Translate

Monday, October 28, 2019

MY OPINION ON THREE THINGS ABOUT THE SYNOD


My first opinion has to do with married men being ordained priests. This is a matter of discipline and the door was flung wide by Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI who allowed Protestant ministers to become Catholic priests.

My beef with that was that the Church was allowing married Protestant men, who not only were not validly ordained to Holy Orders to be ordained priests but these men weren't even validly Confirmed, which is necessary for Holy Orders.

Thus married Protestant men had to be received into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church by a Profession of Faith, then actually receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. I suspect some had to be conditionally re-baptized depending on their Protestant denomination's way of baptizing. Then they got to be ordained deacons first then priests. Somehow there is an injustice in all of this with fully initiated Catholic men, like permanent deacons, who might feel a call to the priesthood.

Thus married men being ordained priests doesn't agitate me. I have known and worked with married priests, one a parochial vicar in Augusta for the 14 years I was there.

My second opinion has to do with women deacons as the Catholic Church today understands deacons under the guidance of the Risen Lord who is the Head of the Church. For Pope Francis to allow ordination of women to the diaconate, it would be invalid and a sacrilege in profaning this first stage of Holy Orders. It could invalidate His Holiness papacy, but others with more knowledge on this would have to chime in

My third opinion has to do with conversion to ecology to save the planet. Certainly the Church has a right to speak out against the destruction of our planet and to encouarage ecological safeguards. Yes the Church can recommend recycleing, the banning of plastics and other things that assist in a good ecology. But this can't be made a doctrine of the faith as it is in the realm of science and yes politics.

The Church has to be very careful as not to identify with any political solution when there are valid plural opinions in this regard.

For example when it comes to abortion, the Church should not get into political rhetoric about it as though a human life is a political football. All human life, according the moral teachings of the Church is loved by God from the moment of conception no matter how that conception takes place including morally, immorally or criminally. Even a child conceived in a testtube is loved by God and deserves to be born. It is a mortal sin to kill a human being and even more grave when a person cannot defend himself. This deserves sanctions from the Church like excommunication.

But can the Church mandate Catholics to recycle under the penalty of mortal sin? Or to agree with a particular political perspective offered as theories by scientists about global warming and climate change. In my opinion no!

We can say gluttony is a mortal sin, but each person has a right to determine what gluttony means for them. There is a great deal of latitude in this regard. 

14 comments:

DJR said...

Please make this known and raise your voices to strenuously object.

I have been past this particular chapel on trips out west but have never been inside. I have inlaws who live about an hour away.

Occult Events scheduled for Latin Mass chapel in Santa Fe.

https://spiritdailyblog.com/spiritual-warfare/occult-event-planned-for-oldest-u-s-church

Victor said...

I have a fourth beef. While all this elite in the Church were in comfy seats and surroundings at the synod, doing nothing but rubber-stamping the irrelevant and useless outdated ideas the pope Francis had decided 5 years ago, the Pentecostal missionaries were at hard work in the Amazon, bringing the Gospel to them, and prosletyzing them to Jesus Christ away from Pachamamas and idol worshipping Catholics. Who is going to succeed in evangelizing the pagans in the end, the literally down to earth hard working people of Christian faith in the rain forest, or the fancy dressed well fed committee people 1000 miles away in Rome?

Православный физик said...

While the opening of the priesthood to those that are married isn't the end of the world for the Roman church, I'm afraid without the culture to support it (As the Orthodox have), it will not work. Although it is not dogma, for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

There will have to be a change in culture. But this could well be a blessing, as it would force churches to have the rest of the Liturgical offices offered instead. (Which in the West is easier, since deacons and laypeople can lead Liturgy of the Hours)....the Mass is the Highest Liturgy the Church has...All the other liturgies build-up to the Sunday Liturgy...I think this is something that the West needs to be reminded of again.

I guess there's going to be baptising in the nude now? The only role I see for deaconesses is in this situation.

Ecological sins? Isn't ecology a matter of prudential judgement and not an absolute? Oh dear, here we go again with dogmatising of a prudential judgement issue.

TJM said...

When the lefties stand up to China and India about "destroying" the planet, I might take them seriously. Just a lefty money and power grab. For the learning challenged, the US leads the world in reduced carbon omissions. Europe really needs to step up to the plate and do their fair share!

In terms of married priests, we had a tradition of married clergy who were secular priests for over a 1,000 years or so. Although there are a lot of practical issues related to ordaining married men, it is not shocking. Likely, the married clergy would be a bulwark against the celibate loonies like "Father" Martin, SJGLBT. Limiting this option to the Amazon likely would have a dampening affect on men considering the priesthood in the rest of the world.

Anonymous said...

So you say if the pope allowed for ordinated women deacons (deaconesses), that would be invalid. Based on what? The Lord established the priesthood (or some might say the episcopate, though the priest really is a representative of the bishop), not the diaconate, which is the basis for no women priests. Interestingly, according to the dean of Atlanta's Greek Orthodox Cathedral, there is nothing he knew of in Orthodox canon law to prohibit ordination of deaconesses---so if that began to happen, would that make Orthodox orders invalid in Roman eyes?

A more valid concern with ordaining female deacons would be "give an inch, they will want a mile." It would be seem as interim step to priestly ordination of women. That would be a legitimate criticism---look at the Episcopal Church, which allowed for women deacons at their 1970 general convention, and then came priests in 1976. And once you allow women priests, you can't say that women can't be ordinated bishops.

Also, what do you mean concerning abortion being a "political football"? Does that mean only voting for candidates who are 100 percent for banning it, not matter what the occasion? Does that mean warning voters not to support pro-abortion candidates? It is hard to take the politics out of that issue.

Bergolian said...

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."

David Burkovich said...

To me a celibate priest is special. One whom I look up to and admire for the sacrifice he has made to God. I could never look at a married priest in the same light. Women's ordination? Cannot picture a women as the face of Jesus (the SON of God) offering the sacrifice to Almighty God. Ecology? I try to do my part, but I am more concerned with all the garbage that is dangerous to my soul. Anyway, I am in my twilight years, hopefully I will not be around to see any of this if it occurs.

Anonymous said...

Good opinions. I think the married Protestant ministers should have become deacons and not priests. Protestant churches do not have priests, it makes sense that they would transfer into a role similar to the one they served in the protestant churches. I would have added that the unmarried protestant ministers should also be deacons until after seminary. I would think the Church would guard against protestant preachers turning to Catholicism only to continue delivering a protestant message to a Catholic audience.

For the ecology issue, I also agree that the Church should steer clear of the politics. I do think the Church should expand and explain its theology on the environment(aka creation), and mans relation to creation. The progressive spiritual groups are positioning themselves to be the only moral authority on environmental concerns, and the Catholic Church should be able to present a response. Sadly, I think the Church response is going the political route.

Carol H. said...

Women cannot be ordained, period. Deaconesses of the past were NOT ordained, but were the precursors of women's religious orders. Saint Pope John Paul II made it very clear that the ordination of women cannot happen and that the case was closed. In fact, I thought that he said that bringing up the topic for discussion again would incur a self-excommunication for those involved. Wouldn't this mean that if Pope Francis were to allow for women to be ordained deacons, that he would invalidate his papacy?

Pray the Rosary every day!

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!

Anonymous said...

"...but were the precursors of women's religious orders."

This statement is a prime example of reading into the Scriptures what is simply not there.

Religious orders of men and women, who do much of the same work in medicine, education, social services, evangelization, caring for the elderly and the dying, etc., were not presaged by the "Deaconesses of the past." They were apostolic undertakings, based on the Great Commandment of loving God and neighbor. MEN's and women's religious orders spring from a common past, the Great Commission.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here are several ways opening the priesthood to married men will be bad. In summary: it means fewer vocations at a young age, not offset by more older vocations, and it means shunting men with normal attractions away from being bishops:

- Allowing men to marry before they are ordained in even one place will instantly and inevitably raise the question of whether it may be introduced elsewhere. The response will be, "oh no, certainly not; no, really, no; well, let's study it; you really shouldn't do that!; ok, since you have already done it, yes."

Once it is possible for men thinking about the priesthood to marry, it will scramble the vocational discernment of those men who otherwise thought they had to forego marriage. Think of it: you're 18, and you feel a tug to serve Christ as a priest. You are contemplating the cost of celibacy and whether you can and should embrace it. Only then you hear: "marriage opened as possibility for priests here and here" and you wonder: hmm, maybe here too? Maybe I should wait and see?

What should I tell young men in my parish? Heretofore I explained that, yes, they give up marriage. After any such change, I must honestly admit to them: it's possible that down the road, someone in your shoes will be able to marry first. Emphasis: marry first! Which means, if you are ordained before marriage is allowed, it will be too late for you!

Why shouldn't men take that into consideration? And thus delay their vocation?

- Delayed vocations are what will happen after such permission is granted, precisely because men will seek a wife first, then begin raising a family, all before entering the seminary. How long will they wait before they begin their seminary career? Till their 30s? Forties? Sure, we'll get more men in later years, but at the price of losing them at earlier years. I believe it will be a net negative.

- Men with normal sexual interests will be married priests. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such men still embracing celibacy, but for many of them they will say, why should I? And there will inevitably be a stigma: why didn't Father X get married as he was allowed to? Hmmm...

But remember: it was never the case, anywhere, that bishops were taken from married priests; only from those who are celibate. So a significant number of men with normal attractions will be put on a path that closes the door to them being bishops. Leaving who to be bishop, you ask? Figure it out.

The Lavender Mafia surely must see that this helps them not be dislodged. And for good reason.

TJM said...

Father Fox,

Well stated. To allow married priests in the Amazon and not elsewhere will likely dampen vocations elsewhere, which is the progressives plan, so they can demand that women priests is the answer to the self-created vocations crisis.

Carol H. said...

"This statement is a prime example of reading into the Scriptures what is simply not there."

Wrong. I did not base this statement on the scriptures, but on the statement given on the research of historical evidence given at the time of Saint Pope John Paul II's statement concerning women's ordination. It is not hard to remember back that far. It wasn't all that long ago. Women deacons were not ordained, but helped with the baptism of women for modesty purposes. IMHO, if indigenous women run around topless, a woman deacon is clearly not necessary.

Anonymous said...

Carol, it is not clear whether deaconesses were ordained in the past---at least in the East (area dominated today by the Eastern Orthodox Church). A book written in 1999 (edited by Thomas Hopko) features various commentaries (titled "Women and the Priesthood") concerning the ordination of women. While some of the commentators spoke against ordination of women priests, none spoke against deaconesses. And there was a piece that claimed there were such ordinations---but, and this is a big but---there is no record of deaconesses assuming the roles traditionally associated with deacons, like reading the Gospel and preaching (oh, if our pastor in 30327 would allow a deacon to preach, but that is for another day). Instead, they assisted with female baptisms and were more involved in what we might call today social work.

As for Pope John Paul 2 saying women's ordination is a "closed" matter, his apostolic letter in 1994 was in response to the first ordinations of women priests by the Church of England that year by the bishop of Bristol. It reads in part (with emphasis of mine): "PRIESTLY ordination...has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been rested to men alone...this tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches...I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer PRIESTLY ordination on women.." There is no mention of "deacon" or "diaconate" in the letter.

But even if women deacons (deaconesses) can be ordained, the question might arise, should they? And could they assume the role of a male deacon? Is the diaconate just a preparatory step for priesthood, or is it viewed as a separate order?

As I mentioned not long ago, the dean of Atlanta's Greek Orthodox cathedral told me he knows of nothing in their canon law prohibiting ordination of deaconesses---question being whether it should be revived?

As for Father Fox's commentary that married priests are a "bad idea", I don't necessarily agree so, but there are some other concerns that can make it problematic. One is salary---it is not cheap raising a family these days, and it is not as if Catholics tend to be particularly generous (compared with Protestants) when it comes to tithing. In Atlanta's wealthy Buckhead area for instance, say a married priest has 3 children and they are in private schools at 20-30k each---well, they aren't going to get by on a 5-figure salary in that instance. Secondly, clergy of course get moved around, and that can be disruptive to family life. a married priest probably would prefer to live in Savannah versus southwest Georgia (using Diocese of Savannah as an example)--but what if the bishop says "I need you to go to the hinterlands of our diocese."