Folks like unknown young editorial writer full of mush make life easy. When they zig, I zag. Stern words at the so-called RC university most out of step with Magisterium. Quoting Prof. Dr. Gillis- another Quote Machine noted by MSM when Rev. Fr. McBrien is unavailable. Might ask his own Jesuit bosses how the search for new vocations is going. Oops- current G'Town prez is layman. Not so swimmingly I suspect.
Gerard E. | 10.31.05 - 1:05 pm | #

The Church refuses Communion to divorcees? I never knew that.
john c | 10.31.05 - 1:13 pm | #

The threat facing the church is a very real one. According to the Vatican, the ratio of priests to Catholics in America is 1 to 1,200. This speaks to a very real failure by the Church to tend to the spiritual needs of the faithful, as well as provide the Sacraments of their faith.

Thank God bishops with filled-to-capacity seminaries like Charles Chaput and Fabian Bruskewicz have abandoned the Church's teaching on sticky subjects like homosexuality and abortion.

Otherwise all those men wouldn't be hearing the call.

What's that, you say?

Oh. Never mind.
Rich Leonardi | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 1:17 pm | #

Regarding the comment about priestly ordination of women, I think it would help matters greatly if Pope Benedict made an infallable determination that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women. I know the JP2 said that with regards to doctrine, the Church had no authority, and that later in 1995 Ratzinger said that JP2's statement was a matter of faith for all Catholic believers. But I wonder if the technical differences between his statement in 1995 and JP2's statement (one regarding faith, the other regarding doctrine) set the stage for many priests' defiance on this matter. I tried Googling whether Women's ordination was infallably defined, and a host of articles came up on both sides analyzing the tricky nature of saying whether it was or not.

I hope Benedict ends that defiance by firmly saying what he thought he said in 1995.
Sydney Carton | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 1:18 pm | #

"unnecessary, human doctrines"? Like, um, wanting all babies growing in the womb to be allowed to be born? Yeah, that's unnecessary.

I've also read one other place claiming a separate calling to celibacy and to the priesthood. While I'll agree that one might have a call to celibacy w/o a call to the priesthood, it makes no sense--at least in my understanding of the priethood (vocation in marriage to the Church, responsibility to the Church and parishioners, not to a wife & kids)--to suggest that a priestly calling would not automatically entail celibacy. The priesthood is a bit more of a calling than simple celibacy in my vewi of things.
Peggy | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 1:59 pm | #

"Is there a real, scriptural and theological reason for having only celibate, male priests?"

Ah yes, Liberals do like their rhetorical question. This what happens when you don't socialize with people who disagree with you.
There is in fact a whole bibliography to answer his question (available upon request).
I suspect it is because for liberals, everything is just "discourse", so a rhetorical question has the validity of careful historical research and theology.
The point is not to know the Truth ("what is truth?"), the point is to advance an agenda while sounding clever.
John | 10.31.05 - 2:49 pm | #

Are there reasons for retaining a celibate, male priesthood?

As they would say on Law and Order:
"Objection your Honor, question asked and answered. Cf. Ordinatio sacerdotalis, 1994."
Tim Ferguson | 10.31.05 - 2:54 pm | #

This looks like a editorial written by a student, not by a so-called "pelvic obsessed Jesuit."
Patrick Rothwell | 10.31.05 - 4:28 pm | #

He also said that the celibacy requirement arose in the 12th century with the Monastic movement, not in the original church, he noted.

Never mind that in the vast majority of cases on record in the Western Church, those first-millennium married priests were expected to abstain from sex with their wives.

Is there a real, scriptural and theological reason for having only celibate, male priests?

See below, about following the example of Christ.

The Church should follow the example of Christ and forgive divorcees, allowing them to rejoin the Catholic community.

Disregarding the dubious assertion that divorcees have been expelled from the Catholic community, I'd like to know when Jesus forgave a divorcee. Is the author confusing John 4 with John 8?

The Church should stop threatening Catholic politicians who are faithful but also believe in the separation of Church and state.

To quote the author again: Is there a real, scriptural and theological reason for believing in the separation of Church and state?

[T]he church has failed to remember its primary mission: to advance the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, beginning with love thy neighbor as thyself.

I seem to recall Jesus beginning with a different command -- something about loving God, wasn't it?
David | 10.31.05 - 6:02 pm | #

I think Mr. Shea is the one with the pelvic obsession. There was nothing in this article to suggest a pelvic obsession. There was a lot of discussion about marriage and the priesthood. The two aren't mutually exclusive, not even within the Latin Rite.
catholic | 10.31.05 - 6:56 pm | #

Actually, marriage and priesthood are compatible. The Pope has decided for now that we won't ordain married men in the Latin rite.

Obeying the Pope and Catholicism are really compatible.
Mary | 10.31.05 - 7:37 pm | #

yyyyaaaawwwwwnnnnn - let me know when they say something new or come up with any reasonable argument for this crap.
cathy | 10.31.05 - 8:04 pm | #

Oh, I'm so happy the Catholic Church is not a democracy.
Bob L. | Homepage | 10.31.05 - 8:35 pm | #

This looks like a editorial written by a student, not by a so-called "pelvic obsessed Jesuit."

It is. The Voice is a left-leaning student newspaper at Georgetown. I'm unaware of any Jesuits that write for it.
Bill H | 11.01.05 - 8:16 am | #

But it *did* seem to be in the Jesuit tradition Bill...
john hearn | 11.01.05 - 12:10 pm | #

That's great, John; if your facts don't match up, and you get caught falsely attributing something to someone, just say "well, they would have said it." For example, even if he didn't do it, I heard it was in John Hearn's tradition to beat his wife.

See how easy that is? And how outrageously judgmental and sinful?
Anonymous | 11.01.05 - 2:49 pm | #

Brave Anon,

I'm so glad that my small attempt at humor has provided you an occasion to yet again grace the internet with another example of your stilted self-righteous outrage and creaky PC catchphrases.

Cheers!
john hearn | 11.01.05 - 5:26 pm | #

Busy persecuting homosexuals within and without, covering up its past sins of child molestation and contributing to its own shortage of priests, the church has failed to remember its primary mission: to advance the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, beginning with love thy neighbor as thyself.

I'm tempted to ask how a Unitarian got on the staff of the Georgetown Voice. But I already know the answer.
David Fischler | 11.01.05 - 8:02 pm | #

What a silly little piece!
Maria | 11.02.05 - 7:36 am | #