September 28, 2005
There they go again
Pittsburgh (KDKA) An organization of Catholic priests is hoping that optional celibacy and allowing women to become ministers will boost the number of priests around the US and the world.
At a press conference today, the Association of Pittsburgh Priests said they would like Bishop Donald Wuerl to carry their ideas to a Synod on the Eucharist in Rome, next month. [Source]
Just for once I would like to see a news story where a group of priests issue a statement asking for people to spend more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament praying for vocations or that their diocese look to emulate diocese that have increasing vocations. Why is it that a discipline like priestly celibacy always gets combined with women's ordination. If we can't expect them to get a teaching that is to be held definitively and that belongs to the deposit of faith, why should we listen to their prudential advice on optional celibacy? As I have quipped before what they really want is optional orthodoxy.
Posted by Jeff Miller at September 28, 2005 6:02 PM | TrackBack"that their diocese look to emulate diocese that have increasing vacations"
I would like to be part of a diocese with increasing vacations.
:)
What I cannot understand is the inability of these priests to see the harm they cause by putting forth these ideas. They lead laypeople to think "if a priest can dissent from official doctrine, maybe I can interpret things my own way too!"
http://www.ivycatholic.blogspot.com/
Posted by Stephen email at September 28, 2005 9:55 PMI'm sorry to see that this is coming out of my diocese. It will never cease to amaze me that people fail to look at orthodox seminaries and convents that are fluorishing with vocations and continue to insist that changing the teaching of the Church is the way to go. They confound me.
Posted by Emily email at September 28, 2005 10:35 PMI can see a very dark line starting to form between the two sides now. It will only be a short amount of time now where there will be a complete split in the Church. Maybe the liberals can have that rogue Pope in Montana to lead them.
Posted by Lucy email at September 28, 2005 10:43 PMEven if they started ordaining married men, or even allowed priests to marry (hypothetically speaking), current priests would still be bound by their vow of celibacy. If they realized this, they'd probably shut up.
Posted by L email at September 28, 2005 11:38 PMThe last time I checked, the Episcopalians (who ordain BOTH married men and women) aren't doing so hot in the vocations field either. Their class sizes are no bigger than the average class size of Catholic seminarians, and we have AT LEAST double the number of seminaries in the US alone! It tells me that maybe the problem is not with who we ALLOW to become priests, but with those who ANSWER the call to be priests.
On a side note, I'm a seminarian in Rome, and I've met Bishop Wuerl, as he's now in town for the Synod. I think he'd set his hair on fire and do naked backflips across St. Peter's Square before ever presenting such a laughable notion to the Holy Father, who would rather do the same than actually give ear to such rubbish!
Posted by Jamie email at September 29, 2005 1:57 AM"Even if they started ordaining married men, or even allowed priests to marry (hypothetically speaking), current priests would still be bound by their vow of celibacy. If they realized this, they'd probably shut up."
Actually, secular priests make promises, not vows.
Posted by Funky Dung email at September 29, 2005 8:00 AMWhat hits me here is the selfishness and hypocrisy of a validly ordained priest urging something that he knows would invalidate the priesthood for future generations.
Posted by Christina Martin email at September 29, 2005 10:57 AMKansas, not Montana. (He actually got a whole chapter in WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?)
As a ghastly herectical outsider, I am puzzled by the difference between "optional celibacy" and no celibacy. I thought that everyone (except perhaps "Those that are married already") had the OPTION of celibacy. Is this what they mean? It could not be that they are simply going through any contortion to AVOID saying what they mean.
Posted by Will email at September 29, 2005 3:13 PMYou ppl. rule!
I ran into a priest the other day who held that marriage was equal to the ordained priesthood...now he is the vocations director for our diocese. I gave him a few quotes from Trent, hopefully he took them to heart.
It sounds like we've gottem all over the place. Why I bet there's one in California if we wanted to look hard enough.
Posted by Lucy email at October 1, 2005 1:53 PM