Letters should include a genuine postal or email address, phone number and the style or title of the writer. Email: [email protected]
Due to space constraints, please keep correspondence below 250 words, longer letters may be published online
SIR – It was only after centuries of discussion, debate and deepening understanding of the nature of New Testament priesthood that celibacy became the norm for the Church in the West and partly for those in the East (Letter, December 15). Like everything else that is deeply rooted in Catholic discipline, devotion and practice, it is the fruit of a progressive universal adoption, continued like a stream of conscious enlargement of comprehension and perception of significance.
The modern contention that it – or anything else that does not fit with the contemporary zeitgeist of dismantling Catholic heritage and culture – can be abolished now with the stroke of a pen is unsupportable in reference to custom, theology and doctrinal development.
In his characteristically profound and philosophically well-argued essay on the development of Christian doctrine, Blessed John Henry Newman is clear that development is only valid and legitimate when it enlarges and extends understanding. If it narrows and diminishes what has previously been held sacrosanct and theologically admissible, it is a corruption.
Celibacy, though not of the essence of priesthood, is uniquely connected with it by both synodal, conciliar and magisterial legislation. Not only has it achieved primary acceptance in the Western Church, it has also been accorded the highest esteem and spiritual advantage by centuries of usage and reflection on every level.
Theological deference as well as wisdom and experience suggest that a major change away from it requires a great deal more investigation, and radical consideration of its origin, history and benefit from a preferential state to a prescribed requirement. This would seem to me more in keeping with how a sensus fidelium has traditionally operated in the Catholic Church, rather than a rush to the shredder with the historical evidence of successful and beneficial transition.
Fr Antony Conlon
Our Lady and St John, Goring on Thames, Oxfordshire
SIR – I am encouraged to see that my view of the current translation of the Mass is shared by Bishop Crispian Hollis (Home news, December 15).
In a press conference following the English and Welsh bishops’ last meeting, Archbishop Peter Smith stated that the conference had been advised by the Congregation for Divine Worship that Pope Francis’s document Magnum Principium did not take retrospective effect and, therefore, the current Mass translation could not be revisited.
With respect to the congregation, that is clearly wrong. Pope Francis concludes his motu proprio by stating that with effect from its commencement date “everything that I have decreed in this apostolic letter … must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary.”
This seems to be further supported by Pope Francis himself in his subsequent letter to the head of the congregation, Cardinal Sarah, where he stated: “Magnum Principium no longer supports [the idea] that translations must conform at all points to the norms of Liturgiam Authenticam, as was done in the past.”
In my own parish we have been examining the model put forward by the Canadian Fr James Mallon for changing a parish’s approach from one of maintenance to mission. Given the centrality of the Mass to our faith, it is hard to see how we will attract people to join a Church whose liturgy is expressed in terms which are sterile and, at times, incomprehensible.
I am sure that the bishops do not need to be reminded that the process of substituting a new translation would not be difficult as there is already a translation prepared by the International Commission for English in the Liturgy which was adopted by all English-speaking bishops’ conferences but which under Liturgiam Authenticam was rejected by the Vatican.
Under the new rules the English and Welsh bishops could implement this quickly, thus doing away with a translation which is both “appalling”, as Bishop Hollis put it, and also in some aspects tainted with the Pelagian heresy.
Martin Clitheroe
Bedford
SIR – A few days ago I was at Mass and there were clouds of incense wafting across the pews and up to the heavens. It reminded me of something.
Years ago I attended an Alpha course (the Anglican version) in a small village in Warwickshire. While the course was very good indeed – Scripture-based (and great food) – the latter part, following the prayer for baptism in the Spirit, may have been a
bit mishandled. Some of the facilitators were rather antagonistic to the older traditions, or anything that seemed outdated, and encouraged the enthusiastic newcomers to the spiritual life to find a “good” church, meaning a “happy-clappy” one with the minimum of props.
I had to interject to give them a little of my journey, and of why I did not jump ship to another more modern or exciting Church but rather stayed on as a Catholic after being “born again”. For I knew that what we have has been there for a long time, and, ignorant “cradle Catholic” though I was, I knew there must be a reason for that. And so, armed with a new view of the world that the Holy Spirit gives us, I began an exploration of the mysteries I had known only superficially.
This has been the greatest exploration and adventure of my life. The intimacy of the life in the Spirit does not replace the traditional; by no means. It enables you to understand traditions with greater depth, and so the reverence and awe of the Mass, for example, is greatly intensified. Reverence and intimacy are not opposites or conflicting but synergistic, as they were in apostolic times.
The baptism in the Holy Spirit is a wonderful gift to believers and the Church, but let’s not throw our tradition under the bus.
Stephen Clark
Manila, the Philippines
SIR – I write with regret in response to your interview with Cardinal Burke (December 1).
I find myself again in the sad and almost tragic position of correcting the correctors, and not for the first time. Doctrines are the verbal consensus of the believing community at a particular time responding to Christ’s message according to their understandings and concerns. They have a context and an experience out of which they grew and grow.
There is evidence that the teaching text on divorce in Matthew was a development from earlier teachings of Paul, implying an even greater freedom for Christ’s followers from the Law. Cardinal Burke should at the very least take a few lessons in pastoral servanthood and forgo the hardness of heart and wineskins of a different era.
Our Lord Christ Jesus is the Compassion and Mercy of God. He sends us the Spirit to be pastorally dynamic and for his followers to be light on a hill, salt of the earth, yeast of the bread. How far from the Spirit of the Gospels are the correctors really taking us?
Philip John Griffin
Dublin
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.