Bishop to defend celibacy in debate two days before Pope’s visit

I need people to stand up and be counted. I have had so many private comments from people who have said that what I am doing with this debate is great, including some people 'high up' in the Catholic Church but are unable to comment in public. For all of you who can speak publically, please come along and do so.

Brian Eyre's comment to Marty is particularly relevant. He said:
'I cannot see how you can say that the disciples were celibates after they were called. Have you never read the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians chapter 9 v. 5 - 7 "Don't I have the right to follow the example of the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter, by taking a Christian wife with me on my trips"?
It's so clear from this that they continued to be married after they were called.'

I need people at the debate who can counteract so-called 'historical' comments. Come on all you professors and academics, get behind me!

John Deery
www.conspiracyofsilence.co.uk

With relation to the article on Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham defence of celibacy two days prior to the Pope's visit I would like to submit my comments.
I am a Catholic married priest. I was happy as a celibate priest for 17 years, I am happy as married catholic priest for the past 27 years. I belong to the Roman Latin Rite.
I agree with Jack Valero when he says that no one is forced into the priesthood just as no one is forced into getting married.
Most married priests are part of the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite in countries such as The Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and the Ukraine.
20% of all catholic priests in the world are married of whoom 150,000 belong to the Latin Rite.
One of the arguments against married priests is that they will be divided between family and pastoral committments. This is not true.
If you look at Lenin's term of office, it has been estimated that in the first ten years of his reign close on 250,000 priests and religious were put to death along with many lay christians. This witness of the Eastern Church priests gives more than enough assurance that married priests can be every bit as committed as celibate priests.
Ever since the day I got married I have continued to do pastoral ministry while holding down a secular job. I work in shanty towns and poor communities giving spiritual and human development assistance to these communities. I have not found that the sacrament of matrimony has hindered me in anyway in serving the people. My wife has been a blessing to me and thanks to her I am still active as a priest.
It can be seen and verified from all walks of life that the most demanding of employments succeed best with the help of a loving family.

Brian Eyre (Recife, Brazil)

Get real everyone! You lot need to join in the real debate: http://www.secularism.org.uk

I am now back in the UK now and really looking forward to the celibacy debate on 14 September. We announced last week via a press release that stand-up comedian and broadcaster, Frank Skinner, is taking part in the debate against the motion. In other words Frank is pro celibacy for the Catholic priesthood. It is certainly shaping up to be a very interesting evening.

I have had several emails whilst I have been away asking how people can book tickets. The easiest way is via:

www.conspiracyofsilence.co.uk

Follow the link on the Home page which takes you to the Odeon cinema West End and you can pick where you sit.

I love the different opinions on this blog - some a bit too personal, some mad, some very interesting - keep blogging folks! There's nothing like a good argument and on Tuesday 14 September, two days before the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI to the UK, we will have just that. Celibacy is a hot topic and is not going to go away. Let's debate it calmly and intelligently. After all, we are all Catholics.

John Deery
Writer/Director
Conspiracy of Silence

LivingProof,

Brave words! Confidently written! Will you still be as confident when you are at the hour of your death and it is too late to go back and alter anything? You seem to have embraced a set of opinions that are contrary to what the Church teaches. Why not balance the scale and gather some opinions from the other end of the spectrum, as EditorCT suggests? Why not explore what the Church teaches - not only about Celibacy, but about Salvation - it might even strike a chord with your inner self.
Remember this advice as the years slip by (and they seem to slip by faster as you get older), and it might stand you in good stead in time to save your soul.

What happened to Saul on the road to Damascus could yet happen to you.

It is important, is it not, Catholics to be able to discuss issues that have repercussions for everyone and celibacy is most certainly one of those subjects. Why is the Church so hung up about sex and human sexuality? All this talk about 'following in the footsteps of Christ.' The chances are that Christ was married. The gospels have been altered to fit in with a political agenda. They are not accurate historical documents. People give the gospels a lot more authority than they deserve. There were at least 32 gospels and many from women. Where have they gone? In the Vatican's vault, probably.

If the real life of Christ were to be revealed the Church would crumble because it's built on sand and not a 'rock. Yes, no doubt, Christ was a great man and ahead of his time but he was just that - a MAN. He may have been more aware than most and was almost certainly in touch with a 'higher being', a universal force, thought-energy, call it what you will.

Please, you intelligent people who are blogging on here, move away from your superstitious musings and get real. Religion is history. Celibacy is not achievable long-term (what about masturbation, does that count?), and you all would be better off trying to bring about peace in the world than getting people to live out their lives in fear with the false promise of a 'better life' when we are dead. Utter rubbish!

LivingProof,

It is not the Church that's hung up on sex - it's people like the Tina Beatties, and Fr John McGowans of this world, in concert with the secular media, who are hung up on sex - not the Church.

As for the rest of your post - nonsense. There isn't a single shred of evidence anywhere that Christ was married and it is simply not true to say that the Gospels were altered to fit in with a political agenda. That's an old chestnut, put forward by pretend Scripture Scholars like Rudolph-the-red-nosed-reigndeer- Bultmann, who had their own agenda - which was to undermine the divinity of Christ. There were plenty of Useful Idiots ready to drink in their theories - don't you go joining their ranks.

And I don't know where you get the idea that Catholics live our lives in fear - baloney! Unfortunately, there are plenty of surveys to show that there are more Catholics in prisons (on occasions!) than any other group - hardly evidence that we worry ourselves to death about the fires of Hell. So, don't be daft.

Why not do some serious reading about the Catholic Faith instead of spouting propaganda? Since you don't appear to believe in God, let alone His Church, why not start with the book I've already recommended to the other atheists on here - Antony Flew's "There is A God" (he was originally an atheist - described on the book cover as "the world's most notorious atheist...")

Then we'll talk.

FriarLawrence

The content of your post could be summarised as:

"Do what thou will't shall be the whole of the law".

This is a philosophy propagated by Aleister Crowley, arch-Satanist of the 1920s. Not many people know that, which goes to illustrate how successful Satan has been in gathering souls into his camp without them even suspecting.
Raoul3456 is quite right to say that the teachings of the Church are there to inspire rather than to control.
Celibacy is not a state forced upon priests. They all know what is expected of them before they even enter the Seminary. Celibacy is a state they wish to enter in order to be better able to serve God. Control does not come into it.

There is no god. That's it. Simple. As for celibacy, what a ridiculous idea trying to prevent people from having sex with other people. Whethyer that's man-on-man, woman-on-woman or a combination of both! People are people. Let them do what they want. It's no one else's business apart from the individual concerned. All long as they are consenting adults let people do what they do. The Catholic Church needs to butt out of people's lives and stick to insense and made up prayer books.

FriarLawrence, and our other atheist friends,

In addition to the Antony Flew book I recommended earlier, here is some Spirituality Light for your amusement...
http://www.ourlighterside.com/stuff/atheistinwoods/

Enjoy!

FriarLawrence,

May I recommend a book to you, written by one of the world's most notorious atheists - you'll have heard of him: Antony Flew. The book is entitled "There is (No) A God" ("No" is scored through and "A" inserted above) because, as it says on the dust cover, this book is about "How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind."

Having recommended Flew (published by Harper Collins) allow me now to very briefly highlight the flaw in your argument. "Flew" ... "Flaw"... Get it?

If it's a case of anyone can have sex, whether "man-on-man/woman-on-woman" (as you put it) how do we protect children? And, should we be teaching children about all the possibilities - such as humans with animals, to put it as delicately as I can. Because, that's all the rage right now, or so I'm told by some Anglican friends who are deeply worried about the content of school sex education, lyrics in pop songs etc. (Don't blame me; the last lyric I can remember from a pop song went something like "Ger offa my blue suede shoes..."

So, if you seriously believe that whatever people want they must be allowed to have, in the sphere of sexual behaviour, what do we tell the children and their pets? Shouldn't we protect children and animals?

But be careful, FriarLawrence, for once you admit an exception to the rule - you're in the dangerous area of having to face the question of who has the authority to make the rules. Clue: all roads lead to Rome...

You are wrong. The Catholic Church is imposing nothing on people. It is merely trying to enlighten our consciences so that we can do good and shun evil. How could the Church not address the ethical dimensions of the most intimate relationship available to human beings? Its teachings on sexuality are not meant to 'control' but rather to inspire people to use the great gift of sexuality with selfless love.

Emma,

There have been only two global conflicts in the history of humanity, WWI (1914-1918) & WWII (1939-1945). Between them they claimed in the region of 55 million lives, a higher body count than all previous conflicts combined. Neither World War had its origin in religion.

It is estimated that Stalin murdered a conservative 30 million people during his reign in Russia. Stalin was not a religious man.

Mao Tse-Tung killed approximately 14-20 million Chinese people through starvation in his 'Great Leap Forward' campaign. Mao was not religious.

The dropping of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hirroshima and Nagasaki killed 100,000 instantly and left a further 95,000 to die slowly and painfully from the effects of gamma radiation. Religion played no part in the decision to drop these bombs.

I will not enter into the debate surrounding more recent conflicts, including Iraq and Afghanistan, which are also non-religious wars. Suffice it to say, Emma, that it is only with the decline of Christian morality, which began in earnest around the early part of the 20th century, that the world has been subjected to the greatest horrors since its foundation.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheistic despots. Nothing in the history of Christianity can compare with the evils these men inflicted on humanity. One day we will add the name of North Korea's dictator to their ranks and know the full body count from that country.

In the meantime, you may wish to consider the body count from abortion in today's post-Christian civilisation. This and other medical deviations from morality, such as euthanasia (called mercy killing!), genetic interference with pregnancy and cloning, are all practices of secular atheism, not of religion. They mirror in every respect the eugenics programmes begun by Stalin & Hitler.

So you see, Emma, when people turn en masse from the true God, it is inevitable that suffering and chaos will follow. Everyone becomes his/her own God with his/her own moral compass, or rather with no real morality at all, just a free serving of the disordered passions of fallen human nature.

Tragically, what results from the troubled conscience of such self-serving types is generally an outpouring of hostility towards Christ and His Church rather than the repentence desired by Christ of the wayward soul.

Emma,

Just pause a while and look around you - look at the infrastructure, the traffic, the people going about their business, the commerce behind the scenes. It does rather look as if mankind is in charge, doesn't it? And now look at the television news of 15 million people in Pakistan whose lives have been thrown into chaos, if not utter disaster and even death. Does this not suggest to you that mankind is rather puny after all, and not quite as in control as it might seem?
There is a Creator behind all you can see, and there is a behaviour system available to us to help us relate to that Creator. He sent His son, Jesus Christ, to live amongst us to reveal to us what we need to know and do. He gave each of us the Grace to learn about it, but also the free will to ignore it if we wanted.
Religion (to use a more familiar term than "behaviour system") is very relevant today, and even more so as society becomes more and more complex. It does have value, and fortunately there is a repository for what we need to know and do. It is the Catholic Church, with its Tradition, Holy Scripture and its Sacred Magisterium. Celibacy is just one of the facets embraced by the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is what guides and motivates us guys whom you are telling to "grow up".
Pause, and think about it, Emma - are we really nothing more than chemical accidents walking about between the times of conception and death? Really?

religion is past tense. it has no value in a modern society. any person who is leading a normal life doesn't need religion. religion is only for saddos and people who can't cope. when you die you die. the bible, the cause of most wars, is totally made up by men who are out to control women. as far as celibacy is concerned that should be up to the individual concerned whether or not he is a priest. telling people how to be sexually is just another form of control and, no doubt, was yet another MAN made rule. as someone else said below, grow up guys. emma h.

Emma,

It is good to see (alleged) atheists like yourself and Richard coming onto a Catholic blog - thank you very much for dropping by. I say "alleged" because few people are truly atheists. I recall the BBC news reporter concluding his report on the Beslan school hostage crisis (2004 or thereabouts) with the words: "there are no atheists in Beslan tonight." I doubt if there are many in Pakistan today, either.

Please God, you (and Richard) will come to a realisation of the truth and beauty of the Catholic religion - in the very nature of things, there can only be one true religion and this is it! Don't fall for the media propaganda. Check out the facts for yourself. Read - you'll find very good, trustworthy books on Catholicism available from outlets advertised on the Catholic Truth website, Links section. See www.catholictruthscotland.com

Your comments on priestly celibacy are perfectly understandable. Only in the light of Faith, which has to be fully embraced, not treated as some kind of permanent journey or search engine, is it possible to appreciate the importance and beauty of the celibate priesthood.

Contrary to what most atheists appear to think, it is not irrational to believe in God and to have Faith in things unseen. It would be, in fact, entirely unreasonable to refuse to believe in Catholic dogmas, such as the Holy Trinity simply because we cannot arrive at these truths by our human intelligence, when we know that our human reason is, and always will be, limited. It is, in fact, by recognising that our human reason is finite, is limited, that we can accept and believe that there are truths which are beyond our human understanding.

Anyway, Emma, it's too much to expect you to understand the Church's requirement of celibacy for priests, given your atheistic perspective. Indeed, George Bernard Shaw once said: "It is difficult, if not impossible, for men to think differently from the spirit of the age in which they live.."

I'd settle for you enjoying a good experience of Catholic conversation on this blog, with elementary human courtesy if not Christian charity from the bloggers here, in the sincere hope that you will be drawn a bit closer to the truths of salvation, held in trust by Christ's Church.

So, enjoy, Emma!

On the contrary, religion is very much the future. Read God is Back: How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge. It is perfectly possibly to be both modern and a believer. Your binary opposition - religious=bad, non-religious=good - is very crude. It seems you may have some intellectual "growing up" to do yourself.

Torkay & Lep,

I couldn't have put your points better. Sadly, it will not stop the dissenters from questioning Christ's Holy Church. Still, the truth is there if they want to see it.

Annie,

There is a distinct suggestion in your post that it is acceptable for the tail to wag the dog - a suggestion that if enough people complain often enough, and long enough, and loudly enough, the Church will see reason and conform with their wishes.

This is not the case. It won't conform with majority rule, only with Christ's rule. End of.

Nobody is forcing those people to continue being practising Catholics. Once they reject a solemn item of the Church's teaching, they become Protestants and they ought to reconsider their position. Either they accept the teaching, or they face up to being Protestants.

They cannot pick and mix which bits they accept.

It is not uncharitable to say this, and it is not moralizing to uphold the teaching of the Church.

To finish the quote below (I was afraid I had exceed the character count. Silly me.) "In the Middle Ages Pope Gregory VII made a determined stand against the marriage of priests, prohibiting those who had wives from performing any ministerial work. The Council of Trent declared the marriage of priests to be invalid. The Apostles, after their vocation, left all they had; the great prophets, Elias, Eliseus, Jeremias, St. John Baptist, lived a celibate life. A parish priest must devote himself wholly to the salvation of souls; he must administer the sacraments to the sick at the risk of his life, he must assist the poor, admonish his flock, and offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass with a pure heart."

Well said, Leprechaun. This, sadly, is the position the Church has put itself in with its fraudulent and foolhardy posture of "openness to the world" at and since Vatican II. Now the world, perceiving that the Church is open to dialoging about human opinions, and actually considers them worthy of consideration, thinks it can dictate terms to the Church, based on worldly "wisdom," not on Divine Revelation.

At any rate, here is a quote on celibacy from "The Catechism Explained," p. 520 - 521: "The secular clergy are pledged to obey their bishop and lead a life of celibacy...The celibacy of the clergy was first made obligatory at the Synod of Elvira, in 306. During the first 3 centuries there was no need of this law, because priests voluntarily abjured marriage, out of respect for the sacredness of their office. Only at times when the lack of priests was most keenly felt, were married men admitted to the priesthood; but after ordination no one was permitted to marry. Only in isolated and very rare instances, for weighty reasons, has the Pope been known to dispense priests from their vow; and then they had to give up their benefices, and were debarred from all exercise of their sacerdotal functions."

Richard,

I feel truly sorry for you. You attempt to interject human arguments in matters pertaining to a supernatural gift that you clearly don't have. How, then, can you possibly understand a mystery that is beyond human reason, though not opposed to it. You debate from the level of the animal passions. We, on the otherhand, debate from the much higher level of divine grace. The gulf between the two mindsets is unbridgeable save for that free gift of God. If you pray for it you will receive it. In the meantime, don't knock that which you cannot hope to comprehend.

My advice is to be a little more objective. At least study the claims of the Catholic Church before rejecting them in so hostile a manner. And remember, it is thanks to the Catholic Church that science, the arts, education and the health service are in existence today. So the Church is not just about telling people what they can and cannot do. Do some homework.

By the way, if you want to identify those responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths and human attrocities in the world, then look not to religion but to despotic atheists beginning with the Roman emperors right through to Hitler and Stalin. They, like you, accused the Church while they slaughtered hundreds of millions between them. You will never find even a remote comparison with the crimes of these people in the Catholic religion, I assure you. You may also wish to weigh just exactly how many babies are murdered in the womb every year by your fellow atheists. Get your head straight!

Annie,

You seem to be troubled by the Church's "black and white" moralising. Here's how Our Lord puts it: "You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.." It doesn't come more black and white than that, except perhaps for the Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Notice, Annie, the absence of dialogue on God's part when He lays down His Commandments. If Our Lord had been prepared to dialogue and compromise divine truth, He would certainly not have been crucified. The fact is He spoke frankly against the tide of the time and He was hated for it. Such is the position His Catholic Church finds itself in today. There is no debating the moral position of the Catholic Church as regards priestly celibacy. End of story! Unless, of course, you are bold enough to dare debate against the ordinance of God Himself.

It is a pity that the reactions to John Deery’s film in this particular blog are quite negative. It is unfortunate that they are based on personal attacks. Some of them seem to express rather un-Christian attitudes towards their fellow Catholics.

It seems to me that John Deery has displayed a great deal of courage by raising, through his film, many important issues related to celibacy and, more generally, to sexuality. The current narrow view of sexuality, failure to accept it as God’s gift which can be expressed in either marriage or celibacy, its many abuses are all reductionistic to humanity.

Much of the discussions we have in the RC Church are based on moralizing rather than a proper engagement with the topic. This way reduces what could be an important debate to a set of ‘black and white’. Black and white statements can neither be made on the basis of our Church’s Tradition (which especially in its early stage had more positive approach to sexuality that it is present in the current Magisterial teaching) nor on the basis of the Holy Scripture (the book 'Songs of Songs' is a good example here).

Rather than getting looked in a derogatory way of speaking about the film and the participants of the debate perhaps we (including bloggers of Catholic Herald) should ask: ‘How might we attend to the concrete problems such as the ones presented in John’s film with compassion, humility and not moralizing?’. Many Catholics, ordained as well as lay, call for a new engagement with sexual ethics in the Catholic Church. Sexuality is more than activity. It is who we are as ‘bodyselves’. Sexual body, above all, is a mediator of interpersonal consciousness and an avenue of the person’s fulfilment in intimacy. Religiously, embodied sexuality can be seen as most fundamentally a divine invitation to find out our destinies not in loneliness but in deep connection. Why priests - those who are not in religious orders - can’t, if they wish to, respond positively to this invitation?

There are no easy answers to questions related to celibacy and more generally to sexuality. There might be many good practical reasons for not allowing married priesthood to be practiced in the Catholic Church immediately but to say that celibacy cannot be an option for those who are called to be both priests and married men is to ignore the depth of human experience and its theological, anthropological and ecclesiological meanings. There is much work to be done in this area - by attending to these issues and by being truly open to the work of the Spirit we may find a way forward.

Annie,

These discontented priests who hanker after sexual activity are not happy priests. They would be better off leaving and getting married - following the advice of St Paul, better to marry than burn (with sexual desire.) They are not attracting young men to follow in their footsteps. Boys are not attracted to miserable men moaning about their lot. They are, I know from talking to many, attracted to good traditional priests who love their vocation.

Yourself and Richard appear to think that anyone who is not sexually active is unhappy - bound to be. That is far from being the case. But what an impoverished view of life!

If you've never met a happy priest, content in his vocation, who finds the idea of married priesthood repugnant, then that is a real shame - because there are such priests. They experience the truth of the saying that God is never outdone in generosity. As Our Lord promised, those who leave everything for Him and for the sake of His Kingdom, are rewarded a hundredfold in this life as well as in the next. These earth-bound priests are blocking this wonderful grace from their souls by their self-centred, carnal preoccupations. It's really very sad.

I repeat what I said at the outset of this thread. This latest "debate" on celibacy is but one more diabolical attack on the priesthood and the Church.

And still none of those anxious for sexually active priests have answered my question: can you imagine any of the great priest saints of the Church, like St John Vianney (patron saint of priests) or St John Ogilvie SJ or any other priest saint, campaigning for an end to celibacy? Padre Pio perhaps?

You see, it's all about quality. What kind of priests do we want? Anne Atkins, broadcaster and commentator on just about everything, sometimes gave the Radio 4 Thought for the Day in the days when I used to listen to it. Her husband is a Church of England vicar. She recounted occasions when their children were sick and they had to post a notice on the Church door to cancel the services. "My husband's congregation know that his children come first..." she said.

Of course. They must. But, as for notices along the lines of "Mass cancelled - driving wife and sick children to the hospital" or "Mass cancelled - dog gone missing and it's all hands on deck" - count me out.

EditorCT,
I was rendered speechless, not a typical occurence in my life, to see after reading through the many tirades posted on this website that you are, like me, a woman...I am Hail Mary'ing as I write.
Please, please, I want to meet one of these 'happy priests' who finds the idea of married priests repugnant, names, one name, please...and no homosexuals-because that's not a level playing field.
Every priest I know is in favour of marriage, or celibacy, as a choice, ooh how crazy does that sound-it is bizzare that on an almost weekly basis in some large parishes that priests should be performing the sacrament of marriage, while all the while (according to you) knowing that they are distancing the happy couple from the life of Christ (as if we weren't all not worthy anyway!!!)
I was wondering since I now know you are not a priest (an obvious assumption to make considering you write with such authority on the subject), are you a Sister?
And could you, for those of us who don't have your way with words, put down on paper some thoughts about those opposing the motion, for the purpose of balance? A member of a highly secret organisation, who feels it necessary to keep it's own private wealth-gained in, well private-separate from that of it's 'fellow brother and sister' catholics, and whose members rarely reveal themselves to us lowy parishioners?
And a comedian...isn't he a football comedian? Tough competition Dr Beattie. And poor Fr John McGowan who seems to get a mention in one of the posts above as sex obsessed...isn't he a Carmelite? I don't think I'll go to the debate...I scrub up quite well and am currently single, he might jump me..

Richard,

Humans are not animals. Humans have souls, immortal souls, given to them by God at the moment of conception - that is what makes them different from animals. Sex is for the creation of children within the married state. That is its prime purpose. There are people, priests and nuns and others, who love God to the exclusion of all else and who regard the married state as an obstacle to their ability to commit themselves entirely to the service of God. They do not want to have children, and so they do not have sex. That is why they remain celibate, and the joy they get from serving God far outweighs the transient pleasure of any sexual attraction.
As for wilfully commiting sin then going to confession and everything becomes all right - well, how little do you know about the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Unless you have a firm intention of avoiding sin and the occasions of sin in the future, going to confession will get you nowhere, except further from God for availing yourself unworthily of a Sacrament.
We are here for a purpose, Richard, and the ground rules have been clearly set out. It seems that you are unaware of them, and you are flailing about and crashing into fixtures and fittings without understanding why they are there. You will just get hurt that way. Every one is given the Grace to perceive the rules, but not everyone has the wisdom to try to discover them and how to use them. By the way, it is not leprechaun who is "peddling such rubbish as Celibacy". The ruling on Celibacy is the teaching of the Catholic Church underwritten by the Holy Ghost.
If you are not married, consider Celibacy until you are, and if you are already married, one of your watchwords needs to be Fidelity.
Why not have a try at living your life according to the teachings of the Catholic Church - might you not even learn how to get yourself eternal life in Heaven as a result?

Lep, you're right, apologies for going off the subject. However, I did stumble upon this site as it would not usually be the type of site I would go on. So, let's stick to celibacy for a moment! What is that? I have no idea! And the reason I have no idea is that celibacy is not natural. Who would want to go through their life not having sex? What sort of weirdo thing is that? How can people not have sex with other people? Do they have sex with themselves? What's the difference? Celibacy is NOT normal. Humans are animals. Animals have sex. Even priests have sex according to the papers, television and radio. Why not just abolish such a riduculous rule? What happens when they break the rule, they go to confession and then everything is okay? How mad is that? People like you, Lep, should be ashamed of yourself, peddling such rubbish as celibacy. Maybe I should turn up to this debate if only to hear stupid arguments from so-called 'intelligent' people. Grow up, all of you. Try having sex. Much better.

Richard,

Which part of: "And do please try not to stray off topic when blogging" did you not understand?

This blog is about Celibacy, not about me being vertically challenged nor even about you being cerebrally challenged.
It would be off topic to advise you that Catholics do not regard themselves as being on earth to get as much enjoyment out of this transitory life as possible. Rather, they are here to know God, to love Him and to serve Him in this life, and to be happy with Him in the next, but as I do not wish to go off topic, I will leave you to mull over that thought in private.

Leprechaun, just like your name, religion is man-made-up. There are no such things as leprechauns (apart from you) and there's no such thing as 'divine' religion. Are you so sad that you have to have some hokey-kokey idea to get you through your life? How about just living the ONE LIFE you have and enjoy it? There have been millions of deaths all in the name of religion. Some religion that, eh? Clearly some of the people who have written on this blog are intelligent but what I fail to understand is why they waste their name peddling such purile NON-sense. Whay not put their brain to better work and help the world in some other way. This religion obsession - especially the Catholic faith - is both warped and weird. Grow up or, in your case, grow taller!

Richard,

No, not mad - just better informed about certain things that really matter, such as ensuring that our immortal souls spend eternity in Heaven rather than in Hell.
You have made some rather sweeping statements in your post, and you have mentioned two authors who have expressed their personal opinions on matters that might ensure them plenty of sales of their books.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that "religion is made up and is there to control and suppress people"? Or your other claims about Jesus being married, et cetera?
You ask us to "get a life". That is exactly what we are using this current life for - to ensure that the eternal life we get in the next world will be to our liking. Richard, open your eyes whilst you still have the opportunity, and see if you can get a life.

The same goes for dissidents and for those priests who have betrayed their sacred vows and who are attacking the Church's teaching on Celibacy.

And do please try not to stray off topic when blogging.

Are you lot mad? I have just come across this site and have read some of the ridiculous comments? Don't you all know that religion is just made up? It's there to supress and control people, usually the poor. Have none of you read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens' work? Or are you all too scared to read something that does not fit in with your own thinking? Grow up, please. Get a life. This life. Not a life after the one you are supposed to be living NOW. Jesus was a man like anyone else. He lived, was married, had two children and did not die on the cross. Please, get real and start living.

Richard,

Allow me to recommend another book (Dawkins is kind of in the category: "oh no, not him again!" Dated.)

Try reading "There is A God" by Antony Flew, "one of the world's most notorious atheists" to find out, as it says on the dust cover "How (he came to ) change his mind"

Published by Harper Collins, it is a must-read. If you can make head OR tail of Dawkins, you'll love Flew.

God bless (oops!)

So the fullness of revelation is to be found in the works of Dawkins and Hitchens. Thanks for that insight, Richard. It's interesting that, as someone who presumbly prides himself on his rationality, you espouse a Dan Brown view of Christian history.

Anthony,

Your comments betray a person who is uncomfortable with holy purity. That is very worrying for any Catholic. You should remember the warning Our Lady passed on to the little Fatima seer Jacinta Marto, concerning modern times and the explosion of impurity that marks them. She said "More souls go to Hell through sins of the flesh than by any other sin." This generation is obsessed with sex, which it idolises in much the same way as the Pagans did before Christ. The only other time in history when sex took centre stage in the hearts of men to such an obsessive degree was when the Freemasons of the French Revolution enthroned a naked woman on the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral and worshiped her as the 'Goddess of Reason.'

Didn't Lucifer deceive Eve with the same false promise regarding reason, assuring her that she would become like God? And what was the result when Adam and Eve fell from grace? They covered their nakedness in shame before their Creator.

Our Lord, His Holy Mother and St. Joseph were pure and celibate. The Church has a 2000-year history of priestly and religious saints, a heavenly army fostered on celibacy and the other Christian virtues. Only a Catholic with a very dulled conscience, or lost faith, would reject that divine tradition in favour of Protestantism. You'll note that both Martin Luther and John Knox, not to mention others, went for sex when they apostatised. Rebellion against the institutions ordained by God is a downward spiral from one sin to another until there is nothing holy left.

One wonders why so many worldlings today, many of them, sadly, Catholic in name, are so utterly disposed to rid the Church of her priestly celibacy. It is one of the few holy things left in the world, yet you and others would wipe it out. Why is that? Is it a troubled conscience?

Yours is not the Catholic spirit. Rather, you have the spirit of rebellion against a precious jewel before God (chastity) in His chosen souls. You would have them repeat Lucifer's non serviam (I will not serve) in respect to this sacred discipline.

Yes, it is true that some priests and religious have betrayed their vow of celibacy and have fallen from grace. But I believe the majority continue to persevere happily in this sacrifice of themselves in union with Christ to God. You may wish to re-read the beatitudes uttered by Our Saviour, Particularly this one: "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." The carnal man will never comprehend the beauty of the chaste soul in God's eyes.

The absence of celibacy is blessed by God only in Christian marriage, wherein the object of sex is the procreation of children. Marriage, however, is not now, nor has it ever been, the vocation of the Catholic priest or religious because theirs, says the Church, is a more perfect union with God in the perfect sacrifice of themselves for the salvation of souls, just like Christ Our Lord. Some of the married Anglican priests recently received into the Catholic Church have already confirmed the absolute incompatibility between the married vocation and the priestly/religious one.

I suggest you do some research into these matters touching Catholic Faith and morals before making future comments. A reasoned argument would at least show objectivity on your part, not just blind passion.

Anthony,

The difference between the Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Berlin Wall, the USSR and South Africa on the other is that the Catholic Church is Divine in its nature, having been created by Jesus Christ. As a consequence, the contents of its Sacred Magisterium, having been underwritten in their truth by the Holy Ghost, cannot be in error. So the Catholic Church IS different.
The Catholic Church cannot and will not change its teaching on Celibacy, and no amount of talking, film-making or other tools of propaganda will bring about a change.
Whilst there may be a few black sheep amongst the clergy, they are far fewer that the media would have us believe, and their appalling behaviour does not have any bearing on the Church's stance in this matter.
Please also consider that the Catholic Church is divinely mandated to lecture people having been instructed by Christ Himself: "Go ye and teach all nations".
Long live Tradition!

Leprechaun, the main difference between a rock in the middle of the sea and the Catholic Church is obvious for all to see. The rock won't move but the Catholic Church will. The Berlin wall came down, The USSR fell apart and SA got their first black president. The CC is no different. It's just 50 years behind the rest of us. We all of the terrible scandel that the CC is involved with it has no right - moral or otherwise - to lecture people. It is a disgrace. We all know that most priests are not celibate - it's obvious. I have not seen the film in question but it seems to me that anyone who points out the hyprocrisy needs a pat on the back. If I were in London at the time I would go to the debate and say what I have just said here. Roll on change!

Anthony,

Even in the liberal Tablet, but a few weeks ago, a lady who worked in a centre, housing and caring for abusive clergy, said, in a letter, that they had way many more Protestant ministers in there than Catholic priests. So, don't fall for the media talking up the problem. It's quite bad enough that any priest would abuse a child, but it's dishonest to spread abroad the impression that it's a widespread problem in the Church. It isn't.

And you can't go about the place, either, alleging that "we all know that most priests are not celibate." I know no such thing. Where do you hang about, then? I know some very good priests indeed. I hear priests in their homilies, very casually, referring to the books they've read that week - "I was reading the life of St John Bosco and he said..." and later in the same sermon: "I've been reading the life of (an obscure saint I'd never heard of but now want to find out more about him) .... So, switch to a traditional chapel, Anthony, if you want to meet sound priests, who are self-evidently seeking holiness. They're not perfect, of course, but they're a whole lot more perfect that the characters you seem to hang around. All the priests I know (including quite a few in the modern church) are appalled at the minority of priests who have been convicted of abusing children and they are doing their best to be good priests in the midst of this the worst crisis ever to hit the Church. And it doesn't help them to meet people who look askance at them, question them about their celibate life, and make them out to be some kind of oddball because of their God-given vocation.

Then, too, a friend of mine from years ago, who'd married a C of S Minister divorced him following his infidelity.

If you think a married clergy in the Catholic Church is going to solve the problems that arise when, to quote John Deery, "human sexuality takes its course" then you had better think again.

The Church's authority to teach on faith and morals, and her permission to "bind and loose" (i.e. make and change her own laws) comes from Christ. Canon Law, disciplines, do sometimes change - when the Teaching Church mandates it so. Fasting laws, for example, can and do change - 24 hours down to 3 hours down to 1 hour (and still folk don't keep the fast, self-indulgent beggars) but there will always be a law on fasting.

Similarly, just as the priests of the Old Testament abstained from sexual relations with their wives the night before their annual visit into the holy of holies (where they did NOT believe God, in his Real Presence was housed...) the priests of the New Testament - the apostles - were celibate from the beginning as is very clear from Scripture. I mean, name the woman who would live that itinerant lifestyle, hanging about with her husband's fellow priests day and night for the rest of her life. Oh and, name the woman who wouldn't get jealous when her husband locked himself away with another woman for some counselling - especially marriage counselling? Exactly. No way. Indeed, this kind of jealousy is a cause of friction in Protestant clergy marriages, according to at least one article I read some years ago in Life & Work (Presbyterian publication) - some years ago; can you imagine the situation now, with infidelity almost part of the wedding vows?

All the evidence in the Church points to celibacy from the beginning and while there are some exceptions, in various rites, there are absolutely NO cases of priests being allowed to marry after ordination, so all that the likes of Fr Stephen Wang and his wonky think a likes can (fondly) hope for, is that future generations of seminarians be permitted to marry before ordination to the diaconate. Not going to happen, but that has to be the focus of this campaign because the Church has never, and never will, permit ordained priests to marry.

And that will stand when the Rock of Gibralter has moved to Berlin and the USSR lays territorial claim to it and when the next SA President is an oriental.

EditorCT,
A priest is not holy because he doesn't have sex with a wife,he is holy because he strives, usually much harder than all of the rest of us to BE holy, and because he serves God, spreading the Gospel,' feeding his flock' shall we say if you insist on florid phrase for all statements.
The sacraments are rendered no less sacred because of his human weaknesses. The priests I have known and know now were fully paid up members of the human race, and I have never felt closer to God than when I've been guided through confession by a hand of experience, who has every faith in God's forgiveness, and his promise of eternal life for all.
I have no problem with celibate priests, whatever the reason for that choice. I do have a problem with the hugely talented, popular, and effective priests I know, with a calling obvious to all who are blessed to come into contact with their ministry being denied that which God surely intended us to celebrate, indeed that which we do celebrate very often amongst friends and family as a sacrament.

This should hopefully help in a big way, I am not going to London but, I do agree with what the film is all about, the VERY, very best of luck with who made the film, and credit to all involed.

Something certainly needs to be done NOW!!!!!

Take care.

Philomena Carolan

Well, this is a really important contribution to the topic. Thanks for this.

Ditto - it looked as if my posts were not being saved.

Sorry for the duplications - new kid on the block!

Is there any point in debating whether the Rock of Gibraltar would look better facing in another direction, or whether it ought to be sited somewhere else? Of course not. It is where it is and no amount of debate will move it. Similarly with the Church's teaching on Celibacy. It is what it is, and no amount of debate can or will ever change it. People who want to waste their time debating this issue are tilting at windmills, and would be far better off using their film-making skills and debating skills to campaign for the restoration of all things to Christ.

John Deery

It is overly simplistic, actually downright childish, to argue that the Church’s rule on celibacy is at the root of the present decline in the priesthood. This becomes quite evident when we consider that the numbers of Anglican clergy were decreasing throughout the 1940s and 50s while the ranks of the Catholic clergy were swelling to record levels. So this modern crisis in the priesthood has nothing whatever to do with sex, or the absence thereof.

What we are facing in the Church today is a universal loss of faith and a consequent rejection of things eternal.

Since the soul is created by God to desire happiness, the true fulfilment of which is in a supernatural union between the soul and its Creator by means of sanctifying grace, it stands to reason that when a soul declines in spirituality it will naturally gravitate towards carnality. It has to fill the void left by the absence of God, and so it seeks its happiness in temporal pleasures, illicit or otherwise.

For some, the acquisition of wealth is considered to be the ultimate source of happiness. For others it’s fame, and for others yet it’s drugs or sex. None of these things, though, can satisfy the soul’s innate desire for the happiness that God alone can give. That’s why a good many famous millionaires who tried everything that money could buy eventually committed suicide.

St. John of the Cross is the example that all priests must imitate. Referred to in the Gospels as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” he maintained his celibacy from birth till death.

Since none of the other disciples are singled out by Christ in this way, it seems fair to conclude that they were not celibate men when first called to the service of God. They were afterwards, though.

At any rate, note that St. John is the only one at the foot of the Cross. All the other disciples are hiding in fear, which is a natural inclination in the carnal man. Furthermore, it was to the celibate St. John that Our Lord confided the care of His most virginal Mother. And it was to the same celibate St. John, on Patmos, that God confided the sublime mysteries concerning the end of the world.

The message is clear. A man who dedicates his life to God in the priesthood must be like Christ in all things. He cannot be a man divided between the spiritual and the carnal. He cannot run both a parish and a family. He wears black, or should do, to signify his death to the world. This is what God has deigned and revealed through his Holy Church.

Few have the taste for self sacrifice these days, the age of martyrs has passed. We live in a world that is more pleasure-seeking and more imbued with secularism than at any time since the foundation of Christianity. The world, in fact, has gone back to its pagan roots.

The Popes have warned us of it, Sister Lucy of Fatima has warned us of it (of the great apostasy), and Sacred Scripture announces it. God is out, suffering for the kingdom of heaven is out, purity is out, indifference and carnality reign. This is the real root of the celibacy controversy.

I cannot see how you can say that the disciples were celibates after they were called. Have you never read the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians chapter 9 v. 5 - 7 "Don't I have the right to follow the example of the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter, by taking a Christian wife with me on my trips"?
It's so clear from this that they continued to be married after they were called.

St John of the Cross lived in the 16th century. How could he be referred to in the Gospels?

Cathedralman,

The St. John of the Cross I was referring to was he who stood at the foot of the Cross, better know as St. John the Evangelist, the brother of James. Hope that clears up the confusion for you.

Marty

In Catholic tradition, St John of the Cross is the Spanish mystic and contemporary of St Teresa of Avila. St John the Evangelist is never referred to by this name. I hope this clears up the confusion for you.

By the way, EditorCT, Kevin and everyone else. Thanks for all your interesting comments over the pas few days. I have been traveling to my holiday destination - beautiful West Cork in Ireland - and have been unable to respond. When i am settled, I will reply. Briefly, what i will say is that this debate is certainly not a 'stitched up' as per EditorCT's comment earlier. This is an open debate. I have no control who will attend. There will, no doubt, be people on both sides and some undecided. It's up to the panel to put across their arguments. Debate and comment are free. We must always be able to debate. It's healthy. More from me later. John.

London, John? Two days before the Pope arrives in Scotland? Are you mad? I've more to do than the bishops, to get ready for this major event in our lives up here where priests who want to marry are like Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion - ten a penny. No, much as I appreciate your call to arms (and part of me would LOVE to be there) I'm mindful of all the warnings across the internet that, when he arrives here, the Pope will be in danger. He sure will - in danger from our schismatic bishops.

A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do, John. But, hey, if you're ever looking for someone to debate with Tina Beattie, give me a call. I'll be there!

Hi Graham, the best way to book tickets is via: www.conspiracyofsilence.co.uk There is a direct link on the Home page to the Odeon website and you can pick where you want to sit.

I would like to attend. Where does one apply for tickets?
Graham Briscombe

Come and join us on Tuesday 14th September. John Deery, writer/director, Conspiracy of Silence.
Link to comment: http://disq.us/ijix0

This debate should NOT even be taking place, either online or otherwise. Bishop Malcolm McMahon should know this. The Church has spoken on this matter and it is NOT to be debated.

"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994

"Definitely held by all the faithful". Rome has spoken. This who insist on "discussing and debating" are undermining Christ and His Church.

Thanks for your comments, EditorCT, Kevin and others.

I think it's very important that we are all able to have our view. I am sure Professor Tina Beattie will have something to say but I shall leave that to her. She is an intelligent, articulate woman. My point about priestly celibacy is a simple one: If a priest wants to be a priest AND be in a relationship, he should have a choice. These two positions should not be mutually exclusive. We - the Catholic community - have lost at least 100,000 priests (it's difficult to get full figures for obvious reasons) over the past 25 years because they left to get married or have some form of other relationship.

These men could be serving Christ and the community as well as being in a sexual relationship with another person. I cannot see anything wrong in that. After all, humans are sexual beings. If a man wants to remain celibate, that's up to him. Let the priest have a choice. My film was 'inspired' from real stories from real priests. These were men who were angry at what was happening in their Church and wanted their stories told. I also had inside help from people very high up in the Catholic Church who wanted me to 'put the other side across' and this, hopefully, I did.

Some people love my film (not just the 'liberals') but are too scared to speak out for the case of dropping celibacy. That, I think, is a great shame. Other people hate my film and what it says. Either way, I believe the Catholic Church will change its view on celibacy - maybe not whilst Pope Benedict XVI is in charge - but it will change. It has to. For a good deal of ordinary Catholics out there, there is no problem with married or gay priests. Why is the Vatican so hung up about it? How many gay men work in the Vatican? I know the argument about a man being gay yet not practising his sexuality. However, we all know that there are gay priests in the Vatican who do practise so what's all the fuss about? Let human sexuality take its course.

I would encourage you to attend the debate and have your say. The more we talk about this, the better for the Church. Let's hear all views, right and left, for and against. In the end, the status quo will change and the Vatican will welcome married priests with open arms. The tide of change has already begun and is now unstoppable.

John Deery.
Writer/Director
Conspiracy of Silence.

John,
It seems from your above comment that you are working to an agenda - and not just that of campaigning for married priests - as you also seem to have no problem with homosexual priests either. As for getting Bishop McMahon to defend priestly celibacy - this is somewhat akin to asking the fox to look after the chicken coop. Bp McMahon has often been - shall we say - somewhat amiss in his understanding of Catholic teaching on doctrinal issues, let alone disciplinary ones - see http://caritasveritas.blogspot.com/2010/01/catholic-education-nail-in-coffin.html and http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2007/features_nov07.html. As for Tina Beattie - well, according to Tina's own publicly declared (various) dissenting stances, compared to (then) Cardinal Ratzinger's doctrinal commentary http://www.adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html on the nature of assent that is due from Roman Catholics to Catholic teaching - it is strongly arguable that she is no longer in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. And it seems like the entire British episcopacy has relinquished its responsibility to govern and teach, to the ubiquitous Jack Valero - just how many more pies can he have fingers in? Please!! Now, back to my original point, John. It may take you out of your comfort zone to read Cardinal Stickler's book on priestly celibacy, but for less than a tenner from Amazon (no, I don't work for them . . . ) I think it might be necessary if you want to seriously engage with this issue.

John Deery,

It comes as absolutely no surprise to me (or to any informed Catholic) that you would get "inside help" from people in high places - the bishops of the UK have long been in schism. They have lost the faith, so that's no surprise at all. When the faith goes, the morals quickly follow, so there will be those "in high places" who have come to the same conclusion as you, perhaps years a go, that they are "sexual beings" and, having put the cart well and truly before the horse, they are now where they are - quite possibly deeply ingrained in a life of mortal sin.

Yes, no question about it, those in "high places" in the Church in the UK are Catholic in name only - if that. They're more comfortable with "Christian" so let me make myself clear: they are Christian in name only. And yes, you are right in that there are sexual scandals within the Vatican itself. There's a lot of dark stuff going on in "high places" so I'm very glad indeed that you have had the decency, at least, to bring that out into the open.

But you are totally wrong in just about everything else you say. We are NOT "sexual beings" (otherwise, those of us who, for whatever reason, whether chosen or circumstantial, are not in sexual relationships have well and truly drawn the short straw) and Scripture warns us of the danger of "letting human sexuality take its course."

On the contrary, our fallen human nature means that we have to keep a tight rein on our desires or our human passions will enslave us. Interesting, that you give the very same argument for married priests (if they want to be priests, and want to be in sexual relationships, so be it - what they want, they must have) that adulterers give to excuse abandoning spouses for the latest, younger, slimmer, model to come onto the market - and too bad for the lonely wives and abandoned children who fall victims to this "let human sexuality take its course" mentality.

Listen, thanks for the invite to the debate but you know perfectly well that it's already been stitched up. This is no "debate." This is an attack on the Church with the vote safely in the bag.

No doubt about it. You'll win the debate (which will come back to haunt you at your judgment) but the Church's authority to teach is God-given, and the ancient tradition of priestly celibacy will remain intact long after Tina Beattie is nothing more than a name in the phone book. Under "B" of course. No comment.

You see, John Deery, we want holy priests. We don't want "ministers" - someone to console us when we have a bereavement (we'll manage along just fine, thank you very much) or to tell us, with monotonous regularity, to be nice to old ladies crossing the road, Oh and don't forget to give a few quid to Cafod and Sciaf....

Thanks but no thanks. We want priests who are setting an example of holiness, not self-seeking pleasure hunters who want a wife and family with me paying the mortgage. No THANKS!

Can you imagine - just imagine - St John Vianney or St John Ogilvie campaigning for the right to a sexual relationship? Please, if you ignore the rest of my post, answer that question. And give reasons for your answer, if you want full marks.

Finally, contrary to your misplaced confidence, what you describe as "the tide of change (which) has already begun" is most certainly "stoppable." It'll stop - like every other scandalous dissenting campaign - when the Pope, probably the next Pope, obeys Our Lady and consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart as she requested at Fatima. That's your problem, John. You have the support of this decadent world. We have God on our side.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for priests.

If anyone wants to make a serious study of the issue of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church - then I recommend that they read 'The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations' by the late, great Cardinal Alfons Stickler. It is available from www.amazon.co.uk

Thanks for that, Kevin. I also recommend an excellent article which is posted on the Catholic Truth blog. The comments on that thread, of course, contain argument and counter argument, like any other blog, but the thread overall, together with the linked article, is academically sound - way above the heads of the likes of Tina Beattie, Helena Kennedy and the liberal elite in general.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2008/11/celibacy-not-a-changeable-church-discipline/

Bishop McMahon was reported in the national press in November 2008 as saying: "There is no reason why priests shouldn't be allowed to marry.It has always been a matter of discipline rather than doctrine[...]It is a question of justice for those men who want to be priests and to have a wife. Marriage should not bar them from their vocation but they must be married before they are ordained. The justice issue also applies to communities which could be deprived of the Eucharist because there aren’t enough priests." It will be interesting to hear in the debate why he has apparently gone back on this very sensible view.

I have great respect for Jack and for the conservative voices in the Catholic Church. However, I have to say that I am not trying to stir things up - the Church does that very well on its own! - what I am doing is that priestly celibacy needs to be discussed.

The film I made was 'inspired' by real stories from real Catholic priests in the UK, Ireland and Italy. There is a serious issue here and the Church, it would appear, does not want to address it. My film simply highlights this dilemma. I am not out to bash the Church. That's why I have assembled such a great panel of speakers. I want to hear all sides of the argument. Jack and I happen to be on opposite sides but we are both Catholics and this issue is important to all of us.

Come and join us on Tuesday 14th September. John Deery, writer/director, Conspiracy of Silence.

John,

Whether you want to face the fact or not, you are undermining Christ and His Church. This persistent attack on celibacy is diabolical - and I mean that, literally. It is from the Devil. I mean, who the dickens are you to decide that "priestly celibacy needs to be discussed?"

Why this focus on worldly priests (for that is what they are) instead of giving us some wholesome filming on the lives of faithful priests? Now THERE'S a subject that really DOES need to be discussed.

The point is well made in the article, that nobody is forced into the priesthood. Anyone who wants to get married, can marry - the Church doesn't force anyone to be a priest. There is a fashion abroad among many clergy, to argue that celibacy isn't integral to the priesthood, and they point to exceptions such as the (disgraceful) influx of Anglican married clergy to sustain their argument, and to the existence of restricted married priesthood in the eastern rites. I won't go on about the restrictions - any informed Catholic knows these. The point is that, like Christ Himself, Catholic priests are expected to be celibate, and again - for theological and ecclesial reasons - that should be known and understood by any Catholic worthy of the name.

This persistent celibacy-bashing is an outright attack on Christ and His Church. And those responsible for promoting this dissent and encouraging worldly priests by keeping alive false hopes of a change in Church discipline and morality, will have a truly terrible judgment when their - your - time comes. The subject, recent popes have said, is not up for discussion so why waste time discussing it? Especially with the likes of Tina Beattie. I once heard her speak at a feminist meeting (I was an infiltrator) and she's good enough for a (sort of) laugh, but not for serious theology. I couldn't believe it when I read that she's now "Professor" Tina Beattie. No wonder parents are worried about declining standards in education.

No prizes for guess that "Professor" Beattie will peddle the liberal view, celibacy was a later invention of the Church. Not true. Christ was celibate as were His first priests. The Gospels tell us clearly that the apostles gave up everything - they left all - to follow Christ. And Christ, the High Priest, is the model for every Catholic priest.

Human rights lawyers ready to jump on every bandwagon, and faithless priests are ten a penny. So the speakers attacking priestly celibacy are no big deal. None of them, whether individually or collectively, will ever succeed in changing the teaching of Christ's Church. Shame on you for your part in the scourging of Jesus in His agony - for that is what you are doing by making this film.

I was really shocked to read such heated debates. I believe in celibacy and in putting myself under authority that has such a long history. Please don't shoot me down too much for introducing another perspective. I'm not good at referencing but I did hear a priest talking about the ministry of the laymen and women and a call for the parish to exercise their gifts. I've also been reading much about the Catholic charasmatic renewal (1967) and the new Pentecost and hearing that the 'Pentecostal' churches are expanding at a very high rate, mostly in third world countries with many testimonies of healings and miracles. I cant help wondering if congregations, by default, leave so much ministry to the priest. The gospel, as my bible I believe tells me, is one of power - healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out demons. In short I'm suggesting that another issue under the surface maybe that lay people, who are married, want to make a difference in spreading the good news of Jesus but feel they lack any teaching, power or authority to do so. I don't see this as undermining celibacy or priesthood. I wonder if priests too need more of the Holy Spirit to help them in their ministry and to help them sustain their calling?

Just someone,

While you state at the outset that you support the Church's teaching on celibacy, the rest of your post reflects the thinking of those who argue for a married clergy.

It is a mistake to think of our membership of the Church - whether as baptised laity, ordained priest, or consecrated religious - in terms of "doing." The Church's mission is not to make us do things, but to make us holy. Our task is to BE something - to become holy. It's not about "doing" so the focus today on "ministries" is dangerous and misleading. I don't have any "ministry" in the Church. Does that make me a second class Catholic?

In fact, the term "ministry" should not be applied to lay people, as pointed out in the Vatican Instruction on the Laity, 1997; the word "ministry" is properly used only when applied to the ordained, not to lay people. But like every other Instruction from the Vatican, our bishops have ignored it and the wrong application of "minister" and "ministry" continues - without, it must be acknowledged, any disciplinary action from the Vatican. Over and over again, the Vatican fails to enforce its own rules.

The recent emphasis on the Charismatic movement is right in tune with the "spirit of Vatican II" because it stems from Protestantism. It was a Protestant movement in its origin and its entire thrust is Protestant. Charismatics reduce everything - as do Protestants - to the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

When you say that the new Pentecostal "churches" are expanding fast and you refer to "testimonies of healing and miracles" I ask "who is doing the testifying and who confirms that the miracles are authentic?" These "testimonies" are very subjective; I always cringe, frankly, when in the presence of folk giving their "testimony" and have to restrain myself from calling out "get a grip." Sorry, not my scene.

I'm just back from Lourdes and, believe me, before any alleged miracle is confirmed, the claim is rigorously investigated by a panel of experts, medical, psychiatric, you name it, of every religion and none. An Italian woman who claimed she was cured of her paralysis last year (and she appears to have been cured, walking now) told on television how she was immediately examined and question for hours on end and even now, with her walking and all medical opinion dumbfounded, still her cure has not been officially pronounced as "authentic." The Church is always slow to accept claims of healing miracles and quite rightly so.

The Devil can play all sorts of tricks to fool people into thinking they are healed and he might effect an appearance of healing - just as he makes rosary beads change colour at hoax apparition sites and the gullible label such shenanigans "miracles" when all they are really witnessing is diabolical activity. The Devil is very close, and it is a mistake to forget that.

As for your remark about some lay people who are married "wanting to make a difference in spreading the good news of Jesus but feel they lack any teaching power or authority" - well, we all have a very elementary duty to spread the Faith. That comes with the job description at Baptism and we receive particular graces and strengthening at our Confirmation, precisely to enable us to take Christ and His Church into our work places, and anywhere else where we meet people.

Yet, in my own experience, those same people who wail about being "excluded" from the power structures of the Church, etc. are the very same people who argue that religion is "a private matter" and they avoid, at all costs, speaking out to defend the Church 's teaching - that is Christ Himself - when it is attacked by colleagues and friends in conversation, let alone in the newspapers or in the wider broadcasting media. Even on another Catholic blog not so long ago, I was not alone in being scandalized that certain bloggers were so impatient with an atheist visitor that they drove him away with their demands that he ... well ... go away. There's no use complaining that the laity should have a role in the Church, if we can't see the wood for the trees. Our role is to spread the Faith - and not just when we feel like it or in the manner in which we would prefer, but seeing God in everyone and in every context.

So, I'm afraid I think you are misled. We all have a duty to spread the Faith in our everyday circles. If we want to be taking centre stage anywhere, whether in the sanctuary at Mass or in the imagined "power structures" of the parish or diocese, then we are suffering from Mr Ego's problem - the sin of pride.

Finally, priests are given all the graces they need to remain faithful to their vocation, but you are right in that we ought to pray especially for priests. They are under diabolical attack today, no doubt about it.

That's why these perpetual discussions attacking celibacy, are so dangerous. Sadly, too many priests, like the priests who agree to write about and debate what they term the "issue" have lost sight of the nobility of their own state of life. Very sad.

One of the biggest egos on the Catholic blogosphere belongs to your good self, editorct. There is not a subjet under the sun where you don't lambast others for their failings and bad faith. Surely a sin of pride!

Thank you, Cathedralman, for this fraternal correction. Please pray for me.

just someone,

The Charismatic movement was a hippie product of the 1960s that would never have been permitted to exist in the Church in any other period of her sacred history.

I well remember a fellow in my parish many years ago who wore a big wooden cross around his neck and was generally to be found stretched out like a flag on the church floor, groaning in some alien language that he called speaking in tongues.

What he forgot was that on the first Pentecost the Apostles were given the gift to speak in tongues so that every man heard them preach in his own language. They didn't spew out a load of old cobblers that no-one this side of Pluto could understand! That kind of garbled noise comes from the Devil, not God.

As for the Charismatic laying on of hands, that's just another ruse from a con organisation that would turn Holy Mother Church into a flower-power commune. If any of them laid hands on me, which I doubt they would, I would very quickly check to see if my watch and ring were still present. Don't forget that the Devil can manifest apparent miracles of healing. The test is in the permanence of such a healing. Don't believe everything you read.

Please have nothing whatever to do with the Charismatic movement. It is a scandalous insult to true Catholic piety, which is hardly surprising given that it is Pentecostal (Protestant) in nature. The Church has managed very well without that kind of showmanship for 2000 years. There was never a lay organisation like it in the early Church.

Best stick with your rosary and true devotion to Our Lady. Pray for priests and all consecrated souls of God. It is they alone who have the power and the authority from God to administer the grace of the sacraments. The layman has his duty of state to get on with, or, if he is so inclined and disposed, he can enter a religious order as a brother. By the way, too many priests these days like the easy life. They are hardly in the mould of St. John Vianney, their patron. Let them work harder for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. That's what they vowed to do when they entered the seminary. It is what they are promised great reward for in Heaven. Our Lord never took regular time out, nor the saints!

I should just mention that the Charismatic fellow I mentioned, who was a leading light in the parish, had a live-in girlfriend, also a member of the Charismatic movement. There was certainly a bit of laying on of hands going on there, but not in a holy sense!!

The paucity of your argument, editorct, is clearly evident by your personal attacks on those with whom you disagree. Why do you put the word 'Professor' in scare quotes? What evidence do you have that Professor Beattie's status is a sign of a decline in educational standards?

You also say that the Catholic Truth blog is sound and way above the heads of Tina Beattie and Helena Kennedy. Are you seriously suggesting that the ramblings found on your blog would be in any way intellectually taxing for these people?

If you cannot defend your position rationally without recourse to personal attacks, you should desist from posting anything at all.

CathedralMan,

Well, well, well. The infamous Catholic Truth Troll Strikes Again! Up to his old trick of alleging "personal attacks" to cover up the fact that he cannot refute a single word I say. So, lest I make the mistake of failing to answer your (only) question, let me do so at the outset. Yes, I AM seriously suggesting that the theological truths found on the Catholic Truth thread posted by me above, would be intellectually taxing for "these people" as you describe the Mssssssssses Beattie and Kennedy. Their minds are set in the "liberal" direction and, ipso facto, by their dissent they demonstrate that they are unable to grasp the central importance of the basic, most fundamental concept of assent to Catholic doctrine - faith and morals. Goodness, only a couple of weeks ago Tina was busy undermining Catholic teaching on abortion in that "organ of dissent," The Tablet - you don't get more fundamental than that, CathedralMan. Oh and the reason for the inverted commas is that The Tablet described itself as "an organ of dissent" in one of their anniversary editions. Silly beggars. They don't even know how to dissent properly - first rule: pretend you are NOT dissenting.

In any event, I made no personal remarks about any of the speakers. I merely pointed out their liberalism and having listened (closely) to Tina Beattie some years ago, spouting forth about education (she was a humble schoolteacher then, like myself) I'm entitled to my opinion about her alleged academic credentials. Not many schoolteachers rise to the giddy heights of professorships - correction: not many orthodox or (worse!) traditional Catholic schoolteachers rise to the giddy heights of professorships.

As for your latest assault on Catholic Truth (why not take up golf or football like other men?) if the Herald bloggers visit the Catholic Truth link above to one of our several threads on the subject of celibacy, they will be able to make their own assessment of your criticism. In that thread alone, they will discover indisputable evidence from irrefutable sources of the fact that celibacy is of Apostolic Tradition and - despite exceptions - will remain the norm for priests in the Latin Rite:

"... in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

John Deery thinks Pope John Paul II is wrong and dear old Tina Beattie is right - what thinkest thou, CathedralMan?

Let those who want sexual relationships go east - oops, I forgot, they're too late - priests are not allowed to marry after ordination in the eastern rites either.

Shucks.

Just to ensure that inaccuracies don't go unchallenged on this high quality blog, I must point out that I've never been a school teacher.

Dear Old Tina Beattie

Tina,

Then we have a mystery on our hands. Certainly, there’s no information that I can find on either of your websites, about your career prior to becoming a Professor. There is a reference to TEACHING undergraduate courses at Roehampton but no mention of you having been an ordinary, plain as a pikestaff teacher yourself (the troubling aspects of which state of affairs, I leave to the great minds around me for their reflection - we'd worry, would we not, if laymen went about the place teaching surgeons how to operate?) http://sites.google.com/site/tinabeattie/ and http://tina-beattie.blogspot.com/2010/07/appeal-to-pope-benedict-xvi.html

Unusually, your qualifications are listed as Phd. Lesser mortals are normally required to complete a degree before doing a higher research degree. Indeed, normally they’re required to do an Honours degree – at least that’s what they told me when I applied to do my M.Th. But there you go – the feminists have a way of reaching the parts the rest of us have to get to by beginning on the bottom rung of the ladder, meow, meow...

The day course I attended at Warwick University was organised under the auspices of a feminist group (can’t remember which one – would it be the National Board of Catholic Women since I remember good old Angela Perkins being in attendance, trying to ignore me, best she could?)

And, last but not least, the Tina Beattie I remember had a Liverpool accent and was a hoot (until you realised what she was actually saying – outright heresy, most of the time)

Well, Tina? Is dear old Patricia making history here, by being wrong – at last? Were you or were you not, the speaker at that meeting in a university somewhere in England sometime in the nineties? Did you tell us that pupils (from cohabiting homes) would be interested to hear Catholic teaching about marriage and think “I must go home and tell mum and dad about this...”??? Words to that effect?

Or is there another Tina Beattie in the Church in England? Please... no!

My CV is available to download on my Roehampton and personal websites. In answer to your questions:

Re my qualifications: When I left school, I trained as a secretary. I gave up work when my first child was born and spent the next twelve years at home with my children. When my fourth child started school I went to the University of Bristol as a mature student. I graduated in 1994 with a BA First Class Hons. in Theology and Religious Studies, and went on to successfully complete a PhD, also at the University of Bristol. I have had lecturing posts at the University of Bristol, at Wesley College in Bristol, and with the Open University. I took up a full-time post as a senior lecturer at Roehampton University eight years ago, where I was promoted to Reader and then to Professor.

I do not have a Liverpool accent, and as far as I can remember I have never given a lecture at Warwick University.

Tina.

Well, Tina, clearly this is a case of mistaken identity. I would apologise but, to be honest, when I saw your website photo and realised you were a cut above the "Tina Beattie" of my unhappy Warwick University memory, I think "congratulations" are more in order.

That said, my key point wasn't really that you and "that schoolteacher" were one and the same person but that you (like her) are a public dissenter. The only thing that your post of eleven hours ago proves, is that you are a better qualified dissenter than that rather giddy RE teacher, that you scaled the ladder of academic success at an amazing speed (I mean, how long did the PhD take - ten minutes? Oh never mind...) and that, mercifully, you don't speak with a Liverpool accent.

The fact remains, though, our Tina, that you are a public dissenter - and how. Quite apart from your recent Tablet article on abortion, there is a trail of dissent that, perhaps, helps to explain that record climb to the top of the world of academia. Here's an extract from an article penned by Patricia Phillips and published as part of a series in Christian Order some time ago. Hence, some more recent examples of your dissent are missing. But, folks, take a look at what follows and ask yourself this question: if Tina Beattie DID give a lecture at Warwick University, would you attend?

EXTRACT from “The Feminist Threat to the Church – Part IX” by Patricia Phillips…

Subversion

One example is Dr Tina Beattie. Readers may be interested to check out her website, especially her CV at http://tina.beattie.googlepages.com for full details of her past and continuing involvement in ecclesiastical structures. Beattie was always listed as a CWN member, but isn’t in the 2006 CWN/WWS directory. This doesn’t mean that she has left, since members can opt to be omitted from the directory. However, whether in CWN/WWS or not, her dissent from Catholic teaching is on public record and beyond dispute, as reported in my previous articles on feminism.

Beattie is a Director of The Tablet and has used this dissident organ to expound her dubious views on abortion (www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/1510) compounded by another Tablet article titled “Life in all its reality” (27 October 2007), justifying her decision to continue supporting Amnesty International in spite of its policy change on abortion. She has publicly upbraided the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for its censure of dissident theologian Fr Jon Sobrino, and has openly given her support to the campaign for women’s ordination.

She also spoke at a conference run by the dissenting homosexual group Quest in 2005. A report from Quest’s website states: “Dr Tina Beattie joined us for dinner on Saturday evening and showed serious collaboration on the dance floor later. On Sunday morning, unruffled by the previous evening’s exertions, she presented us with a thorough analysis of the theology of ministry ...” She was asked to speak again at Quest’s 2008 conference in Roehampton. They publicity stated: “Dr Tina Beattie will be making a welcome return following her impressive talk at the 2005 conference in Liverpool. She will also be on home soil as she is Reader in Theology and Religious Studies at Roehampton University.”

Despite her open dissent - or perhaps because of it - Beattie regularly speaks on Catholic premises, and was invited to speak at the NBCW 2008 Nottingham conference titled “Magnificat, Magnificat – the Challenge for Women Today”. Remember, NBCW is an official advisory body to the Bishops’ Conference. That the NBCW should give Beattie a platform should come as no surprise as this outfit is still dominated by known CWN/WWS members and other dissenting feminists. NBCW also published one of Beattie’s articles on the front page of the Winter 2008 edition of their newspaper Catholic Omnibus (distributed in most churches), titled “The Dignity of Women – a missed opportunity?”, which criticised aspects of John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, and took a sideswipe at the conference being held in Rome in February 2008, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Letter. In it she stated:

What does it mean, for example, to say in Mulieris Dignitatem that “In the name of liberation from male ‘domination’, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine ‘originality’. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not ‘reach fulfillment’, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness”. Where is this ‘well-founded fear’? Does any woman reading this really know the meaning of “feminine ‘originality’” and our ‘essential richness’? These are concepts redolent of romantic fantasies of womanhood which have little bearing on the everyday realities of women’s lives, yet the session titles for the Mulieris Dignitatem conference suggest an agenda heavily tilted towards perpetuating rather than challenging or debating these anachronistic stereotypes...

In case you are wondering about the session titles that so disturbed Beattie’s dissident sensibilities, they were:

• “Reflection on women since the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem; evaluation and prospects”
• “Jesus of Nazareth, Mary and women in the Gospel and in the early Church.
• “Christianity and the advancement of women”
• “So God created human kind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Gn 1, 27)
• “Woman and man, created each for the other”
• “Problems and Contemporary cultural trends”
• “Women’s responsibility and participation in building up the Church and in society”
• “The role and mission of women”
• “Predominant challenges as perceived in various parts of the world”

Beattie recently penned an article for the Tablet titled “Femininity within the Trinity” (29 March 2008) which, at a first brief glance, looked surprisingly like it might be supportive of the Vatican crackdown on feminist interpretations of the liturgy, but on closer inspection revealed itself as yet another call for the ordination of women:- "If the hierarchy wants to reinforce the message that Trinitarian language is about relationality rather than masculinity, then one way to do that would be to surrender any literal association between the physical masculinity of the priest and the eucharistic presence of Christ. This would be an eloquent way of affirming that the Trinitarian relationship transcends gender, and that God is neither he nor she. The presence of a woman performing the Eucharist or the baptismal rite would be a sacramental sign of the mystery of the Incarnation and of the redemption of our humanity which includes the totality of who we are ..."

In the same article, Beattie uses the terms “radical feminist” and “conservative” to describe others, which gives the impression of trying to represent herself as a mainstream Catholic, situated between two extremes. Do not be fooled. Recently, she applied for the Bede Chair of Catholic Theology at Durham University’s Centre for Catholic Studies. As part of the selection process for this post, she gave a presentation in which she spoke of the importance of recovering the wisdom of St Thomas Aquinas in today’s world! Amen to that! But while recommending the Angelic Doctor, she is apparently unable or unwilling to utilise his heavenly wisdom to escape the pride and foolishness of her non serviam mindset.

The March 2008 issue of Network carries a glowing review of the book by dissident Australian bishop Geoffrey Robinson Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church. Bishop Robinson has since been condemned by his brother bishops as reported in the Melbourne Age of 14 May 2008 (www.theage.com.au): “Australia’s Catholic bishops have disowned retired Sydney bishop Geoffrey Robinson, accusing him of failing to understand fundamental church teachings. The country’s bishops have released a public statement suggesting that Bishop Robinson - as a bishop, a man chosen by the Pope to guard the teaching of Catholics — is wrong about the authority of Christ and the authority of the church to ‘teach the truth’.” In the same edition, Network also promotes booklets published by the dissident Catholics for a Changing Church and carries the usual pieces promoting the work of groups dissenting from Church teaching on homosexuality and women’s ordination.
END OF EXTRACT

Well, Tina? You may not have lectured at Warwick University but it seems you’ve lectured just about everywhere else, and, like the schoolteacher who spouted nonsense at those of forgot to bring our rotten tomatoes, you are spreading false teaching, or dissent as it's generally known. Not on, Sugar Plum. And there’s loads more where that little lot came from – see the rest of this article and a list or additional articles at http://www.catholic-feminism.co.uk/

I - absolutely - rest my case.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that she's now "Professor" Tina Beattie. No wonder parents are worried about declining standards in education. "

You said you did not make any persobnal remarks about the speakers. What is the above? A compliment?

What's "personal" about that? I am perfectly at liberty to comment on the academic standards of the day and any particular public appointment, without having to go to Confession. Get a grip.

Your currency is nothing more than snide remarks and insinuation. You never were renowned for your rational debating skills.

Cathedralman
I used to read the Catholic Truth blog when it was active, and occasionally used to contribute. I remember your persistent hounding of the Editor of that blog, and without recalling any specific comments, I always felt that you were hair-splitting and/or trying to antagonise her and I could never understand why. I note that although you excoriate EditorCT for her comment on this thread, I said pretty much the same thing about Tina Beattie, but you didn't comment on this at all. Now, maybe you thought my observations weren't worth commenting on, in which case, fair enough. Or maybe you just want to make personal attacks on EditorCT . . . it's beginning to look like that . . .

Kevin

EditorCT's comments were as per usual - just an attack on someone without any justification whatsoever. What evidence did she provide that Tina Beattie was unworthy of her professorship? She did her usual with snide remarks, and putting the word 'professor' in quotes. At least you tried to jutstify your position rationally, a concept alien to EditorCT.

Awe, CathedralMan, come on. You like me really, don't you? Or maybe not.

Listen, Tina Beattie is all grown up and on a professorial salary - she doesn't need a Knight in Shining Armour from Motherwell (which she's probably never heard of, Professor or no Professor) charging to her defence. If she thinks I'm out of order, she'll come on and sort me out. Or let me re-phrase that: she'll come on and tell me and then I'll sort HER out!

And Kevin's not rational. I believe he's English. Say no more...

I don't mind you casting aspersions on my academic credentials - after all, people can read my books and make up their own minds. However, I am deeply offended by the suggestion that I haven't heard of Motherwell, given that my mother grew up in Paisley and my father in Barrhead, and my mother now lives in Fairlie. Shame on you for being so insulting. And I would never turn away a Knight in Shining Armour, not even one from Motherwell.

Tina Beattie

Tina,

I live in the Diocese of Motherwell myself and, believe me, it's no insult to wish the rest of the population be spared knowledge of the place: this is the original case of blissful ignorance.

But if your parents are Scots, how come you had a Liverpool accent when I heard you speak at Warwick University? Don't say you're in the charismatic movement as well as being up close and personal with the feminists? Paisley, Barrhead, Fairlie and Liverpool? You don't get more speaking in tongues" than that.

And as for casting apirins on your academic credentials - I haven't, I must confess, read any of your books, partly because the last time I agreed to read a book written by a feminist "theologian" I almost missed Christmas (two years later.)

Whatever, and with all the respect absent in my previous posts, I have a very serious problem with people who describe themselves as "theologians." No matter how many degrees I had in the subject, I wouldn't dream of describing myself as a "theologian." So, why does every Tom, Dick and Tina do it?

Unfortunately, the ignorant regard "theologians" as authority figures, and you and I know perfectly well that that is not the case. We've both got theology degrees and you're no theologian, our Tina.

No "theologian", however, well qualified, has any authority to teach definitely on faith and morals. That is reserved for the teaching office of the Church, the Magisterium.

Agreed?

See above for my response.

I'm rather busy so will not post anything more on this blog, but thank you for your interest in my work and for taking the time to converse with me.

Best wishes,
Tina.

See above for my response to your response - and I apologise for the couple of typos in the final paragraph which should read as follows:

Well, Tina? You may not have lectured at Warwick University but it seems you’ve lectured just about everywhere else, and, like the schoolteacher who spouted nonsense at those of us who forgot to bring our rotten tomatoes, you are spreading false teaching, or dissent as it's generally known. Not on, Sugar Plum. And there’s loads more where that little lot came from – see the rest of this article, and a list of additional articles at http://www.catholic-feminism.co.uk/
END OF CORRECTED PARAGRAPH

I can well understand why you want to bow out from this discourse, Tina, so thank you for responding to my comments. All that remains now is for you to respond faithfully to Christ's injunction to obey His commandments, one of which is to hear those to whom He has bequeathed His authority to teach in His Name - the Magisterium, in communion with the entire Tradition of the Church.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for our Tina!

Well, thank you kind, Sir, for your gallant defence of little (not so) old moi.

Cheque in post.

Mandatory celibacy has complex emotional issues associated with it. Consider the Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVl on the website http://marriedpriests.org

It would help if someone clarified the brutal suppression of the married clergy. It continued for many years. Those who did not renounce their spouse and children voluntarily were slaughtered.
It is reasonable to believe that there were very few voluntary renunciations. Bishops of that era
were in control of the military. All of this happened so that the Bishop would have clear title to the
parish patrimony when the pastor died.

I would be very interested in knowing where Tom kelly found this piece of information by asking for refenced sources and not just hearsay which it amounts to.
The only churches which will survive are those which follow closely to he churches teaching on celbacy or any other moral doctrines for that matter. One can see that if it were not for some of our foriegn incomers to the RC church (who have kept the true faith) it would be dying in the UK as it is in some places anyway except for a few grey haired members.

The point being raised by the 'liberals' is that priestly celibacy was not instituted by Christ - but was a man made tradition partially imposed at a later date, which goes against Biblical teachings...
If God is calling married men to the priesthood - then why not discern that call, and then ordain them?
The church is dying on its feet in this country due to a severe shortage of good leadership.... it's so frustrating

How does celibacy go against biblical teachings. According to the gospels Jesus was celibate. Liberals just cannot accept that men may just be able to control and integrate their sexual behaviour as a 'sign of cntradiction' to wider society. Nobody forces a priest to be celibate; he embraces it as part of his vocation.

I just hope everyone remembers to be calm and charitable. After all, it's not like they're debating the historicity of the Resurrection or anything.

As Jack says, the important thing is to make sure that the reasons for this long-standing practice in the Church are heard.