Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. 'Celibacy imposed on people'? Goodness. Celibacy is not 'imposed'. Only a fool would think that the Catholic Church hides this reality to seminarians and only informs them of celibacy and chastity on the day of their ordination.
   Celibacy is not imposed. It is a gift from God. There is not enough time to go through all the beauties of celibacy.
   This priest is a paedophile who should be locked up. Allowing priests to marry won't stop someone if they are a pedophile. The judge neglected to mention that Judges/Lawyers are in the top 5 for pedophilia amongst professionals and the Catholic priest doesn't even make the top 50.
   I wonder how many hours a day this priest spent in prayer. Priests don't become paedophiles, paedophiles become priests.

   Posted By: Bee Jay

2. Is the above Judge linking celibacy with paedophilia? Surely not. Surely the old idea that the two are linked as been refuted, after all we have had many married men, even in the Law profession, who were both married and paedophiles. He admitted that he was not a Catholic. He should further have said that he is a law officer not a medical practitioner specialising in psychiatry. He should be disciplined.

   Posted By: gloria healey

3. Brilliant. Has the judge just given this man the perfect grounds to appeal against his sentence on the grounds of anti-Catholic bias from the bench?

   Posted By: Ronk

4. The Catholic Church should be up in arms over the statement from the Judge.
   If he were to speak out against Muslims in such an attack on their beliefs, then there would be a huge outcry. Come on Catholics, unite!

   Posted By: Brother Priest

5. Firstly, this judge has stepped far beyond the boundaries of his role.
   Secondly, 'celibacy' is not imposed on anyone, people freely choose it as a way of life in response to God's call
   Thirdly, the vast majority of people responsible for sexual abuse are sexually active, heterosexual males who are in a relationship. (the group most highly represented in child sexual abuse cases are the male de facto partner who is not biologically related to the child)
   Celibate priests certainly need to 'work on' integrating their sexuality with their whole lives, but don't we all? I am in daily contact with awesome priests whose celibacy allows them to wholly give their time, energy and heart to their people.
   This priest sinned terribly, but in the news - everyday - we read about similar crimes, but we don't read of a judge saying: De facto relationships are cruel to the children. Cruel. Cruel. Cruel.

   Posted By: c.d

6. This is an outrageous comment. It shows ignorance of the Catholic Faith. Celibacy is not 'imposed'. It is God who calls men to the priesthood and gives them the grace to fulfil the calling. Candidates who feel initially that they may have a calling have years of training to discern whether they can handle celibacy or not. If they cannot, they are free to pursue another vocation. Even after they are ordained, priests can seek a dispensation from their vows and priestly service if they feel they can no longer live with celibacy. This is what Fr Fuller should have done. There is no excuse for his actions, especially with a minor, and the Church is in no way to blame.

   Posted By: Michael Bernard

7. I have to agree with Sydney District Court judge Allan Hughes: It must be agonising. I don't know why they (the church) don't change their rules. It is archaic. It's cruel, cruel.
   I was in the seminary andI could not come to terms with this. I left! A lot of my friends who are priests also agree. The church is living in the dark ages. Look at the difference the Anglicans make! Reality is we live in a much changed world. I would be reluctant to talk to a priest about maritial problems. I would talk to an Anglican Priest tomorrow.

   Posted By: Brian P

8. I note that the judge had the terminology correct - celibacy, which priests promise. Could Catholic sources and journalists please correctly distinguish 'vow of chastity' and 'promise of celibacy'.
   But to associate celibacy and paedophilia is wrong. Since when has marriage been an antidote to paedophilia?

   Posted By: Barry

9. Anyone can be a paeodophile. If this guy weren't a priest and he was, for example, a school teacher or a lawyer, he would still be a paeodophile. Even married people are known to be a paeodophiles.

   Posted By: Allison

10. The judge has confused paedophilia with some predictable outcome from celibacy.
    Apart from the scientific evidence, there aere many married perpetrators found guilty by courts. And, married clergymen in that number, too.
    

    Posted By: Marie H

11. It seems from the remarks of these Catholics attacking the Judge for his comments do not live in the real world as the Judge and I do. Celibacy was not a requirment for the Apostles chosen by Christ himself. It is a requirement imposed by men in the Church who think they know better than God himself.
    The litany of priests who have fallen from this state of grace that the contributors refer to are just human beings with human needs. I do not in anyway shape or form condone the behavior of the priest in question, it is unacceptable and he has and will be punished.
    But why does the Church hold up such a ridiculous need for celibacy? Move into the real world, Catholics: sex is not dirty, wrong or defiling as most archaic Catholic doctrine maintains. This Judge deserves an award for speaking truth to power, which does not want to listen.

    Posted By: Prophet

12. Does the judge also believe that legalising prostitution prevents rape? He needs to be educated about sexual crimes - their causes and their effects.

    Posted By: Judith Taylor

13. Rather adopting defensive or argumentative positions, wouldn't it be preferrable if we 'the church' seriouly asked the question why the problem is so systemic.
    Once we have a clear set of reasons based on some good research about cause then intelligent action can follow. There are many sensible questions - if it is that paedophiles jopin the priests or brothers - then what the selection and screening processes? If it the pressure of lifestyle, social isolation, or work, then that leads to another set of potential courses of action. What is cetainly clear is that we the Church are not doing enough about it to get the issue resolved and to protect our children. They deserve much more than defensive arguments, or righteous posturing.

    Posted By: kerry stirling

14. A man has seven years to decide if celibacy is for him. However, paedophile beaviour has nothing to do with celbacy. The majority of pedophiles are men who are married!

    Posted By: Stanley J. Harris

15. c.d.: You're right. It just goes to show you don't have to be wise to be a judge, or to have humility about your own opinions. This public comment from the bench is an insult to the many wonderful celibate priests who've lived lives given to God in God's People, and who have become invisible, apparently. Personally, I think celibacy should be optional for priests, but to blame it for paedophilia is as irrational as blaming homosexuality for paedophilia. The judge wouldn't have said anything so politically incorrect as the latter - why does he feel free to say the former?

    Posted By: Joan Seymour

16. Kerry Stirling: Paedophilia is not 'systemic' in the Catholic Church; in fact it is if anything less common among Catholic clergy than among other professions and occupations;
    paedophile priests invariably had such tendencies as laymen.
    Pretending to take a promise of celibacy, or the pressure of lifestyle, social isolation, or work, did not make them into paedophiles.
    The Church for the last 15 years has enforced extremely strict screening procedures to exclude paedophiles from the priesthood and religious life, indeed much stricter than those in any other profession or organisation.
    See e.g. 10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
    

    Posted By: Ronk

17. In response to the comment by Prophet - it seems you are not up to date with Catholic thought and teaching about sex.
    It is not portrayed as dirty or defiling, except when misused. Rather, sex in its proper context is a continuation of sacrament, and the mirroring of the mystery of a self-donative trinity and the creative love of God.
    If you want to know what's being taught at World Youth Days, in parishes etc, you really should read, in order of ease of reading and importance to this subject:
    Deus Caritas Est (Pope Benedict XVI) -encyclical
    Love and Responsibility (Karol Wojtyla a.k.a. Pope John Paul II)
    ;Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body (Karol Wojtyla a.k.a. Pope John Paul II)
    These are all consistent with authentic Church tradition, but sum up the fruits of 2000 years of thought about sex in a theological context.
    Sex can be powerfully damaging, sure. But the Catholic teaching I have encountered exemplified by the books above, portray its remarkable creative and unitive potential. It is shown to be a very positive thing indeed.
    With this teaching, I discovered that it is possible to live a chaste single life for many years, and now that I am married, it is possible to live a faithful and chaste married life. This teaching clarifies the beauty of sex in the real world, and does not undersell people on their ability to be disciplined and channel their sexual impulses responsibly, without repressing themselves. Discipline and gratitude both grow with this.
    I think I'm living in far more of a real world than Prophet and the Judge.

    Posted By: Mikayla

18. Must be a protestant or atheist judge. Celibacy is not forced. Since MacGregor felt called to the priesthood, he understood what that all entails. It's nothing more than a political shot at the Church by a prejudiced judge. Perhaps he should read the Catechism.

    Posted By: Boanerges

19. You’ve got to feel sorry for these sorts of men. Only a man out of touch with reality could think a 13 year old girl would be interested in having sex with a man in his 50s.
    Don’t they ever look at themselves in the mirror?

    Posted By: Colin

20. Ronk and Michael Bernard: The judge has a point - for some priests it may be an ongoing personal issue but to seek their resignations is silly. Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.

    Posted By: Mike b

21. Paedophilia is not as widespread in the priesthood as we are led to believe.
    One only has to look at the 'boy dancer' culture in Afghanistan where the abuse of young males by adult males is widespread. This is the situation in many cultures in that region.
    Yet our Western media blame Catholics for these sexual abuse issues.
    There are also a lot of non-religious pedophiles out there. Yet religion and celibacy cops most of the blame for this sickness and evil.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

22. The judge has certainly overstepped his role.

    Posted By: Jim W

23. Brian P: I totally agree with you. The Catholic Church should wake up to reality and ask all the religious and laity - and there's your answer.

    Posted By: Stephen

24. Wasn't celibacy invented by the catholic church? St Peter was married, wasn't he? Are there any examples of celibate priests in the OT?

    Posted By: Stephen

25. I am glad to see that the vast majority of contributors to the above article are loyal Catholics. They know the judge overstepped his role.

    Posted By: Ron Cini

26. Celibacy frustration, maybe. Sexual desire, maybe. Consenting adults, maybe. But paedophilia is a definite np. A priest should know better! No excuse accepted, no compassion required. Simply not acceptable!

    Posted By: Frank B.....

27. Prophet: It must be a good feeling living in the real world so that you can clarify that what many in here consider anti-Catholic bigotry is just clear thinking.
    However if celibacy explains paedophilia, why are paedophiles more likely to be married and why are they underrepresented in the Catholic priesthood? Perhaps you can sort that out for those of us who aren't living in the real world.
    'Celibacy was not a requirment for the Apostles chosen by Christ himself. It is a requirement imposed by men in the Church who think they know better than God himself.'
    I fail to see how differentiating sexual continence within or without marriage from celibacy makes any point. Or do you think that being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven didn't mean sexual continence. Do you take some type of literal interpretation like castration? Personally I think that would be a little steep but I admit that many priests behave as if it has already occured when charged with the duty of preaching Catholic doctrine.
    'I do not in anyway shape or form condone the behavior of the priest in question, it is unacceptable and he has and will be punished.'
    But you adopted the Judges comments so surely you think he wasn't wholly responsible and he was forced to molest a kid because he vowed not to have sex. If his vow is causing him such frustration why wouldn't he become more acquainted with a woman?
    Since when have Catholics considered sex per se dirty, wrong or defiling? However sex with children we take a different view on and believe the perpetrator should be held accountable not held out as a hopeless victim of going without for a while (after considering the issue for 7 years and choosing to go celibate).

    Posted By: Michael Bates

28. Perhaps it's time this judge left behind his prejudice and broadened his circle of acquaintance to include contented, celibate priests.

    Posted By: John

29. I have read with interest the comments posted so far regarding this article and the many statements regarding celibacy. As one who has recently left priestly ministry (after 28 years) and a seminary classmate of Bob Fuller, may I offer the observation that whilst the promise of celibacy is certainly known to be required by anyone preparing for ordination (in the Roman Rite) it is often overshadowed by the desire to respond to the call to priestly ministry and service to the community.
    Seminary life offers a unique and wonderful experience of living in community which often disappears once one moves into presbytery living.
    I firmly believe that many priests make the choice for priesthood - and accept that celibacy is part of the package - only to find, sooner or later, that it is far from being a 'gift' that is bestowed from on high with the laying on of hands at ordination time!
    The call to priestly ministry and to celibacy are two completely different things and our Western Church ignores open and honest discussion of them to its peril and fosters the ever declining number of communities who are - and will be - deprived of ordained eucharistic ministers.

    Posted By: Ken

30. Regardless of what the Judge thinks, celibacy is imposed on priests by the Institutional Church. A man is not free to choose to be celibate if he wants to be a priest. He must accept it as a precondition to be ordained. I can't see how that equates with the 'celibacy as a gift from God' claim. Of course it all depends on one's view of God. I think of God as the ground of our being not one who is transcendent and up there outside the universe who is able to interfere with what happens down here on earth.

    Posted By: Kenno

31. The judge has been rightly criticised for overstepping his role. I would like to record my criticism of him for his lack of knowledge of the meaning of the word celibate. A celibate person is an unmarried person, nothing more, nothing less. The world has many unmarried adults. Does the judge seriously believe they are more likely to be paedophiles than married men? I strongly recommend to the judge that he check with police records; if I'm any judge he will get quite a shock.

    Posted By: Dan of Greensborough

32. I would agree with Ken that celibacy is not a gift bestowed from on high at ordination, but neither is faithfulness in marriage a gift bestowed from on high at marriage. In both vocations, it is a freely given commitment from the individual, in each case to the spouse, in a priest's case that being Jesus Christ Himself.
    For Ken to forego his commitment after 28 years is no different, to my mind, to walking out of a marriage, an unfortunately increasing occurrence in today's society, and the reasons may be similar, such as greener grass, or tirednesss with the partner.
    Yet, so many priests remain committed, because of their overwhelmingly deep love of God.
    

    Posted By: Joe

33. Regardless of whether the judge is aware of the history of the requirement of celibacy, or of whether or not he confuses celibacy with chastity, what Allen Hughes does show is a willingness for compassion and understanding, far more so than many on this thread.
    At the heart of this matter is a very broken man: His name is Robert McGregor, and despite the best efforts of many of us to self-righteously ostracise and scapegoat, he is part of our community, our brother in faith. Can any of us look deep into ourselves, our fallen and broken selves, and truly say that given the particular chain of circumstances leading to Robert's humiliation and intended actions, that we too may not be in a similarly destructive and dark situation? If a light were shone into our hearts and desires, what would be revealed for all to judge and self justify? We are a body of sinners, and while never excusing such driven abuse as Robert may have intended, or the environment and complicity which enabled it, it is not for us to cruelly exclude if we truly are Christian rather than merely institutionally aligned.

    Posted By: MJ

34. I am greatly alarmed at the growing intolerance against religion in our secular society. This judge spoke from position of secular authority and complete religious ignorance - which he freely admitted. Power and ignorance is a dangerous combination, and this person should be seriously taken to task by his profession. This was not the appropriate forum for him to air his personal views. We deserve better, and he should certainly have known better.

    Posted By: Trish

35. One great advantage of taking the vow of celibacy, is you are far more likely to be Cannonized. Very few married people are Canonized! Check out the latest 6 Saints.

    Posted By: Chris

36. Ken: Thank you for the very real insight into this deeply disturbing convention in Roman Catholicism. I am moved by your personal testimony. A true Priest you can see without a collar. To Mikayla, as I said the lofty words of 'wise Popes' take precedence over the convention established by Christ himself. Thank you to the other contributors who have also mentioned the fact the Peter himself was married. Ken's message has hit the nail on the head. I too am a former seminarian but my experience of how women, homosexuals and other Christians are looked upon by a sizable majority of 'our future priests' horrified and saddens me.
    And to Michael Bates, I remind him that the theology based on the Eunuchs is incorrect as the Eunuchs were not permitted in the Temple, so how can they be considered priestly. I commend the vast majority of faithful celibate priests who are living their vows to God, but celibacy must only be an option not a requirement, that's all I was saying, look no further than the Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean and other Catholic rites to see it can work much better. Great will be the Pope who finally makes this change.

    Posted By: Prophet

37. Ken: Thank you. Would everyone please read his comments and move on.

    Posted By: Mike b

38. Peter had a mother-in-law whom Jesus healed. But the gospels do not tell us that his wife was still alive, and she is not mentioned anywhere either. Certainly, Peter never showed any concern for her wellbeing in the Gospels, so we would be selling him short to presume she was alive.
    I think it is more realistic to assume that Peter, a widower himself, continued to care for his own widowed mother-in-law, as was the practice of the time. Care of widows and orphans was a mark of religious commitment. Jesus ensured his own mother was taken care of as he died on the cross.
    In any event, the vow of priestly celibacy is has a spiritual dynamic which is distinct from Peter's marital status and this is the aspect which I believe is most misunderstood.

    Posted By: Trish

39. Despite the statistics thrown up to us by church authorities,it does seem to the ordinary person in the street that paedophilia is well and truly over-represented in the Catholic priesthood and Religious Life. Maybe the church does need to take a long hard look at itself as the Judge suggests.

    Posted By: Bill Brady

40. Points taken about the judge and paedophilia, but please all you experts - how come that thousands of Priests over the last forty years all over the World have left the Priesthood to be happily married, many still loyal Catholics?

    Posted By: Peter M

41. Peter M: They have left the priesthood because they never should have been made priests in the first place. That's one possibility. Another is the modernist trend towards brainwashing people with lies along the lines of 'Hey, it's okay. God's love means you can do whatever you want!'
    At any rate, those poor blokes have broken solemn vows to God and will have to face Him in judgement with that on their conscience. Given their disloyalty in breaking their vows, it's hard to imagine how they could be called loyal catholics.
    In fact, I'm not even sure if their marriages could ever be legitimate. Wouldn't their priestly vows override such a union? It'd be like bigamy, surely.
    Of course, if they were to leave the woman, (painful though that would be) continue to support their kids, if they had any, and come back to the priesthood, then ultimately all would be well. It'd be a terrible mess for a long time though, and it is well to pity them and pray for them, and those who helped them down the path they chose.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

42. Has the 'cruel imposition' been considered as mitigating circumstances by the judge? If so then the prosecution is entitled to feel hardly done by in the sentencing. Would the judge feel the same way if the defendent was a married atheist?
    An abortuary in central Sydney states that a 14 year-old girl can have an abortion there without a need to have her parents informed. How does that rank in the judge's values?

    Posted By: Geoff Mongan

43. Paul K: what an interesting post. I would think most Christians (even Catholics) when showing contrition for sins, promise not to sin again. Unfortunately, most of us break this vow time and time again.
    If these men leave the priesthood it is between them and God, not for any one else to judge!
    The absolute core of being a Christian is forgiveness. We all should have this re-enforce every time we say the Our Father.

    Posted By: Chris

44. One of Australia’s best swimmers, who won many Olympic medals, retired early for personal reasons. I wonder if Paul Keen would say about him that “he should never have been a swimmer in the first place”. Yet that is the logic he uses to refute Ken, a man who gave 28 years of priestly service to the Church.
    The solemn promise (not vows for secular clergy, Paul) is made to the Church, and it is a bi-lateral contract with mutual obligations; the Church is bound to care for that priest, and be true to the Gospels. You should also be judging the Church’s failures in those duties; a breached contract can be voided.
    I agree with Ken’s assessment. On the headline issue, the argument against celibacy is not restricted to paedophilia, but should address all sexual encounters, some casual, some enduring, having a paramour, and solitary sexual acts.
    These all distress the spirit of the priest and of the people of God. Critical posters, try giving an irrefutable argument on the spiritual value celibacy provides that would disappear if priests were married

    Posted By: Boutros Neru

45. Chris and Boutros: Thank you for responding to my post. You've given me much food for thought.
    Of course we shouldn't stand in judgement of others. That is up to God. Yet, to take a secular example, if we see a person parked illegally, it's pretty hard not to think say that that person may well be up for a fine if a parking officer happens by. That's not throwing the first stone; it's not even calling for a rock. It's simply suggesting that the first stone is likely to be thrown. If those vows had been made to me, those priests would be released from immediately, but they weren't. It is, as you say, God's call, which is basically what I was suggesting in my first post, and why I still ask you to pray for those priests.
    Boutros: By your logic, Ian Thorpe would have to compete internationally until he was 65, i.e. the retirement age of priests. At any rate, I don't think our athletes make any solemn promises to God, unless there's something that the AIS is keeping from us.
    Nevertheless, I intend to read up on the exact nature of priestly responsibilties and obligations, although I will be surprised if their promise is only to the church and not to God. I didn't think the church would allow such a sacred ministry to be of such a purely human nature.
    Incidentally, I'd missed Ken's posting, and can only hope that his 28 years of service were faithful to Christ and his church, and that his leaving the ministry refers simply to his retirement from active duty, rather than a loss of faith.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

46. Boutros: Thanks again for your post. It really has been most helpful. I've done a little checking, and sure enough, it certainly seems that priests make their vows only to the church, as it is Rome who has the power to grant a priest's request to step down from his duties. Furthermore, any priest who receives such permission must then receive direct absolution from his vow of chastity directly from the pope if he wants to marry.
    However, we must take into account that Jesus made the pope his direct representive (starting with Peter, of course), and so any vow made to the pope and his church is for all intents and purposes a vow to God. Holy orders are exactly what the name suggests: God-given directives to those sworn into His service. I can understand how someone who didn't understand the sacrament might think that it was simply one man swearing allegiance to a human institution, but you and I know better than that.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

47. In the Eastern Catholic Church, to which I am blessed to belong, more than half the priests and almost all the deacons are married. However, the witness to the value of charismatic celibacy is given in a very special way by the monastics, monks and nuns, who have chosen a way of life which includes celibacy as both a choice and a gift. Because of this rational balance between marriage and the monastery both possibilities are respected. Thus, my decision to be ordained as a celibate was accepted by all as a freely chosen option.

    Posted By: Marco Elliott

48. Boutros Neru: I would have thought that a vow or solemn promise made by professed religious, or by persons entering another sacramental state such as marriage, is much more than just a contract. The spiritual dynamic, where a person enters into deeper spiritual union and Trinitarian relationship with other/s and with God is surely the greater purpose. Celibacy can only make sense within the dynamic of this relationship. After all, God is a person and God is Trinity. What is the point of for example fasting, without this dynamic of love?
    For this reason I found Ken’s posting very interesting, and appreciate his candour: that celibacy was not really an issue in seminary life, but more so in the presbytery. Surely, it must be a lonely and difficult life for priests to live in our communities. We expect so much more from our priests (wonderful homilies, etc), and they are often shown no respect and very little mercy, bearing the brunt of individuals’ issues with the institutional Church.
    With communal families such as this, the priesthood would have to be one the most difficult vocations to commit to. I wonder if this in fact is an underlying issue, as so many priests leave for love/marriage. And after all, celibacy is not just meant for priests.
    I would suggest that the issues surrounding the gentleman in the article are far more complex, and in fact find it offensive that celibacy was named as the cause.

    Posted By: Trish

49. Paul Keen: Just where did Jesus make the Pope his direct representative?

    Posted By: Francis

50. Trish: Not sure I grasped your meaning about Trinitarian relationships. But as for solemn promises being more than a contract, you equate religious profession with the Sacrament of Matrimony. The contract of Matrimony entails the dynamic of relationship you mention, yet it is the contract between the two parties. Holy Orders is a Sacrament which does not entail celibacy as an essential part of the dynamic, so the promise of celibacy, as with religious profession, is made under God but between the church and the person, and it involves responsibility by both parties. Some people are quick to condemn priests for “breaking their vow to God”, but never seem to consider the failure of the church to uphold its side of the contract. No vow or promise can ever override the basic right to be treated with humanity, nor does it bind a person to accept harmful or unnatural demands. That was my point.

    Posted By: Boutros Neru

51. Francis: When He said to Peter, 'Thou are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not hold out against it. What you bind on Earth shall be considered bound in Heaven. What you loose on Earth will be considered loosed in Heaven.'
    Can't remember the exact biblical reference for it, but I think the above is pretty close. Catholics believe that Jesus instituted the papacy at that moment, and in fact there is a direct line of popes going all the way back to Peter.

    Posted By: Paul Keen

52. Boutros: Trinity means three, so a sacrament inlcudes God. God, self, and other/s. Also, don't forget that we collectively are the church. That was my other point. I'm not condemning the priests at all. I simply refuse to blame celibacy for deviant behaviour.

    Posted By: Trish

53. Trish: You initially wrote “God is a person and God is Trinity”, but have now explained that the Trinitarian relationship you were invoking is “God, self and other/s”; a little idiosyncratic, but I get your meaning. Celibacy is probably not the cause of “deviant” behaviour (presumably you mean paedophilia and the like). But no rigorous research has been done that would support the view that celibacy has not influenced much of the other sexual behaviours of priests and professed celibates to which I referred in my first post above. Anecdotal evidence suggests it does. Surely we are not so phlegmatic that we can ignore its high incidence worldwide.

    Posted By: Boutros Neru

54. Paul Keen: Sorry but St Paul knows nothing about it! Nor does Mark. Even the early Church scholars couldn't agree about the Matthean intention. Most of the New testament is silent about "Peter being Jesus' direct representative". In the Acts of the Apostles, it's more likely James the Lord's brother who seems to have some authority over Peter.

    Posted By: Francis

55. Paul Keen: See Matthew 18:18 where the authority to bind and loose is given to all the disciples and not just to Peter.

    Posted By: Cobber

56. Bill Brady: The fact that the ordinary person in the street has that misperception is not something that the Catholic Church can be blamed for. By quoting the statistics, Catholics are trying to end the myth. Many elements in the Mass Media report every new development of every Catholic priest paedophile with zeal while ignoring most other paedophiles. The overreporting unfortunately creates a perception that Catholic priest = paedophile. This is horribly unfair for the vast majority of priests.
    Prophet: Trish has already discussed Peter's situation. Even if the reasonable inference was incorrect Peter said that he left everything to follow Jesus.
    Deuteronomy 23:1 held that “No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.” If that is all that you are referring to, I note again that I believe Jesus was counselling those first 'priests to be' in our Church to be sexually continent, not literally castrated. He said it was for the Kingdom of Heaven. That interpretation would also be consistent with Paul's requirements for Bishops which hinted at sexual continence. Why else would remarriage be unacceptable for them? It is fine for other Christians.

    Posted By: Michael Bates

57. Francis and Cobber: Thanks for the insights and references. What catholics believe is to be found in the section of the catechism quoted below.
    Cobber: I'm pretty sure that article 400 refers to Matthew 18:18, which makes sense given that Matthew 16 has Jesus giving the Keys of the Kingdom (an ancient Hebrew symbol of ultimate yet transferable authority) to Peter alone.
    881: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.
    400: 'The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.'
    401: 'This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.'
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I
    
    

    Posted By: Paul Keen

58. Paul Keen: Read the New Testament and you'll find that there is no primacy of the Pope at all. The Catechism may not contradict the Scriptures. The concept is anathema to Jesus. St Paul condemned St Peter to his face in the letter to the Galatians. At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it is James, not Peter, who gives the verdict. In the new testament, Peter never makes a decision binding on the Church.

    Posted By: Francis

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. ACU head speaks out on charters

   Australian Catholic University National Vice-Chancellor Greg Craven has warned that the apparent collapse of the push for a national charter of rights would impact Victoria and the ACT, which have charters of their own.

2. Qld Marist College student suspended over Facebook group

   A Year 12 Marist College student in Queensland has been suspended for creating a Facebook group saying missing schoolboy Daniel Morcombe will be handed over if the group attracts a million members.

3. Catholic Health's cautious welcome for "My Hospital" plan

   The Federal Government is considering a "My Hospital" website that will let patients examine hospital infection rates, intensive care mortality rates, errors and waiting times for elective surgery.

4. Queensland educator's death mourned

   Brisbane Catholic Education's director for School Services Centre South, Neil Bloxsidge, died of a suspected heart attack in a touch football match on Monday night.

5. Rise in enrolments at Sydney Catholic schools

   Enrolments in Sydney Catholic systemic schools in 2010 are at a 20-year-high, according to preliminary census data.