Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

40% of Scots priests want end to celibacy
The Sunday Times - Scotland ^ | 4/10/2005 | Stephen Breen

Posted on 04/10/2005 8:33:55 AM PDT by sionnsar

FOUR in 10 Catholic priests in Scotland believe that they should be allowed to marry — and 23% of them say the church should relax its ban on contraception and the ordination of homosexual clergy.

Following the death of Pope John Paul II last weekend, a Sunday Times survey has revealed widespread support for a more liberal line to be taken by his successor.

One in five priests also said that he would like to see the ordination of women. However, of the 80 priests interviewed — 10% of Scotland’s Catholic clergy — none said that the church should drop its opposition to abortion.

The church’s position on celibacy gained the highest level of support for change. Asked if the next pope should allow priests to marry, 41% said he should.

In 2002, before he became a cardinal, Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic church in Scotland, shocked traditionalists when he said that he “would have no problems with celibacy withering away”.

Many priests see no theological reason why they should not marry and have children. “It is only a church law and church law can be changed,” said Father Brian Lamb of St Patrick’s chapel in Shotts, Lanarkshire.

Father Dominic Quinn, of St Kevin’s chapel in Bargeddie, near Glasgow, said: “In Britain we have had some married Anglican clergy who have become priests and the church law of celibacy has not been applied to them, so it is not seen as a divine institution. The way the church has used this has changed throughout history.”

A change in the position on contraception, an issue that has done much to damage the credibility of the church during the reign of John Paul, was supported by 23% of the priests.

John Paul believed all contraception was “intrinsically evil” and that the use of condoms to help to prevent the spread of HIV was “morally illicit”.

Among the other findings of the survey, 20% of priests said they would support the ordination of women priests and 26% favoured allowing openly gay men to be priests — but only if they remain celibate.

Father Joe Mills, from St Mary’s chapel in Duntocher, said: “There could be an argument for women priests and, as for homosexuals, they make the same vows as heterosexual priests, so why not ordain them?” Sister Christine Schenk, of the US-based Catholic lobby group FutureChurch, which is pushing to make celibacy optional and to have women ordained as deacons, said the church was facing a shortage of priests. The worldwide Catholic population rose by 52% to 1.1 billion between 1973 and 2002, but the number of priests remained static at 405,000, she said.

“Our concern, and the concern of priests, was not that celibacy was not a good way of life and many were very happy, it was overwhelmingly about us not being able to keep having mass and the sacraments available to Catholic people if we don’t attract more priests.”

Jan Barlow, chief executive of Brook Advisory Centres, the sexual health charity for young people, said: “A relaxation of the Catholic church’s position on contraception would help more people to make informed choices about their sexual health, prevent unplanned pregnancies and protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.”

Last month James Bell became the first married priest to be ordained in Scotland. A former Scottish Episcopal minister, he converted to Catholicism and subsequently became a priest. oToday the Church of Scotland publishes a report calling for a “pragmatic” response to tackle the growing Aids crisis around the world.

The report calls on all Christians to face up to the issue more directly. It says: “Unless reticence is rapidly replaced with pragmatic and forward-looking approaches, HIV will spread more extensively in many countries which, until now, have escaped with only minor epidemics.”

Additional reporting: Holly Marney, Rory Gallivan


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: celibacy; priests; scotland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last
To: ninenot
in the meantime, be sure to check out job postings with the Gummint. They LOVE sensitive types like you

I really resent being called "sensitive". It offends me deeply. Nobody has ever accused me of being "sensitive" before. It really, really bugs me. I'll lie awake at night brooding about how offended I am at being called "sensitive". Boo hoo hoo.

121 posted on 04/13/2005 2:46:55 PM PDT by Rytwyng (we're here, we're Huguenots, get used to us...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Rytwyng; ninenot; sittnick
Black Elk, the historical figure, was a lay Catholic missionary to the Lakota people from approximately World War I to his death in about 1945. Since he had the responsibility of catechizing others, he was, no doubt, better catechized than you.

You do not begin to understand the concept of Christendom much less to understand the Catholicism which you abandoned. That may well be the fault of whomever had the responsibility within Catholicism of catechizing you. Nonetheless, you abandoned the Faith (your right as God gave you free will to do wrong if you choose to do so and to pay consequences) when your own idiosyncratic views of Scripture did not mesh with your own idiosyncratic views of Catholicism. Your Irish ancestors would not be proud of your "drinking the soup." On behalf of clans Duggan and Whalen, you are hereby anathematized and stripped of Irish identity.

As to Spain, if they tried to resist under force of arms, they would have died on the spot. You also fail to comprehend Spanish history.

Catholics are not called to be politically correct. If the historical Black Elk had pondered Torquemada, he should have had no problem with him. The Lakota were not slaughtered by, ummmm, Catholics or by the Inquisition. Check the history. Sheridan was not directly engaged against the Lakota. One Catholic who was a genuine military hero in service to the Vatican (leaving the University of Dublin to enlist in the Vatican army against the Masons Garibaldi, mezzini and Cavour) and then to the US Army was the last U. S. soldier killed at Little Big Horn, Major Matt Keough. His body was not mutilated by the Cheyenne who killed him because Catholic Lakota warriors stopped them, pointing out the cameo representing the Order of St. Gregory which fell out of Keough's shirt as the Cheyenne was preparing to slam a hatchet through his ribs. You could look it up in Evan Connell's Son of the Morning Star.

Little known is the fact that, although the original Black Elk was a warrior at Little Big Horn, his career as pagan shaman was still ahead of him and his baptism as a Catholic was forty years in the future.

Still lesser known is the fact that many of the Lakota warriors were baptized Catholics by the Jesuit Fr. De Smet. It was more fashionable in, ummmm, "reformed" circles to regard the Lakota and other Plains Indians simply as pagan savages to be exterminated because they were inconvenient.

Assuming as I do that the original Black Elk understood the concept of Christendom which prevailed in Spain in Torquemada's time, he ought to have approved it. In those days, rejection of Catholicism was treason against the state and punished accordingly. Not a particularly American idea but Spain got along very well with it. In modern times, Franco undoubtedly grasped the concept as you do not. Spain has suffered much since his death.

Once again, we do not have to search for Scriptural orders on whether to breathe. Scripture is one of several sources of authority but the only one acceptable in Protestant circles. Therefore, it is the only one you consult. Therefore, in the absence of clear Scriptural command, you are subject to error in having to either stick your head in the sand or to rely on your unauthorized authority. Why does any properly catechized Catholic in communion with the Holy See care about the head games that you must play with yourselves in order to make a contrived system seem to work?

Unless and until you understand Catholicism, please do NOT set foot in the Catholic Church again. We have more than our quota of people who worship their own imaginings. We need people who comply with the Teaching Magisterium and submit to hierarchical authority. We do NOT need people who make believe that whatever they imagine Scripture to mean and whatever they CHOOSE to believe can be substituted for Catholicism within the Church. Stay right where you are.

BTW, Tomas de Torquemada, O.P., inquired and rendered judgments with his colleagues. The Spanish government of Ferdinand and Isabella imposed the punishments.

122 posted on 04/13/2005 3:21:26 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

I'm not Torqued off about your tag line. Partly because the words meld together.


123 posted on 04/13/2005 3:30:53 PM PDT by dennisw ("Sursum corda")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Defiant; ninenot; sittnick
Defiant: I feel no need whatsoever to enforce Catholicism on any of you. God gave you free will, allowing you to choose between morality and error, and to sin or not and to receive reward or more, ummm, negative consequences.

Personally, I believe that people can go to heaven even if they are not Catholic and that the Church includes the reformed "separated brethren" who are of good subjective faith but simply hobbled by fewer graces, no Masses, fewer sacraments and theological confusion. I even think I have known a few. OTOH, if having one unified Christian religion requires one iota of theological compromise by the Roman Catholic Church with any "reformed" church, then, no thanks, now and forever.

You scare too easily.

Holy Mother the Church, acting through Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile who also both ought to be canonized as saints, drove Islam from Western Europe and specifically from Spain.

124 posted on 04/13/2005 3:34:19 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; murphE
I am a Roman Catholic and NOT a schismatic

Yes, yes, you proudly state that fact in your every other post.

Roger Mahoney is also a Roman Catholic and NOT a schismatic, at least according to Rome, the "Living" Magisterium. You are not necessarily among a select few.

You are defined by your acts and not by your self-serving imagined self-descriptions.

Since when has assistance at FSSP Masses been defined as an "act" of schism?

125 posted on 04/13/2005 4:07:38 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Rytwyng; Defiant; ninenot
Mark in the Old South and I do not get along particularly well but I will give him credit for being a MUCH more textured and hard core Catholic than you might like to imagine.

St. Bartholomew's Day "Massacre": Despite her being of the Medici family, Catherine de Medici was not often accused of acting in the interest of the RCC so much as in the interest of Catherine de Medici (mother of Charles IX). An attempt to assassinate Admiral Coligny whom her son preferred to Catherine had to be covered up. The "massacre" was perpetrated to distract public attention and that of Charles IX. France was a Catholic country. The Huguenots were in treason for refusal to be Catholic as required by French law. This again is a facet of Christendom which is not evidently within your ken. Denying history does not change history.

Hey, if you think the St. Bartholomew's Day "massacre" was something, you should have seen the Thirty Years' War.

We are quite certain and have no need for or regard for manifest heresy and, yes, we are hostile to heresy. As to you guys quoting the Bible, we don't need you to quote the Bible. We don't need to pay attention to you quoting he Bible. We have popes and a Catholic Teaching Magisterium to rely on and need not rely on the heretical views of every Tom, Dick and Hillary of a self-appointed Bible interpreter to tell us about the Christian Faith. We were there fifteen hundred or so years before Luther was a gleam in his parents' eyes and have been there ever since, whatever you may think the Bible is telling you.

I think you may find that many Jews here will regard me as an ally of Jews generally and Israel in particular. I too have used the Torquemada tag line for years an done so while posting in defense of Jews, Judaism and Israel. I have had disagreements with Jews on other matters but never on defending them against their critics here.

Name three Jews that Torquemada killed, much less "murdered" or withdraw that libel. The Spanish government, maybe. Torquemada no.

Have you considered that well catechized Catholics will always be allergic to the preachings of heretics in love with their heretical notions as to Scripture? Do you have any evidence that we ever asked for your preachiness?????

Have a party preaching to others of your inclinations. Do you remember that "mean spirited" Guy who drove the money changers from the Temple?

Your half-baked psychology resembles nothing so much as the politically correct theory of "homophobia" that those who ex[press a natural revulsion for homosexual acts are somehow assumed to be closet fags, "uncertain" etc. I harbor NO "inner doubts." I don't have to. Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church on Peter and promised to be with it (the RCC and no other) all days until the end of the world.

Thus the RCC does not need to apologize to its heretical critics or to assume a Kumbaya cuddliness towards them. Don't expect either. Normally we ignore your sects unless and until you attack or distort Catholicism, especially as a refugee from it.

The pattern is: You falsely get preachy and we resist being preached at by those outside the fullness of Catholicism.

126 posted on 04/13/2005 4:09:34 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II
Attendance at FSSP Masses is NOT schism. Nor is attendance at Institute of Christ the King Sovereign priest (our local version) or at the Tridentine Masses said in the Diocese of Rockford by diocesan priests (each and every one of whom have Bishop Doran's permission and encouragement to say the Tridentine Mass) or by the bishop himself or by his chancery officers. Strawman argument! May it be laid to rest.

Is being Catholic somehow not a source of pride? What is not a source of pride is adherence to the SSPX schism. If you do not adhere, you are being waaaay tooooo sensitive. The pope said they are in schism and so they are until some future pope reverses Ecclesia Dei's sanctions (may that never occur!).

If you are attending FSSP Masses and NOT adhering to the SSPX, then you too are in the same Church as Roger Mahoney and not in schism. As the Superior Court of California will probably determine in the pending cornucopia of pedeasty lawsuits against Mahoney and the LA Archdiocese, adherence to SSPX is not the only sin that Church leaders might fall into. The answers to discovery in those cases should cook Mahoney both personally and as ordinary of LA.

Rome is a "Living Magisterium" or no papal pronouncement or dogmatic definition since the Resurrection would have any force whatsoever. I don't think you want to defend such a proposition.

I am by no means sinless but I submit to Church teaching. On that score, as to Mahoney, and charitably speaking, there is no proof that Mahoney submits. Call his an undeclared schism or, perhaps, the old heresy of Americanism as defined by Pope Leo XIII of happy memory.

127 posted on 04/13/2005 4:22:43 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Attendance at FSSP Masses is NOT schism.

Of course, it isn't. But like the good lawyer you are, you toss out the false charge in front of the "jury", only to retract it later when called on it.

Good job, Counselor.

128 posted on 04/13/2005 6:32:31 PM PDT by Grey Ghost II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Grey Ghost II; ninenot; Salvation; sittnick; St.Chuck; Mershon; marshmallow; patent
I dare you to cite the specific language of any post of mine in which you claim that I have called mere attendance at FSSP Masses as, in and of themselves, being acts of schism. If not, I will expect your retraction of your repeated false charge against me.

I would also remind you that I was married at a Tridentine Mass authorized by the late Archbishop John Whealon in 1986 two years before Ecclesia Dei and have not been allergic to Tridentine Masses at any time in my life.

Where you are coming from seems to be from a position of justifying SSPX schismatics regardless of where you attend Mass or in what rite. Let's try a few questions in addition to the demand for substantiation or retraction.

Is SSPX a schism as noted by Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei?

Were Marcel LeFebvre and his Econe Four (illicitly consecrated bishops) excommunicated by John Paul II?

If either of the answers to the last two questions or both is in the negative, what makes you think you know better than John Paul II or that you have or have had authority over him?

I will look forward, probably in vain, to your answers to ALL FOUR questions.

129 posted on 04/13/2005 9:14:09 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Please pardon me for answering questions you were directing to another. I think some shades of grey are allowed here.

Is SSPX a schism as noted by Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei?

Objectively, it would seem to fulfill the definition under Canon Law. However, there are enough "state of mind" exceptions carved out that we do not know if Lefebvre qualifies for the "subjective" exception. Still, I believe we should assume the objective barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fact that Lefebvre originally signed a deal before backing out seems to lessen the degree of "emergency." The secondary fact that he lived for several more years (albeit in bad health) but made no move to normalize the situation reflects badly. The regular Catholic's perception of this is further muddied by the large number of priests and bishops who are in what Cardinal Ratzinger called "material schism."

Were Marcel LeFebvre and his Econe Four (illicitly consecrated bishops) excommunicated by John Paul II?

No. They were not. Pope John Paul II announced that they had incurred a latae sententiae ("self-imposed") excommunication by means of their act. That is not the same as Pope John Paul II actually excommunicating them. Personally, I would have preferred a formal decree, but that could have involved an appeal and trials and all that, and I don't think the curia wanted to get involved in that. To me, it would have made the situation a lot less ambiguous. I find latae sententiae excommunications problematic, because it is sometimes impossible to tell when they occur. For instance, a successfully-procured abortion carries with it an automatic latae sententiae excommunication. However, it turns out that at one Michigan Avenue Chicago abortion mill in the '80's, that false positive pregnancy test results were given, and "abortions" were performed in girls and women who were not even pregnant!! So, technically, though in a state of serious sin (that is acting to abort), since there was no abortion, they would not have been excommunicated.
130 posted on 04/14/2005 6:52:15 AM PDT by sittnick (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
I would have preferred a formal decree, but that could have involved an appeal and trials and all that, and I don't think the curia wanted to get involved in that.

Exactly, no opportunity for the accused to present their case, no opportunity to openly define the reasons for the belief that a state of emergency exists, and no opportunity to be publicly vindicated, how clever of the curia.

I find latae sententiae excommunications problematic because it is sometimes impossible to tell when they occur.

Apparently this is not a problem for some people who believe themselves to be omniscient with respect to the hearts, minds and motives of others.

131 posted on 04/14/2005 7:17:13 AM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
On behalf of clans Duggan and Whalen, you are hereby anathematized and stripped of Irish identity.

You have neither the authority nor the power to do that. Pog mo thon, agus teigh go hifreann! (Sorry, I don't know how to do sine fada in html)

Why does any properly catechized Catholic in communion with the Holy See care about the head games that you must play with yourselves in order to make a contrived system seem to work?

"Contrived system" !!!!!! You are the one who follows a faith that has to generate paragraph after paragraph, page after page, of circumlocutions to get around the fact that a lot of what they do, clearly violates the plain sense of scripture. Occam's razor suggest that "ye make void the word of God by your traditions".

Unless and until you understand Catholicism, please do NOT set foot in the Catholic Church again.

Fear not, I only go there for weddings and funerals.

Not too long ago I was actually musing about the possibility of returning to some sort of more liturgical form of worship (Catholic or Orthodox) and I wondered if I could ever get past the flat contradictions between Scripture and tradition that forced me out in the first place. But the Catholic attitudes I've encountered here at FR -- attitudes that I previously would not have believed could exist in the 21st century -- have convinced me that there's much MORE than just a problem of Bible interpretation. You, sir, are the best reason I know NOT to be Catholic.

Tomas de Torquemada, O.P., inquired and rendered judgments with his colleagues. The Spanish government of Ferdinand and Isabella imposed the punishments.

Yeah, and Judge Greer just rendered the judgements; he didn't actually pull Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Nice try. Old Torq is still responsible for the deaths of many Jews and "heretics".

This thread is a waste of time. Say what you want from now on; you can even have the last word. I have better things to do.

132 posted on 04/14/2005 9:50:33 AM PDT by Rytwyng (we're here, we're Huguenots, get used to us...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Rytwyng; ninenot

Proud to be of service in clarifying for you just how Catholic you are not. Catholic liturgy is the making imminent upon the altar of the one-time only sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross and not a mere yearning for ceremony.


133 posted on 04/14/2005 10:38:35 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
Hey, my friend, who is the lawyer (albeit recovering) here?

I disagree generally with your post (this a rarity indeed!) but will not give the schizzies aid and comfort by taking it up with you extensively in public. Suffice it to say that SSPX schismatic claims of "necessity" are ludicrous, that such claims amount to a rejected plea of insanity in Marcel's case, that JP II is the Supreme Legislator of Canon Law, that nothing whatsoever in the demeanor of the schismatics suggests their Catholicism, that the existence of other disobedient miscreants who are of different persuasions than the schismatics does NOT justify the disobedience of the schismatics.

All in all, I am sticking with JP II on this matter until he or a legitimate successor tells me otherwise. It does seem rather obvious that JP II regarded Marcel and the Econe 4 as excommunicated and that he had declared SSPX a schism. It is also my hope that nothing short of absolute public surrender and penance and renunciation by SSPX and the excommunicati will trigger the slightest leniency towards either or both. Strict discipline needs to be restored ASAP and relenting on the judgments of JP II is NOT a good place to begin.

134 posted on 04/14/2005 10:52:16 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: murphE; ninenot

JP II was as knowledgeable as he needed to be as to the crimes of Marcel, the Econe 4 and their schismatic ecclesiastical love slaves.


135 posted on 04/14/2005 10:54:26 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Calumny - the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.

I will no longer respond to you for I refuse to be an accessory by provocation.

136 posted on 04/14/2005 11:00:10 AM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: sittnick

Consider yourself pardoned! My ring and sealing wax!


137 posted on 04/14/2005 11:12:48 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: murphE
What I don't understand, murphE, is that if you belong to the SSPX, and you truly believe that Abp. Lefevbre acted in a justifable, well-intentioned manner, what does it matter to you, if he, or you by extension, are called schismatic? He probably didn't care, so why should you? Not trying to be provactive, just wondering why that seems to be such a sore spot?

Technically, the EO are schismatics, do you let that influence your objectivity concerning their issues of disagreement with the RC Church? I don't. If I were a member of the SSPX, you could call me schismatic, skizzie, Lefevbre lap dog from morning till night, and you'd have to pay me to give a whit.

I think that I have Abp. Lefevbre to thank for the Tridentine,in large measure, and I think he accomplished more than he was aware of at the time. God may have used him specifically for what he accomplished. Who can know for sure?

Finally, if, as Pope John Paul II was wont to believe that salvation outside the RC Church is possible (and I agree, based on my 1952 Baltimore Catechism), then salvation is possible for members of the SSPX too. Why sweat the schismatic classification, if you believe your view of present day RC is just and justifiable?

138 posted on 04/14/2005 11:20:38 AM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
I figured you'd disagree at least in part. There ARE non-SSPX canon lawyers of some note (and I am not talking about Chris Ferrarra) who agree with me on this. I think the inter-regnum will be a good opportunity to see who wants to be separated from Rome because it lets them do whatever they want and who is looking to be able to live as a traditonal Catholic without unreasonable and perhaps illicit restrictions from the local bishop.

It will be interesting to see if those who so publicly wish to "resist to the face" will continue resisting out of habit from Day 1 of the new papacy. If they do, then your point is well taken with at least some of the more visible SSPX sympathizers.

In my position I get e-mails from EVERY gradation out there, and a lot these folks (they tend to be quiet) are more bewildered, frustrated and confused than anything. These are confusing times. After my company's president issued the call to prayer for the repose of the soul of Pope John Paul II, I received e-mails asking "how is it that he could not already be in heaven?" and others insisting that he is certainly "roasting in hell." Neither approach does the Holy Father a favor, and he would have been the first to discourage it. Most people, including many who attend the SSPX, do NOT have a schismatic mindset, and do not voice the contempt for the Holy Father which is often heard from the more vocal of the SSPX adherents.
139 posted on 04/14/2005 12:37:29 PM PDT by sittnick (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
What I don't understand, murphE, is that if you belong to the SSPX

I don't belong to the SSPX. The SSPX is a priestly society, I am a lay person.

and you truly believe that Abp. Lefevbre acted in a justifiable well-intentioned manner, what does it matter to you, if he, or you by extension, are called schismatic?

Well, in the interest of truth and justice it bothers me, as it should bother all Christians; they slander the name of a holy Bishop, and many, many holy priests. The people that spread half truths and lies influence others to believe them. They also spread a false understanding of obedience, which the enemies within the Church use to their advantage.

Here is an example of what effect that can have. A parishioner of an SSPX chapel has an elderly friend who requested to have traditional last rites, Extreme Unction from a Traditional priest. The diocese refused this request, a dying woman's request. My priest traveled quite a distance to see her in the hospital. Her son had such a hatred of Tradition and for the SSPX, and he attempted to prevent my priest from seeing the dying woman, his mother, with physical force, and my priest was carrying the Blessed Sacrament of his person. Finally a kind nurse talked the son down, and the son reluctantly permitted his mother's request to be fulfilled, although he refused to allow her to have a traditional requiem mass. The SSPX priests have to face things like that every day, just for believing and living the faith the same way my mom did, the way my grandmother did, and the way my great grandmother did.

The object of the game is not to address any valid arguments about the cause and nature of the crisis in the Church, it is to shut down anyone who presents an argument contrary to their party line group think by discrediting them through accusations. For example, if you criticize the NO, or the completely novel changes in the forms of all of the sacraments, "you are schismatic", if you criticize Vatican II, "you are schismatic" etc. These statements of course are all false, but some people accept them, and in essence they say "shut up you have no right to speak."

Meanwhile the crisis in the Church continues, more people are lead astray, scandalized or fall into apostasy and indifferentism.

Why sweat the schismatic classification

I can assure you that the opinion of any particular individual on this forum of me does not cause me to lose any sleep. I just become angry at the deceptive attempts made by some to silence the voice of others and to slander truly holy priests. After all, truth is the only thing worth arguing about.

140 posted on 04/14/2005 12:54:10 PM PDT by murphE (Never miss an opportunity to kiss the hand of a holy priest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson