| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Hans Kung's Open Letter | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Saturday, 17. April 2010, 00:19 (4,288 Views) | |
| CARLO | Sunday, 18. April 2010, 17:41 Post #46 |
|
Kung? Where are my flares and kipper tie? I don't support him or his views. Salva nos Save us CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Sunday, 18. April 2010, 18:00 Post #47 |
|
I am very disappointed in the first half of Kung's letter. I think he is hitting on some fundamental truths in it but his message is obscured by his personal animosity towards the Pope and his inclusion of things that do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, his statement "Missed is the opportunity to make peace with modern science by clearly affirming the theory of evolution and accepting stem-cell research" is simply nonsense. There is no "peace to be made with modern science" simply because there is no war between the Church and modern science. His statement that "and [Benedict] occasionally celebrates the Eucharist in Latin with his back to the congregation" comes across as little more than childish petulance; the Pope has occasionally opted for "ad orientem" for which he has a long standing and well known personal love but he has made no attempt to impose that personal preference on the rest of the Church. One of the few things that has pleased me about this Pope is how, despite his own affection for traditional rites, he has made it clear that the broad thrust of liturgical change triggered by Vatican II is here to stay. We listened for a long time to the ultra-Traditionalists crowing about how this pope was going to "reform the reform"; I haven't seen much yet for them to crow about. Again his statement that "He has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the church without any preconditions" is patent nonsense. Despite these and other shortcomings in the letter, I think that Kung has identified the underlying reason for many of the Church's problems today - her failure to reach out to people in general or to confine her reaching out to specific groups at the cost of alienating others. Kung identifies, for example, the Church's willingness to cast aside her stance on celibacy for expediency in attracting married Anglican clergy. Just this week, there was a programme on TV about the "Forgotten Irish" who emigrated to Britain in the 1950s and 60s and are now living a lonely elderly life there. One old man talked about how he visits an even older, housebound woman to give her a bit of company; she told him how she misses going to Mass and, as he is still a regular Mass attender, she asked him to ask the priest for permission to bring her Holy Communion; he had to tell her he couldn't because he's an ex-priest and isn't allowed to become an EMHC. Here we have a man who is a 'cradle Catholic', who gave years of his life to studying for the priesthood and further years in the service of the Church yet he is cast into the wilderness, not allowed to perform a simple service for his neighbour, all because he committed the great sin of falling in love with a woman whilst a Protestant Minister, happily married, who has probably subscribed to the 39 Articles mentioned by saundthorp, is welcomed into the priesthood with open arms. Jesus talked about the labourers who come late to the harvest getting the same reward as those who came early - He never suggested that they should get a greater reward! Not to get back on my regular hobby horse but the biggest disappointment I have had in the Church is her total failure in recent times when so many people have been in utter despair from the economic collapse. Never has there been a greater opportunity for our Church to reach out to people, to tell them that there is a better way, to give them a beacon of hope but our Church has spectacularly failed to do so, ending up instead by getting herself dragged deeper and deeper into the mire resulting from child abuse and her total mismanagement of it. As I pointed out in another post, Pope Benedict spent the last 30 years – 25 years as head of the CDF and 5 years as Pope - implementing the policies that have ended up with that outcome; he cannot simply wash his hands – or have his officials do so on his behalf – and say “not my fault, guv.” That is why, though I do not agree with a lot of Kung’s detailed assessment, I do agree with his conclusions and think his “6 steps” are exactly what the Church needs right now. |
![]() |
|
| James | Monday, 19. April 2010, 13:31 Post #48 |
|
James
|
I go broadly along with your analysis Mairtin. One would have thought that the local bishop would just have said -" no problem" - when it came to an ex priest acting as EMHC. As is rightly pointed out, why have one rule for one and another rule some someone else. In a civil court there is a good case for discrimination. I appreciate that at times in the past, and indeed today in some places, priests had to operate in "hostile" environments and it would be better all round if they travelled alone. As with some other professions. Having said that, I would not advocate a wholesale ban on all marriage. Many priests live their vocation in a modern environment where there is no great threat to a family. And providing he gets an understanding wife, not unlike a doctor or shift worker, who accepts the requirements of his vocation - then why not. It's not as if a married priest is a whole new departure in church history from the very start. The main problems would be, as I see it, (1) where several priests share the same house and(2) funding a family Edited by James, Monday, 19. April 2010, 13:55.
|
![]() |
|
| Ned | Monday, 19. April 2010, 15:13 Post #49 |
|
Sorry, James. You and Mairtin are absolutely wrong there. A laicized priest can come into a church and sit in the congregation, but that's it. Nothing else. Yes, it's hard on the innocent, but what's the alternative? The problem is that when the Church laicizes a dodgy cleric it's done "gradually and discreetly"; and there are other situations where a rogue had abandoned the priesthood before matters came to light, and then things were put right quietly with no records kept. Read the Report of the Dublin Inquiry - recollect the reports of misconduct by criminal-clerics after their laicization. "Who would have thought it! He seemed so nice." Regards Ned |
![]() |
|
| pete | Monday, 19. April 2010, 15:27 Post #50 |
|
What would you suggest the Church should do when ordaining priests, remove the oath of Chastity and Obedience? No married priest could be chaste or obedient, which only leaves Poverty and I’m sure his other half would have a lot to say about all three of them. For goodness sake we are the Catholic Church not the Protestant Church, so let’s begin to think like and act like Catholics. |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 19. April 2010, 15:33 Post #51 |
|
All are called to chastity, married and single, priest and lay. In any case there are no oaths on ordination. There are promises, which include obedience to the bishop but do not include chastity or poverty. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Monday, 19. April 2010, 15:35 Post #52 |
|
Pete, I refuse to define myself by not being a protestant. My primary identity is as a Christian. Actaully what have protestants got to do with this thread? P.S. Poverty - priests do not take a vow of poverty. Chastity - well thats demanded of everyone. Obediance - see Hans Kungs letter - obediance to God. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| James | Monday, 19. April 2010, 16:45 Post #53 |
|
James
|
I think you are confusing the word "chastity" with "act of sex" Pete. A married couple remain chaste all their lives - it is only when one has an act outside that union that one is said to have "lost his/her chastity" James Edited by James, Monday, 19. April 2010, 16:48.
|
![]() |
|
| James | Monday, 19. April 2010, 16:57 Post #54 |
|
James
|
What site is that on Ned. I still would not see a priest who happens to fall in love as "dodgy" . One would have to look at each case individually - I would think. We were only talking about this one man and it seemed unfair all round. Why should all be treated as rogues.? I don't understand this at all. regards James |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 19. April 2010, 17:46 Post #55 |
|
So why does none of that apply to mrried Anglican clergy who become married catholic priests? |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 19. April 2010, 17:48 Post #56 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Pete I disagree, about the chastity, poverty and obedience. Married men and women have to be chaste, on pain of sin. They promise to "forsake all other" until death do them part. If one is away (for example in the forces) separation is no excuse for either of them to be unfaithful. First, it is only priests in religious Orders who make vows of poverty. A man would not join an Order if he wanted to be free to marry. Police wives know their husbands can be called out at any time of day or night, and can be told to move house to another area. You and I have both been in the forces. We swore by Almighty God to obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals, (or air officers or admirals) and officers set over us. Service and wives have to accept that their husbands must be obedient. There would be women willing to accept a similar situation if they were married to priests. If a woman is not willing to live with her husband's commitment to his vocation, it would be best for her not to be a clergy wife. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 19. April 2010, 17:49 Post #57 |
|
So why should he not be allowed to become an EMHC? |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 19. April 2010, 17:52 Post #58 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Methodists house and support ministers and their families. If they can do it, so can we. It is a matter of willingness to pay our share. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 20. April 2010, 15:53 Post #59 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Now then Carlo, you do realise he's mates with the Blairs, don't you??
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 20. April 2010, 16:01 Post #60 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Priests have never been allowed to marry (without having to resign). That the Church has ordained men who were already married is a different matter. Marrying ordained men is unprecedented. He should know that! |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:54 PM Jul 11