Celibacy under attack again: this time from new Vatican Secretary of State…

Celibacy under attack again: this time from new Vatican Secretary of State…

Celibacy under attack again: this time from new Vatican Secretary of State...

Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the new Secretary of State of the Vatican, made some surprisingly frank remarks about priestly celibacy that may indicate a new openness to “the democratic spirit of the times.” Pope Francis’ plans to reform the Vatican and “shake up the church” have received a lot of attention, but he has not yet publicly addressed the issue of mandatory celibacy for priests.

Parolin said in an interview with Venezuelan newspaper El Universal that the tradition of priestly celibacy is not dogma, or a law of divine origin, and is therefore open to discussion. He went on to note that while the church is not a democratic institution, it needs to “reflect the democratic spirit of the times and adopt a collegial way of governing.”

Click on the photo of Archbishop Parolin to read the entire article.

Comments (153)

  • catholicconvert1

    Comment removed

    September 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Why was my comment removed? What about the ‘democratic spirit of the Church’? The fact is, if you are trying to protect Chardom from moi and my comments about his/ her very cosy relationship with the (new) Mass, what are you going to do protect him from the wrath of God for defending heresy? I was not, never have, and never will, mocking or disrespecting the Holy Eucharist, I was disrespecting the order of Mass. (Ed: well don’t) Believe you me, if you’d been to my Church today, you’d know why I have, and will continue to refer to the new order of Mass as (term deleted by editor who says you can refer to is however you wish elsewhere, but not on this blog). It is an ordeal, you should try it as a form of penance.

    Ed: I attended the new Mass for twenty years, so please do not suggest that I am living in a bubble. I know perfectly well what it is like. You need to do what I did, in due course, get to a Traditional Latin Mass, but do not hand our enemies a victory on a plate by using daft terms to describe the new (and getting newer by the minute) New Mass.

    September 15, 2013 at 10:12 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Your comment above was removed because it was totally unacceptable and provocative. You began by writing the offensive term across two lines. I have said not to use terms like “novus ordeal” on this blog – so that’s an end to it. Discussion over. I suggest you read the About Us section of the blog and if you decide that you cannot live with our simple rules and with the decisions of the unworthy administrator, my ever so humble self, then please blog elsewhere. Assertive, moi? People go on courses to get like this.

      Nobody is defending heresy and I am no fan of the new Mass. However, since it is a valid Mass (under the usual conditions) then we must believe that Our Lord is made present on the altar. Thus, a little respect is in order.

      Oh and, for the record, I’m certainly no fan of Chardom. Take my words at face value, accept the simple rules of this blog and the administrator’s decisions and you will start to move up the payscale.

      September 15, 2013 at 10:29 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      Catholic Convert,

      If assistance at the Novus Ordo Mass constitutes a psychic and spiritual trauma, I believe the moral obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days according to the third commandment is mitigated.

      I have heard it mentioned before by some who disagree with this position that there is always an obligation to attend the Mass, even if the Novus Ordo is the only rite feasibly available. They assert we must attend the Novus Ordo, and any suffering accruing to this must be embraced as a trial, a penance.

      Contrary to this, I affirm the teaching that some forms of penance are illicit. We are forbidden to harm ourselves by our penitential practices. The Novus Ordo has an adverse affect on my mental health, it causes me to be agitated, depressed, and sometimes even causes racing racing thoughts and rage. I doubt this is uncommon. Not everybody experiences this, most Catholics don’t understand it. But there are varying degrees of sensitivity among humans.

      We are also forbidden to expose our souls to poisonous intellectually and morally corrupting influences. For example: liberal, modernist, protestantised, talmudicised, paganised, anthropocentric (Man-worshipping), profane and sacrilegious Liturgies and Prayer.

      You will have to make this decision. It’s your soul, your conscience at the end of the day.

      My conviction is that there is no obligation to attend the Novus Ordo. A Catholic priest from whom I have received spiritual council supported this view, indeed it was him that said it.

      I know it’s not your fault due to geography, and I feel for you, but if you insist on continuing to assist at the Novus Ordo, do you really have grounds to complain???

      September 15, 2013 at 10:40 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        One of our priests (SSPX) had a good way of explaining it, he would say, “You do not have an obligation to attend the New Mass and once you understand, then, you have the obligation to not attend the New Mass.”
        If you go to the Sacred Heart and make a Novena to Him asking Him to help you to get to the Traditional Mass He will help you. But remember you get what you ask for, if you only ask to go once a month or once a week you might just get that. I’d ask for the whole thing, to go every day. The more it seems impossible the more you should ask.

        September 16, 2013 at 12:43 am
      • Petrus

        Miles,

        I agree with a lot of what you say. I feel slightly uncomfortable with the idea that we had an obligation NOT to attend the New Mass. That would suggest that it is sinful to attend it. I know this isn’t what you meant, but I think we should avoid ambiguities on this. I found it really difficult to stop going to the New Mass altogether so we need to be crystal clear.

        I think it is suffice to say there is no obligation to attend the New Mass.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:21 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        Petrus
        Did you reply to me? I was just repeating what Father said. I like to do that, it puts it on his head. He did tell us to go to weddings, of course, where the New Mass was offered, but not to participate in the Mass. He said to kneel during the Consecration.
        I believe what Archbishop Lefebvre stated, that the New Mass is “valid but not grace giving.” That’s apparent.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:05 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I would definitely not attend the Novus Ordo Mass. Michael Davies wrote that years ago someone had put a sweetener or something into making the hosts in the Chicago US area. I think it was finally corrected. But for years people had been going to a Mass that was not a Mass, there was no consecration. Priest and people had been adoring a cookie.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm
      • crofterlady

        Miles, I think you are correct in asserting that there is no obligation to attend a Novus Ordo Mass on a Sunday even if that’s the only option available. However, as the mother of a large family I would caution prudence in this matter.

        A friend of mine told me that years ago she took just that decision and the family spend a holy hour together instead. After some years a traditional priest arrived at their parish and offered the Tridentine Mass every Sunday. When my friend prepared to attend these Masses one of her (youngish) children said: “Mum, why go? Why can’t we just do our usual holy hour instead? She was shocked and realised that if her children lost the Mass-going habit, they would probably lapse, and she vowed to always attend Mass whatever the rite.

        We have taken the same decision even though it can be very painful sitting through a Novus Ordo Missae. I believe that many graces can be gained by “offering up” such sufferings.

        September 16, 2013 at 10:22 am
      • Eileenanne

        There is a clear and unambiguous obligation on Catholics, under pain of mortal sin, to attend Mass every Sunday, unless it is impossible. The non-availability of one’s preferred rite in NOT a reason to miss Mass. Anyone who tells Catholics otherwise is leading them astray.

        September 16, 2013 at 11:13 am
      • Petrus

        Eileenanne,

        We’ve been round the block so many times on this. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

        1. St Pius V made it explicitly clear that the Mass of Trent was binding on all Catholics. In fact, he expressively forbade the creation of a “New Mass”. Only the Roman Rite, codified at Trent, is binding on Catholics.

        2. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church must be received and approved. The Novus Ordo Missae has not been “received” by the Church (it was invented in 1969!)

        3. The Second Vatican Council did not call for a New Mass.

        4. Anyone who knows the chequered history of the New Mass knows that they should avoid it.

        5. The abuses at the New Mass are a danger to the soul. We must avoid these abuses.

        We must remember however, that there will be Catholics who cannot bring themselves in good conscience to miss Mass. In these cases they must follow their conscience but reject the novelties and sacrileges found at the New Mass. They should continue to develop their understanding of the issues and pray for guidance.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:07 pm
      • Lily

        Eileenanne,

        If you were in a parish where things like clown Masses were commonplace, really serious abuses like that happening regularly, that when you went to Mass you really didn’t know what was going to be dished up, would you attend it every Sunday?

        If it got so that you really found it unbearable but there was no Latin Mass within travelling distance, what would you do? Would you go to the clown Mass or would you stay home and pray your rosary, thinking that would please God more?

        I think I know what I would do but I am very interested to hear what you would do.

        September 16, 2013 at 7:22 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        CrofterLady,

        Personally, I wouldn’t choose to take my children to the Novus Ordo. Simply because my intellect has been formed on the matter. However, they are impressionable. I wouldn’t want to risk leaving them vulnerable to becoming ‘disorientated’. I would say there is a real risk they might stop attending Mass and lapsing in adulthood if they habitually attended disorientated liturgies in childhood.

        The traditional Mass is a great gift to give your children. If I took them to the Novus Ordo, I just don’t think they would end up appreciating that.

        Petrus,

        Yes, it is not sinful to attend the Novus Ordo. Although if there is the option to attend the Traditional Mass, then I believe it is imprudent.

        I do however believe it is immoral to attend Masses where the Holy Eucharist is routinely desecrated, Or where there are grave abuses, for example where Protestants are invited to receive Holy Communion. Which in theory could take place in either rite.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:11 pm
      • Petrus

        Miles,

        Spot on. I couldn’t agree more. If I had to attend the New Mass, I would seek the most reverent Mass (a tall order).

        September 16, 2013 at 4:28 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Petrus,

        Well, that is a step in the right direction. In a previous discussion you said you would miss Mass if the rite you prefer were unavailable.

        I could provide authoritative evidence that Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and that the Church allows us to choose between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms (and other rites which are less available here). Can you do the same for your assertion that it is acceptable to miss Mass when only the form of the Mass routinely celebrated by the Pope is available?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:40 pm
      • Petrus

        Eileenanne,

        I said “if I had to attend the New Mass”. I don’t. I wouldn’t.

        Please provide the evidence that the New Mass, promulgated in 1969, is binding on all Catholics….

        September 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm
      • Eileenanne

        It is MASS on Sunday that is binding on all Catholics. There is a choice of approved forms. We are free to choose the one we prefer, but if our preference is not available we still have the obligation to attend whatever Mass we can get to.

        What do SSPX priests tell people about their obligation in this regard?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm
      • Petrus

        Where is your authoritative evidence you claimed to have?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:47 pm
      • Eileenanne

        The third Commandment “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day”. Authoritative enough?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:50 pm
      • Petrus

        No. Which decree from a pope overrides St Pius V Quo Primum?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:51 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Miles Immaculatae,

        I am sure the Pope will be relieved to have your assurance (and Petrus’s) that he is not committing sin by routinely celebrating Mass in the Ordinary Form.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:43 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        My mother tried to do this in the 1970’s. She said the priest gave a sermon one Sunday explaining how he no longer prayed to the God “out there” but rather to the God that was within him. She said she gathered all my six brothers together after Mass and said “What you heard Father just say, I want you to forget it, put it out of your minds.” She said that she had never had to correct what a priest said before and that it was very hard for her. She had known the priest before Vatican II and he had been very sound. But shortly after this sermon the priest left our parish and went to teach Process Theology at the University.

        September 16, 2013 at 6:10 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    Also, I remember being told that St. Augustine said something like, “Love God then do what you want.” But what I understand St. Augustine to be saying is that whatever you do, do it because you love God. If you make your judgements and decisions about how to think and act (in the crisis in the Church) based upon love for Our Lord you will not get bitter.

    September 16, 2013 at 12:59 am
  • sixupman

    A Clifton Diocese parish which I was, due to circumstance, forced to attend was proving disturbing to my frame-of-mind, with my physical presence being there but nothing else. I Confessed the problem to another Diocesan priest and he said see it as a penance. I could, of course, have availed myself, in the circumstances, by attending the CofE 200 yards away – under the edict of the E&W Bishops’ Conference [2003 ?]

    September 16, 2013 at 6:52 am
    • crofterlady

      Whaaat? Are you serious? Are you saying that one can actually fulfil one’s Sunday obligation by attending the C of E? Can you explain?

      September 16, 2013 at 10:24 am
      • sixupman

        There are/were documents issued: one relating to fulfilment of Sunday Duty, not only by attendance at CofE, but also other chapels [“Wee Free” if they would let you in?]; the second relating to Protestant participation at Mass in our churches.

        In view of the new Blog format, I will let our esteemed Editor to have copies, which she might be able to put up for consideration.

        The Papa Stronsay Monks also published the first document when it was published.

        About the same time, Granada TV broadcast a series of “Masses” from St, Werburgh’s, Preston, Lancs., of services in which there was multi-religions participating, doubtful Consecration and all partipating in the reception of “Communion”.

        September 16, 2013 at 11:46 am
      • crofterlady

        Thanks sixupman for the documents. I am really shocked by this. I really had no idea this was allowed and even sanctioned!

        September 17, 2013 at 2:38 pm
      • editor

        Sixupman,

        I think I’m correct (as usual!) in saying that those documents were speedily removed form the diocesan website once word began to spread about them?

        September 17, 2013 at 6:48 pm
      • sixupman

        Possibly half correct! One remained on the E&W Bishops’ Conference web-site for some time [I will check current status] – the one regarding Catholic participation in Protestant services. The “Sunday Duty” one was taken-down after a while, but, in effect, hidden as I obtained a copy subsequent thereto.

        I have recently discovered that Eccleston Square is manned by salaried lay ‘religious spads’ imbued with a ‘Nuchurch’ agenda and vested interest in such. A full eight pages of the E&W 2012 Directory are devoted to ecumenical relations exposing a (still) burgeoning bureaucracy.

        That situation, supported by +++Murphy O’Connor and his co-conspirators, form part of the phalanx attempting to undermine the current Apostolic Nuncio +++Mennini. [See also current C.O.]

        Whether still published, or not, the documents expose the frame-of-mind prevailing within the E&W Conference and Diocese, with very few exceptions and that assertion is supported by, inter alia, the content of the 2012 ‘Directory’ mentioned above.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    • Petrus

      This surely cannot be right? Attending a C of E parish would be a sin. It certainly wouldn’t fulfil your obligation. You’d be as well staying at home and having tea and toast!

      September 16, 2013 at 4:30 pm
      • sixupman

        I did not say it would, the hierarchy stated it would.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:26 pm
      • Petrus

        Can you quote the exact document? I just don’t believe they did.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:30 pm
      • editor

        I will email them to you. Seeing is believing Which is why evolution is a non-starter.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:43 pm
      • sixupman

        Madam Editor has copies of the document(s) as does “Crofterlady”. Of course the edict does,did not apply in Scotland.

        September 17, 2013 at 7:35 pm
      • Petrus

        I’ve just read the documents. They DO say that in rural areas Catholics can play a part in the spiritual life of the local Anglican parish, but it DOESN’T say attending this parish fulfils the Sunday Obligation. It does say that Catholics should not receive “communion” in Protestant parishes.

        September 18, 2013 at 8:32 am
      • sixupman

        It depends how you interpret the weasel words which emanate from Eccleston Square and it certainly does imply that one can fulfil one’s Sunday/Holyday Duty by attendance at your local Protestant church/chapel or whatever.

        Are you in agreement with the tenor of both sets of documents?

        September 18, 2013 at 8:48 am
      • Petrus

        I think it’s sinful to attend Protestant worship in an active way. We may attend weddings/funerals in a passive way, ie. not singing hymns, joining in prayers etc.

        The fact of the matter is if there is no Catholic Mass available then there’s no obligation. I would wonder why Catholics are living in an area with no reasonable possibility of getting to Mass.

        September 18, 2013 at 8:55 am
      • editor

        Petrus,

        That’s modernist-speak for saying you can fulfil your Sunday obligation in the local Anglican parish. It’s unlikely the bishop would spell it out (he knows there folks like us around) but that’s essentially what he appears to be saying. Shocking.

        September 18, 2013 at 9:41 am
      • Petrus

        Editor ,

        See you at the Baptist church on Sunday?

        September 18, 2013 at 9:56 am
      • editor

        I was thinking more Presbyterian. Great sermons I believe!

        September 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm
      • Petrus

        Been there, done that, bought the sash and bowler hat!

        September 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Miles,

    I can tell you that attending Novus Ordo Masses constitute a psychological and spiritual trauma. But, how can I not go? It’s a valid Mass, though banal and protestantised, and I don’t want to persist in a state of mortal sin by not fulfilling my obligation? I’m not a Catholic yet, but I don’t want to sleep walk into a mental breakdown. There were guitars (which the Devil invented) and one Sunday there were tambourines. I just feel like standing on the pew, and screaming ‘apostates’ at the priest and the congregation and running up to the hospital to get sectioned. I do feel genuinely depressed, spiritually and mentally. There are Tridentine Masses on the internet. It may sound daft, but couldn’t I watch them and say the Communion prayers from my prayer book to undertake a spiritual communion?

    I’m going to get confirmed in the RCIA, then fulfil my obligation by attending the Saturday Vigil in the Extraordinary form in Halifax. I think avoiding the trauma of Novus Ordo is a good reason to attend the vigil. I might look into getting confirmed again by Bishop Fellay. Then I can come to tea and biccies with Editor. Tunnock teacakes here I come.

    September 16, 2013 at 11:48 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      As I said, there is no moral obligation, i.e. it would not incur the penalty of mortal sin.

      September 16, 2013 at 4:01 pm
      • Petrus

        Miles,

        Correct. We must always be mindful that it takes a while to get to that stage though. That’s why I can understand why eileenanne struggles with this. It’s an outrageous things to suggest, missing Mass, but the abuses and the history of the New Mass is even more outrageous.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Eileenanne is not struggling with this. I am quite clear about my obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and Holyday unless it is impossible.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:48 pm
      • Petrus

        So you are happy to discount St Pius V declaration that the Missal of Trent was binding in perpetuity?

        September 16, 2013 at 4:49 pm
      • Eileenanne

        I don’t think that is what he meant. He was tidying up a situation where many versions of the Mass were floating around. All he was doing was unifying them and getting rid of the unacceptable ones. The were quite a few changes to the missal over the ensuing years, The last before the introduction of what we now call the Ordinary Form was, I believe in 1962.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:54 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Petrus,

        if the inspired Word of God is not authoritative enough for you, I cannot see much point in discussing this further, but I leave you with a warning that you could be on a sticky wicket missing Mass just because your preferred form in not available. God bless,

        September 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm
      • Lily

        Eileenanne,

        You seem to be wanting to apply the letter of Canon Law (about Sunday Mass) rather than its spirit.

        September 16, 2013 at 7:24 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Lily,
        My conviction that we are obliged to attend Mass even if our preferred rite is not on offer stems from my belief in the Third Commandment (quoted above) and the First of the Commandments of the Church which specifies HOW we are to keep the Sabbath holy. I wasn’t thinking of Canon Law at all, either its letter or its spirit.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:32 pm
      • Petrus

        Wrong. Do you think if all he was doing was “tidying up” he would state that anyone who introduced a new missal would incur the wrath of St Peter and Paul? Hmm.

        There weren’t “quite a few” changes. There was a small number of minor changes. Never a New Mass.

        September 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Who decides whether a “minor change” is too big?
        Isn’t it true that mony a mickle maks a muckle?

        What DO SSPX priests tell people about whether to miss Mass or not when their preferred rite is not available?

        September 16, 2013 at 6:59 pm
      • Petrus

        Eileenanne,

        I’ve never asked. Why don’t you ask?

        Why don’t you compare the 1954 missal to the 1962 missal and see if you can spot the difference?

        Now….where is your evidence that a future pope revoked the Quo Primum and made the Novus Ordo Missae binding on all Catholics…?

        September 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm
      • Eileenanne

        I have never suggested that any particular version of the Mass is the only one binding on Catholics. The Church accepts a number of rites of the Mass. Attendance at any of them fulfills the Sunday obligation. We are free to choose which to attend, but MUST attend one of them every Sunday unless it is impossible to do so.

        I never realised there was a 1954 version of the Missal. Seems Pius XII didn’t think Pope Pius V meant his Mass to be unchanged for all time either.

        I am very surprised that you have never asked an SSPX priest whether you are justified in missing Mass when you cannot get to your preferred rite. I am unlikely ever to meet an SSPX priest, but if I ever do, I will certainly ask.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:29 pm
      • Petrus

        Eileenanne ,

        St Pius V didn’t say there couldn’t be minor changes….he said there couldn’t be a New Mass. Keep up!

        The Church, through St Pius V, declared that Catholics were obliged to attend the Roman Rite as promulgated at Trent. He made provision for other Rites that were over 200 years old at the time. He made it crystal clear that if anyone dared introduce a New Rite they would incur the wrath of Blessed Peter and Paul.

        So….I repeat….when did the Church state that the Novus Ordo Missae was exempt from the Quo Primum and binding on all Catholic?

        September 16, 2013 at 8:34 pm
      • Petrus

        Eileenanne,

        I wouldn’t really have any reason to ask that question. Unless I am ill I rarely miss Mass. However, I think I did ask that question about five years ago. If I remember correctly the priest said he couldn’t recommend attending the New Mass. For the reasons that have been presented to you for a few years now.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Of course you can come and have tea and biccies with me anytime, after Mass in the SSPX chapel – I thought that was against your religion though, not to mention the fact that I thought you lived in England for your many sins! (Joking! I love England)

      September 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    I never tell anyone it’s not a sin to attend the Novus Ordo Mass. I don’t think I can say that.

    September 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Why did the Society of St Pius V break away from SSPX? What’s wrong with the 1962 rite? I was under the impression that the SSPX celebrated the pre-1962 Mass?

    September 16, 2013 at 6:58 pm
    • Eileenanne

      There is nothing wrong with the 1962 Mass. It is one of the forms of Mass approved by the Church.

      September 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm
      • editor

        I can see that the question of the new Mass is taking up lots of space on this thread, so I’ve launched a fresh thread on the topic of our Sunday obligation. Please comment there from now on, please and thank you all!

        September 16, 2013 at 8:33 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Leo

    ‘And is a priest to have two spouses; the Church of Christ and a wife? How long would it be before liberals started talking about annulments, separations, and divorces for any married clergy’?

    My arguments exactly.

    September 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    • Eileenanne

      We already have some married priests. Exactly the same rules about annulments, separations and divorces apply to them as to any other married catholics.

      September 18, 2013 at 10:22 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Except that married priests or deacons who are widowed may not re-marry.

        September 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm
      • editor

        Eileenanne,

        Do you really want a parish priest who is separated from his wife? Who is watching the post for the divorce papers? Really?

        Anne Atkins, writer and broadcaster, married to an Anglican vicar, once said in her “Thought for the Day” slot on Radio 4, that her husband’s parishioners knew that his family comes first. Thus, on occasion, it might be necessary to pin a notice to the church door to say “no service – family emergency” .

        Would you be OK with that? Somehow it doesn’t sit comfortably with Christ’s exhortation to leave fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and wives” for His sake…

        I once stood aside after Mass, when visiting some friends in a convent because one of the Sisters I was visiting wanted a word with the priest. A few others queued up. I got chatting to a woman standing on her own, apparently waiting for the priest, but aside from the queue so I thought there was time for a quick chat. She sure was waiting for the priest, but not because she wanted an appointment or to ask for prayers for a special intention. She was his wife. Turned out, he was one of the Anglican-converts. Watching those (mostly women) waiting to speak to the priest and his wife standing aside watching, I reflected that in a trillion trillion YEARS I would never confide anything in any married priest. Can you name a woman in the world who would not torture him until he spilled whatever beans they’d confided in him? Forget it.

        The fact that married Anglican vicars have been permitted to be ordained (as long as they were already married) is just one more piece of evidence of the phenomenal “liberal” and modernist influence in the Church today; yet more evidence of the horrendous crisis afflicting the Church. Especially since it was emphasised by the English bishops at the time that this “exception” would not be used to demand an end to celibacy or permission for Catholic married priests. “Yeah right” I said at the time – and, WOW, have I been proved right -again! Over and over again, we find in conversations and on blogs, the very remark you’ve just made: we already have married priests… No mention of this as being an “exception”. It’s a case of “some priests are married – get over it!”

        September 18, 2013 at 10:49 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Where did suggest I thought married priests would be a good idea? I have never said here or anywhere else that I wanted to see an end to celibacy for priests. If it came to a vote I’d be at the forefront of the “No” campaign.

        September 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm
      • editor

        Eileenanne,

        Nobody suggested that you thought married priests would be a good idea. All I said was that people who DO support this aberration, quote, as you have done, the fact that there ARE now married priests due to the exception made for Anglican convert vicars, without ever mentioning that these WERE meant to be “exceptions”

        Me, I always add that no such exception should have been made at all. One of the people to whom I offered that view, was a very VERY angry young priest in the Diocese of Portsmouth who just could not see why the Anglican converts were allowed to be ordained as married priests when he couldn’t marry.

        If the Anglican vicars were genuine converts, they would have been accepting of the fact that they could not continue to work as clergy. End of. And, in fact, I believe most, if not all, were prepared for that eventuality. It was the usual disoriented zeal of the English hierarchy that, it seems to me, dreamt up this golden excuse to undermine celibacy, big time.

        I’m very glad to hear that you’d be voting “no” for an end to celibacy, Eileenanne. I see there’s still work to be done, however, on the other thread, to get you to vote “no” on 18th September next year! To battle, then, on the independence thread !

        September 18, 2013 at 11:49 pm
      • Eileenanne

        OK – I though your opening paragraph read as if I was being chided for approving of married priests when all I had done was acknowledge their existence.

        On independence I am so far in the undecided camp. We’ll see what happens as the campaign goes on, both here and in the real world.

        September 19, 2013 at 10:53 am
  • catholicconvert1

    I’m sure I’d love to have tea and biccies with you. As I’m a bit of a rebel I would go to the SSPX Chapel. Editor, I’m a pragmatic individual, and I’m slowly coming around to your way of thinking. I’ve seen the simple beauty and glory of the traditional Mass on the internet, and if I feel that by watching something online, then what will I feel when I see it personally. I’ll get back to you on Sunday after I’ve been to the NO. I’ll tell you what rotten eggs it throws at me.

    Because I’m a humble person, I may even come to support the SSPX. After my NO confirmation, I might even investigate a conditional confirmation by Bishop Fellay. Did I read someone saying that olive oil is not used? What do they use? Crisp n dry or dripping? I thought the Church used olive oil.

    September 18, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      “Coming round to my way of thinking” means I will treat YOU to the tea and biccies. Just say when!

      I note that you are “a humble person” – what, you too? WOW, we ought to write the book…

      September 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      My goodness CC, you keep on changing your positions and allegiences. Tell us, your’re a Liberal Democrat aren’t you?

      September 18, 2013 at 11:32 pm
  • 3littleshepherds

    What is a biccie? Is that a cookie or a donut?

    September 19, 2013 at 1:23 am
    • Miles Immaculatae

      A biscuit.

      September 19, 2013 at 1:33 am
      • editor

        Which I believe is a “cookie” in the USA.

        September 19, 2013 at 10:06 am
  • catholicconvert1

    Miles

    Only my mum calls me ‘CC’ thank you very much. Just joking. Listen, I ain’t a libdem. I’d sooner shoot myself. I may be booloo but I’m not stupid. I doubt as to whether i’ll vote. No party is pro-life enough for me. They all propagate sin. If I was going to vote, it would be UKIP. You should know I’m still finding my feet with Catholicism, so I’m happy to take (better) advice from veterans like your good self. Thats why I’m open minded and able to change.

    Editor,

    I’d love to write the book, so long as my name goes first.

    September 19, 2013 at 11:33 am

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: