar from those who object in principled grounds). This contrasts with the Eucharistic Congress questions, which go to some lengths to differentiate respondents' attitudes.
The question about whether national churches should develop their own liturgies "within guidelines laid down by Rome" seems intended to maximise support by its reference to Rome (even though the ACPI's views imply that Rome would have no power to enforce these guidelines, which would mean they would rapidly become a dead letter in practice). Presenting a direct choice between having it determined by Rome and at national level might produce a different result.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 13, 2012 21:40:20 GMT
A very nice piece by Richad Waghorne pointing out the problems (and fundamental dishonesty) of the ACPI's implicit view that doctrine can be settled by appealing to opinion polls. richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/irelands-association-of-catholic-priests-the-hermeneutic-of-continuity/EXTRACT Should the poll have found that a majority of Irish Catholics reject the ordination of women, would the ACP have accepted the result? Let us rephrase the question to exclude speculation about what the ACP might or might not do in certain eventualities. Ought the ACP to have accepted the result, we should say, were a majority of Irish Catholics to reject the ACP’s own campaign? We answer this question using only the ACP’s own implied ratio decidendi. Their referral of doctrinal matters to opinion polling demonstrates a belief that polling data is doctrinally authoritative. To be consistent, this must be true whatever opinion polling might return by way of a result. The most obvious observation is that opinion polling, which is to say public opinion, is not stable. Results obtaining today may not obtain in the future, and may contradict the past. This would mean that the Catholic Church was correct not to ordain women in 1900, is correct to ordain women in 2012, and will be incorrect in ordaining women in 2100, should opinion polling then show settled opposition to the ordination of women. This is absurd. Or, we may ask whether the ACP’s referral of doctrinal matters to the judex of opinion polls has any limiting principle built in. At no point has the ACP stated that in which, on their account, the core of Catholicism consists; that is to say, never has the ACP clarified that which, in their account, is not up for negotiation or alteration. If there were no such core, anything particular to the Catholic Church could in principle be altered or discarded. No core means that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, or the doctrines of the Resurrection and the Eucharist, or the authority of Sacred Scripture, would all, and much else besides, in principle be liable to be discarded at the point when a majority of lay Catholics should renounce them, whether through the mechanism of a priest-commissioned opinion poll or otherwise. If that were in principle possible, there could be no Church in the sense of a claim to embody transcendent truth. In other words, if everything is negotiable in principle, nothing is stable; no basis exists on which Catholicism could with any intellectual honesty assert its self-definition as being a religion rather than merely a volunteer community group with a rich artistic and architectural heritage. Let us presume that the ACP would indeed, if it spoke to the question, agree that there is a core of Catholicism that is beyond negotiation, or alteration according to the vagaries of what a scarcely catechised laity might tell pollsters over the telephone. If this non-negotiable minimum exists, it necessarily, according to no more than the rules of logic, remains non-negotiable even if it is some day contradicted by an opinion poll. Indeed, it remains non-negotiable even if contradicted by the settled opinion of Catholic laity over a protracted period of time. If the ACP were to accept that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ never has been, is not, and never will be something the Catholic Church can be required to deny, that would remain true for centuries. No quantity of centuries’ worth of opinion polling would overturn the Catholic Church’s requirement to uphold that doctrine, even if polling results throughout the centuries returned a contrary viewpoint.The consequence is unavoidable from the admission that in principle there must be a non-negotiable core doctrine of Catholicism: ultimately, no number of opinion polls could ever prevail against it. We can by now see the intellectual fraud perpetrated by the Association of Catholic Priest. Their method of proceeding to address the question of the ordination of women and other questions requires the Church to deny its right to make any claims to truth, in other words, to remain a religion rather than an unnecessarily-vested liturgical counterpart to secularism denial of the possibility of revealed truth. While some reactionary fringe groups have contrived to portray our association as a small coterie of radical priests with a radical agenda, we have protested vehemently against that unfair depiction. We are and we wish to remain at the very heart of the Church, committed to putting into place the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. -Association of Catholic Priests If opinion polling is a legitimate vehicle for deciding the future of Catholic doctrine, we may ask by what right the Association of Catholic Priests constitute themselves as the spokesmen of Irish priests. Their membership is a very small fraction of the number of priests in Ireland. In other words, an overwhelming majority of Irish priests have rejected the option of becoming members of the Association of Catholic Priests. Logically, according to its own rules of adjudicating such decisions, the ACP should bow to the majority opinion and either disband itself or speak the doctrine of the Catholic Church as stands. The defensive tone in the above quotation is striking. A small number of petulant Irish priests have undemocratically appointed themselves as spokesmen for Irish clerics in defiance of their own rules of reasoning, while proceeding in such a manner as would catastrophically dissolve any teaching authority on the part of the Catholic Church by asserting what could be termed the hermeneutic of majoritarianism. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 13, 2012 23:34:06 GMT
Here is a link to the Mark Dooley piece which I mentioned earlier. He also has some interesting responses to critics in the combox below the main article. I think some of his emphases are slightly 'off' and have noted where I think he is overdoing things, but it's certainly worth a read at the MAIL site. Here's a big chunk to whet your appetite: dooleyblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/04/why-the-pope-is-right-to-gag-fr-trendy.htmlEXTRACT Like most of the other participants on that programme, Fr Flannery chanted from a radical hymn book. His message was one of dissent from Rome on issues ranging from clerical celibacy to women priests. As he spoke, I remember being surprised that the Vatican permitted such flagrant opposition to Church doctrine by one of its priests. I was, therefore, amused to hear that the ACP was ‘disturbed’ by Fr Flannery’s so-called ‘silencing’. ‘This intervention’, they say, ‘is unfair, unwarranted and unwise’ because, contrary to the claims of ‘some reactionary fringe groups’, the ACP is not ‘a small coterie of radical priests with a radical agenda’. Rather, it is ‘committed to putting into place the reforms of the Second Vatican Council’. Studying the documents of Vatican II, I can see no evidence that the Council Fathers sought the ordination of women or the repudiation of priestly celibacy. When they spoke about ‘reform’ of the Church, they were not suggesting putting up for grabs the fundamentals of Catholic theology. Their objective was not, as the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1985, ‘to change the faith, but to represent it in a more effective way’. It seems to me that the principal objective of groups like the ACP is to 'change the faith'. As Pope Benedict recently said of the ACP's Austrian counterpart, they have ‘issued a summons to disobedience’ – even to the point ‘of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium’ or teaching authority. In so doing, they are not only dissenting from the traditions of the Church, but from their priestly vows. No organisation can tolerate that level of dissent. This is especially so in the case of an institution whose origins are considered divine. For if you believe that the Church is the repository of timeless truth, and that those elected Pope are successors of St Peter, you will surely realise that changing the faith amounts to heresy. [THIS IS A BIT SWEEPING - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATTERS OF DOCTRINE AND OF DISCIPLINE, FOR EXAMPLE] If, however, you don’t believe such things, why remain a member of the Catholic Church? While not wishing to see a schism in the Irish Church, I simply can't understand why dissident priests continue in Catholic ministry. Why, in other words, would you stay a priest when you apparently have so little faith in your religious superiors? Why not have the courage of your convictions and join a congregation that more accurately reflects your theological beliefs? The reason I have little sympathy for renegade priests brought to book by the Vatican, is because they knew what they were signing up for when they entered the seminary. [THIS IS A BIT UNFAIR- SOME OF THEM WILL HAVE CHANGED THEIR VIEWS SINCE ORDINATION, AND THIS PLACES SOMEONE IN A VERY INVIDIOUS POSITION] They knew that becoming a priest demands taking a vow of obedience to the Pope and his bishops. They also knew that no pontiff will arbitrarily tamper with the doctrinal patrimony of his predecessors. Challenging the authority of the Pope is, therefore, an act of supreme hubris on the part of any priest. If anything, the priesthood is rooted in selfless service. It does not involve acquiring celebrity status by defying those whose authority you vowed to uphold. A Catholic priest is not meant to be a counsellor in a collar. Neither is he supposed to use the pulpit to peddle political agendas. As the great Monsignor Gilbey of Cambridge wrote, a priest’s only job is to show that the ‘primary province for each of us is not the Third World, but our own hearts’, and that ‘the achievement of sanctity is the complete fulfilment of each man’s vocation’. [THIS IS A BIT QUIETIST - WE ARE REQUIRED TO LIVE OUT OUR FAITH IN THE WORLD, NOT JUST AS INDIVIDUALS, AND THIS CAN BE NECESSARY TO THE ATTAINMENT OF SANCTITY - THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF SAINT AND SOME HAVE BEEN PRETTY COMBATIVE] Above all, this requires holiness and humility. It means abandoning one’s ego in order to become ‘another Christ’. It means accepting, as one’s sole ambition, the role of a ‘humble worker in God’s vineyard’. YES, THIS IS THE KEY I am proud to say that I know many such priests. These men are loved by their parishioners, not because they seek to deflect blame for their own shortcomings by publicly challenging the Pope. No, they are loved simply because they pass their days quietly celebrating Mass, tending the sick, the dying and the hopeless... END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 14, 2012 0:26:18 GMT
James Hitchcock's celebrated 1995 article on why appointing "conservative" bishops to liberal dioceses rarely produces solid results has some points which are relevant here: www.wf-f.org/JFH-ConservativeBishops.htmlEXTRACTS The great failure of the older generation of bishops was their failure to gain control of the post-conciliar process of education. All over the United States interpreters of "renewal" arose to skew the meaning of the Council in numerous ways, a process that only grew worse over time. Few indeed were the bishops who attempted -- even in their own dioceses, much less nationally -- to establish an authentic program of education in the "new Church". The result was that, over the next decades, Church officials on all levels -- from bishops themselves to kindergarten teachers -- were systematically inducted into a view of "renewal" that was increasingly at odds with official teaching and with the actual words of the Council. By 1975, if not before, the Church in the United States had lost perhaps the majority of its "middle management" to stronger or milder degrees of dissent, as most bishops watched passively and even approvingly... In deciding not to support Humanae Vitae except verbally, the American bishops made the fundamental strategic mistake which has been the undoing of liberal Protestantism. For over a century liberal Protestantism has steadily surrendered Christian positions deemed incredible by a particular historical age, the better to protect the core of the faith. But in each generation, more such surrenders are demanded, until there is finally nothing left, and surrender itself becomes the chief expectation which liberals must meet. AND THIS IS THE VERY SAME POLICY ADVOCATED BY THE ACPI, AND IT WILL PRODUCE THE SAME RESULTS Thus by giving up on birth control, the bishops of 1968 probably thought they were preserving their credibility on other questions. But inevitably there has been a steady erosion of every distinctively Catholic moral position. Finally in 1995 a survey showed that a solid majority of Catholics do not accept the Church's teaching about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The strategy of tolerating selective dissent can only have such results, and the area of dissent can only continue to widen.... None of this is understandable without recognizing a fact that has been systematically obscured for three decades -- the post-conciliar Church is more clerical than it used to be, not less. In many ways the clericalism of the pre-conciliar Church was tempered by the very legalism that liberals denounce -- priests and bishops had authority that was carefully circumscribed by Canon Law, and they were not free, for the most part, to act capriciously. In the "open", anti-legalistic Church, however, clergy are often free to impose their own theologies, their own liturgies, their own moralities, their own ecclesiologies, on defenseless parishes, since there is no effective way by which the authenticity of renewal can be judged, nor any effective way by which priests can be made to conform to Church law. The Church is also more clerical now because a large number of lay people have in effect been inducted into the ranks of the clergy, as diocesan or parish bureaucrats. AND IT IS THIS CATEGORY OF LAY PEOPLE WHOM GARRY O'SULLIVAN WISHES TO BE GIVEN AN EQUAL ROLE WITH THE CLERGY IN RUNNING THE CHURCH, AS HE EQUATES THEM WITH THE LAITY AS A WHOLE One of the great mistakes made even by the "old" bishops of the conciliar period was to accept the notion of professionalism almost without quibble AND THE DREADFUL MISHANDLING OF THE ABUSE CRISIS MAKES THEM EVEN MORE RELUCTANT TO CHALLENGE THE "EXPERTS" FOR FEAR OF BEING FOUND TO HAVE OVERLOOKED SOME DREADFUL CRIME OR BLUNDER. Thus bishops can usually be intimidated into silence by the reminder that they lack the professional credentials to judge the work of educators, canonists, or liturgists. These professionals soon after the Council organized themselves into national bodies that in effect control the terms of the discussion. In many dioceses there is an endless parade of speeches and workshops in which certified "experts" are imported to speak to local people. Usually the bishop, even if conservative, makes at least a token appearance at such gatherings and gives them his formal blessing. Seldom does he attempt to stop them or even seriously to moderate them. When they acknowledge the obvious evidence that Catholics reject official teachings on a large scale, bishops usually point to the secular culture as the cause (for the decline of religious vocations, for example). And rarely do they seem to recognize that official Church organs -- the schools, the Catholic press, officially sponsored conferences, even the pulpit -- have themselves been the most effective channels for disseminating dissent. Since the Council, Catholics have, in a sense, been reprogrammed into a new kind of faith, and against this new program formal reiterations of official teachings make little headway. Bishops judge that their disciplinary powers cannot be exercised sweepingly, and there are agencies over which they have little control, such as Catholic colleges. But, short of actually imposing sanctions on dissenters, bishops can at least publicly contradict them, which they also seldom do. Thus even if the local Catholic college is a center of organized dissent, the bishop almost always attends its major public ceremonies, where he invariably expresses gratitude that the diocese enjoys such a vibrant center of Catholic learning. Catholics who wonder if what they are hearing from those channels is authentic Catholic teaching will seldom be enlightened by the bishop. To all appearances the bishop and the local dissenters share the same faith. By contrast there is no such thing as "lay opinion", since lay people are divided dozens of different ways. Even if there were, there is no established organ through which lay opinion could be expressed. [THIS OF COURSE DOES NOT STOP LIBERAL GROUPS FROM CLAIMING THEY REPRESENT ALL LAITY] Thus when a bishop enters a diocese he already knows that he does not have to pay attention to aggrieved lay people, while he does have to defer to his priests' senate or to the religious communities in the diocese. For all practical purposes, when it comes to the bishop's formulation of administrative policies, such groups are the Church. Put another way, authoritarian pre-conciliar bishops were free to disregard clerical or religious sensibilities if they chose, while modern bishops are not. In neither case does the laity have an effective voice, nor does priest or religious who is outside the "mainstream" of local organized clericalism. [THE ACPI ARE THUS RECOGNIZABLE AS AN EXAMPLE OF ORGANISED CLERICALISM, AND WHAT GARRY O'SULLIVAN HAS DONE TO THE IRISH CATHOLIC EXEMPLIFIES THE PHENOMENON] The unspoken compromise What precisely bishops fear is not clear. Sometimes they probably feel constrained by the scarcity of personnel; priests and religious are in short supply, and the bishop cannot afford to offend the few he has. But this is a self-perpetuating problem since, as we noted above, conservative young men are sometimes discouraged or actually prevented from becoming priests by the existing diocesan bureaucracy. [SOUNDS FAMILIAR?] In some ways having a liberal diocese presided over by a bishop known to be conservative is better for the liberal cause than having a bishop of their own, since the conservative bishop gives a mantle of respectability to liberal policies. Complaining laity can be even more easily dismissed, on the grounds that "even our conservative bishop does not make them happy". Often there is an unspoken compromise -- the bishop says inspiringly orthodox things on public occasions, even as diocesan policies move in quite different directions. Conservative lay people find it practically impossible to make a credible stand for orthodoxy in a liberal diocese, precisely because their opinions are defined as merely that -- opinions. Although the Pope and the bishop may both state orthodox teachings clearly, in particular situations the bishop seldom allows himself to identify lapses from that orthodoxy. Thus conservative lay people protesting diocesan practices always come to be regarded as cranks, since the bishop himself does not recognize the abuses they see. Allies in the media For all their talk of "pluralism", liberals understand very well that a Church divided against itself cannot stand, which is why, wherever they are in power, they move relentlessly to push conservatives to the margins of the community, a move with which conservative bishops sometimes cooperate. [THIS IS WHY THE ACPI TALK OF "DEBATE" BUT WILL NOT DEBATE ON EQUAL TERMS WITH CONSERVATIVES - INSTEAD THEY DEFINE THEIR POSITION AS A "CONSENSUS" AND IMPLY CONSERVATIVES DO NOT EXIST OR ARE INSANE] Indispensable to the success of the liberal strategy have been the media. Before the Council was even over liberals were using the media's insatiable appetite for religious controversy, their uniformly liberal viewpoint, their eagerness to publicize internal Church conflicts in such a way as to force bishop's hands. The strategy has continued unabated over thirty years, to the point where the threat of hostile media often need not even be uttered -- everyone is fully aware of it at all times. [THIS IS THE ROLE RTE AND THE IRISH TIMES HAVE BEEN PLAYING SINCE THE 1970S AND ARE PLAYING IN THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY] Bishops notorious for their tough authoritarianism were, soon after the Council, intimidated into silence by the unfamiliar experience of being pilloried in the media. It was a lesson the next generation of bishops learned all too well, and often bishops now seem motivated primarily out of fear of unfavorable publicity if, for example, a key diocesan official is replaced. [DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR TO IRISH VIEWERS?] Conservative secular journalists have cynically invented the "Strange New Respect Award", which the media bestow on conservative public figures willing to betray their principles. Every bishop, whether or not he hankers after the award, knows that it exists. (Thus in one diocese a bishop with a national reputation for conservatism before he was appointed now enjoys regular encomia from the local media, even as he actively cooperates in portraying conservative Catholics as unbalanced fanatics.) There are elements in American culture, notably the expectation that bishops and other "community leaders" will be affable men who "fit in" with the local scene, that strongly reinforce the natural human tendency to avoid hard decisions. Particular conditions in a given diocese do the same. No doubt also the Holy See has sometimes been disappointed at the inaction of men it has appointed. It is not possible to understand the phenomenon of the inactive bishop, however, without understanding that the Vatican also bears its share of the responsibility... END OF EXTRACTS
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 19, 2012 14:38:31 GMT
The ACP has posted on its website an article by Fr Brian Lennon SJ criticising the procedures of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Such procedures can be flawed and are legitimate matter for debate - what is REALLY outside the bounds of is Fr Lennon's proposed solution - that theologians penalised by the Congregation should appeal to secular courts to force the Congregation to overturn its rulings and to reinstate them in their positions within the Church. www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/04/vatican-process-to-examine-theologians-does-not-respect-persons/EXTRACT In 1990 the Vatican argued that while its procedures could be improved they were not contrary to justice and right because its judgments were about the theologian’s intellectual positions, not about him or her as a person. They are correct that error has no rights. But persons have, and lack of due process fails to respect these rights. Serious damage is done to the reputations of Irish people who are accused. While it is reasonable that any Church community can decide when public statements of its members are in conformity with its teaching, is there not an issue in secular law if a process used by the Church which affects the reputation of Irish citizens is manifestly unjust? Further, do issues of libel, bullying or employment law arise? Irish legal people, especially members of the Church concerned about respect for persons, should look at the secular legal implications of this process. All members of the Church, including papal officials are bound by the values of the Gospel. Central to these is the need to respect persons. It is up to Church members to hold the magisterium to account when it acts in ways contrary to the gospel. End Note: Brian Lennon’s latest book is Can I Stay in the Catholic Church? (Columba). END What Fr Lennon is proposing is that the state should overrule the Church's own decisions on what is and is not orthodox doctrine and who are its members - in other words, that the state should control the Church. Bear in mind that many of those who converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism in the nineteenth century did so precisely because the British secular courts were able to overrule the disciplinary decisions of church courts, and that a church which was not free to interpret its own doctrines in accordance with its own interpretation of the Gospel could not claim to be the Church of Christ. At least the nineteenth-century English state claimed to be formally Christian. Most twenty-first century states are formally secular, yet Fr Lennon proposes that they should be given the power to determine what is or is not orthodox Catholic teaching. He talks only of procedural matters, but in fact it would be quite impossible to separate these from matters of substance - and even if the courts were to observe the utmost restraint, their presence would exert a "chill factor" inhibiting the authorities' ability to enforce orthodox doctrine. At the same time, certain atheist bigots on Politics.ie have been demanding that anti-discrimination law should be used to force the Church to ordain women and to abolish the very concept of "conscientious objection" when religious beliefs conflict with state law: www.politics.ie/forum/justice/186409-should-we-allow-god-catholic-church-discriminate-against-female-preists.htmlEXTRACT LamportsEdge Politics.ie Regular Join Date Jan 2012 Posts 3,127 Would it not be easier to suggest that the RCC's exemptions from state law should be rescinded? Clearly it has given some of them the false impression that they can run their own legal system in parallel with state laws and ignore state laws where they conflict with their informal golf club rules. This was a bad idea for reasons which are now all too obvious. No exemptions for religious organisations should be made and no derogations given as it clearly encourages the notion that state laws can be ignored in certain circumstances. Sooner or later this error is going to have to be resolved, quite possibly over the screeches of martyrdom of the over-indulged in Irish society but this is inevitably going to have to be fixed once and for all. If the Iriish state and its political class is too cowardly or too quietly hopeful of social aspiration towards dinners with defunct minor Italian nobles and members of RCC social groups then our commitments internationally to more sensible and logical legal systems will fix it for us. It would be nice just once though not to have to dragged kicking and wriggling out of a religiously schizophrenic past on the damp island at the fringe of the continent. Self-government implies a responsibility to recognise reality and while this has not been a popular item on the Irish legislative agenda at some point we are going to have to deal with this reality whether we like it or not. The alternative is a Taliban sociopathy lingering in our society. And we know by now that leads to harm. END If Fr Lennon cannot see that his proposal would lead directly to vexatious legal harrassment of the Church by the sort of people who equate religious belief with "Taliban sociopathy", he is sorely lacking in common sense.
|
|