Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. Why not conduct a poll of Melbourne's priests and gauge for yourself whether Father Greg Reynolds should be excommunicated, re-educated or, inducted into the Hall of Fame for courage personified.

   Posted By: MJB Melbourne

2. When we move into the public forum and make comments which we have been asked not to do, then we risk being a reprimanded.
   You also put your Bishop in the situation of having to do what he has been told to do; he has to address the
   issue with you and indicate that he has no alternative but to...?

   Posted By: D.A. Davies. Milton.

3. How many women are mentioned in the New Testament as helping Jesus and then the Apostles, including Paul? How many were 'deaconesses' (ordained)?
   We should ordain Parish Secretaries; they serve selflessly.

   Posted By: Laurie Scott, ELIMBAH QLD

4. MJB: If a poll were to deliver a majority decision to excommunicate Fr Reynolds, it would carry no weight at all. What Fr Reynolds has done is not an excommunicable offence.

   Posted By: Lance Eccles, Goulburn NSW

5. What right has Rome to tell people they cannot discuss the ordination of women?
   Such behaviour reminds me of Hitler's Germany in the 1930's.
   If we'd had females as priests, we might not have had the sexual abuse of children by male clergy. - Sydney, NSW

   Posted By: B.Robertson

6. It is difficult to see what point Laurie Scott is making, as his two paragraphs appear to contradict one another.
   The first points out that of the many women who followed Jesus, none was ordained, which is a very clear indication of the fact that Christ Himself willed the priesthood to be a male-only office.
   The second paragraph then calls for Parish Secretaries, presumably female, to be ordained.
   The justification given for ordination is that they serve selflessly. It should be pointed out that not all parish secretaries are female, that selfless service in the Church is not limited to parish secretaries, many of whom are paid anyway, and that the priesthood is a call to serve the Church sacramentally, not a reward for the performance of clerical tasks.
   

   Posted By: John of Melbourne

7. Similarly, if a poll were to deliver a majority decision endorsing Fr Reynolds’ declaration of support for female ordination, it should carry no weight at all. The Church is not a democracy. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church via the medium of Christ’s Vicar on earth, the Pope.

   Posted By: John of Melbourne

8. It is so sad that the debate over Fr Reyonlds' homily has turned into a less than charitable impolite exchange.
   We need a lot more brave bishops and priests and lay people to stand up and be heard.
   What Fr Reynoldas had to say has been expressed by other clerics even Cardinals in the past.
   I recall Cardinal Martini, SJ former Archbishop of Milan, expressing strong opinions about the inadequate role of women in the church and many others over the years, including Australian clerics.
   I hope we all offer support and pray for FrReynolds, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson and other priests who have the courage to speak up about many issues in our church.
   If we cannot openly express opinions and share dialogue together, then we may as well be back behind the 'iron curtin'.
   Whatever happened to the implementation of collegiality so strongly spoken of in the Documents of Vatican 11.
   I can think of many Cardinals, Bishops and priests who might well qualify for excommunication long before good pastoral priests and bishops who speak the truth with integrity.

   Posted By: margaret M.Coffey 66/137 Victoria St.Ashfield Nsw

9. The real issue here is whether those who call themselves Catholic wish to submit their intellect to the revelation of the Word of God to man, passed of from generation to generation and safeguarded by Peter and his successors under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.
   That is what the Catholic Church has always held itself to be. No one is forced to accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church, but if he doesn’t, he can't claim to be Catholic.
   Dissenters will always be frustrated, because the Church is neither democratic, nor populist, nor politically correct.
   Fr Greg and his supporters need prayers to better understand the nature of the Church and the necessity to submit one’s own desires and beliefs to the divine teaching of the Church.
   As Chesterton said, one ought not to be so open minded that the brain falls out.

   Posted By: David Fanning, Norwood, Tas

10. Can you believe John of Melbourne's reference to Jesus himself willing the priesthood to be a male-only office? Which men were 'ordained' by Jesus anyway? I have no doubt that the very Jesus who exposed and critiqued the excessive instituionalism of Judaism with its clerical abuses and patriarchal mentality, would have been appalled to see how Rome operates today.
    I only hope that when women are evetually ordained in the Catholic Church - for surely the day will come - the nature of the priesthood will be such that they will be sharing in and shaping the institution, rather than merely joining it.
    The patronising attitudes of male clerics and narrow-minded restorationist laymen as well are a disgrace to the beauty of the Gospel and its message of liberation for all.

    Posted By: David Geelong

11. Prominent Loreto nun, Sister Veronica Brady, who is well respected in many circles, including among the catholic religious community and its hierarchical leaders, has been speaking out publically for the need for women priests for some years now.
    This desire and the wisdom of this innovation is nothing new.
    Fr Greg may well have a strong calling that 'It's Just Time'.

    Posted By: Su-Rose McIntyre Mornington Peninsula

12. Re comments from B. Robertson on sexual abuse and male clergy. Crime statistics show that 80% of convicted paedophiles are married men. The other 20% of the singular section contain few priests.

    Posted By: Tom VIC

13. Thanks for that clarification John of Melbourne. Here I was thinking that the Pope was just the Vicar of Peter.
    Pope Innocent III appropriated the title unto himself in the thirteenth century, I'm sure, purely for spiritual reasons.
    God forbid that the title may have been confected in order to accumulate more earthly power... surely not from the mediaeval popes??

    Posted By: Elias Nasser, Sylvania NSW

14. Fr Greg Reynolds isn't the first priest to express his opinion on women priests.
    Certainly women in leadership are proving very effective. I don't know this Peninsula Weekly so it obviously isn't world breaking news.
    With the increasing number of married Anglican priests being admitted to the Catholic communion and parish life; and many women being better trained to fulfil the role of priest (I'm not one of them) there are changing social world views and options to think about and discuss. No doubt that was Fr Greg's aim.

    Posted By: Mary Perth WA

15. Congratulations to Fr Greg Reynolds for taking a stand and putting his job on the line.
    Unlike many clergy who support the ordination of women, Greg is prepared to do something about it. Maybe it is time for many more to stand up and be counted.

    Posted By: terry fitzpatrick brisbane

16. How can you have a Protestant like Fr Reynolds ministering to the faithful in a parish loyal to the Holy See?

    Posted By: NS, Sydney

17. We already have a huge shortage of pastoral priests as it is, so removing Fr Greg from active ministry will be yet another nail in the coffin.
    I firmly believe that Jesus was influenced by the situation at the time. Women had no status at all and if he was to go that far in Judasim, of which he was a practising member, alienation and serious scandal would have resulted.
    Jesus was prepared to critise the existing power struggles but he also understood the limits of change. If He was with us today I am sure he would adapt his choice of ordained people to the preveling social situation.
    By the way, Jesus did not ordain his followers, that practice came into the Church quite some time later!
    It is a very sad day when freedom to question non-binding beliefs/attitudes is banned by what seems to be fear of loss of control.
    The bottom line is service, not power!

    Posted By: Gavin O'Brien Canberra

18. I can only say Bravo Father Reynolds for saying out loud what many women, men, and probably priests, are thinking, but not daring to say out loud.

    Posted By: Anne Parnis Glenelg

19. There are many priests and Bishops who are not true /faithful to the magisterium. JP2 said there are many rolls for women the Church.
    Priesthood is not one of them.
    How could it be? Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is His bride. You work it out.
    Not in my Church. That's that why the Anglicans are coming over.

    Posted By: Diane Randwick

20. Gavin et al - this is an honest question, as I'd like to understand where you are coming from: what would it take for you to accept that this belief [that the sacerdotal priesthood is exclusively male] is not non-binding?

    Posted By: David Fanning, Norwood, Tas

21. Gavin: It's Catholic teaching that Jesus did ordain the first priests (bishops, in fact).
    If the Church is wrong about this, and the priesthood is merely a human institution, we are all wasting our time staying in the Catholic Church.

    Posted By: Lance Eccles, Goulburn NSW

22. David of Geelong asked ‘Which men were 'ordained' by Jesus anyway?’ and Gavin O'Brien stated ‘Jesus did not ordain his followers’.
    Let’s see what Vatican II taught about this:
    It stated that “For the nurturing and constant growth of the People of God, 'Christ the Lord instituted in His Church a variety of ministries' which work for the good of the whole body. For those ministers, who are endowed with sacred power, serve their brethren,….” [Lumen Gentium, section 18, paragraph 1.]
    Furthermore “This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church”. [Lumen Gentium, section 18, paragraph 2.]
    See here:
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
    

    Posted By: DN, Horsham, Victoria

23. Is Su-Rose McIntyre seriously suggesting that the opinion of Sister Veronica Brady should carry more weight than the definitive declaration made by Pope John Paul II in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?”
    If so, how does she suggest the rest of us establish our positions in the matter? On gut feel?

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

24. I am intrigued to know why Elias Nasser thinks the Pope is “just the Vicar of Peter.” I have never heard that term, but the title Vicar of Christ on earth is well known to Catholics. What does Elias think Christ meant when He gave Saint Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
    Did He mean that granting of authority to cease on the death of Peter? If so, what role does Elias think the Pope should play in the life of the Church?
    In passing, I think the sarcastic tone of Elias’ post must be an example of the uncharitable impoliteness that causes the sadness Margaret M. Coffey spoke of earlier.
    I suggest we don’t cause Margaret any more sadness.

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

25. It is just too facile an argument that Gavin O’Brien puts up, namely, that Christ was too politically correct to ordain women in His own time, but would do so now that the climate is more favourable.
    The Jesus he is referring to was the one who ate with tax collectors, who prevented the stoning of the woman taken in adultery, who allowed a penitent woman to wash His feet with her tears, and wipe them with her hair and who spoke to a Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well.
    Not one of those actions was the politically correct thing to do, and yet Gavin thinks Jesus was too cowardly to ordain women!
    I am afraid that Gavin’s firm belief that Jesus was influenced by the situation at the time just does not hold up in the light of the actual evidence from the Gospel.
    And if Gavin were right in his claim that Jesus did not ordain His followers, then where did the power to ordain come from some time later, as he claims?
    Sorry, Gavin, the bottom line is neither service nor power, but loyal obedience to the will of Christ.

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

26. Well said, Margaret Coffey and David, Geelong. What would Jesus do?n - Brisbane, Qld

    Posted By: Patricia T.

27. Why is Fr Greg not encouraging young men to hold the faith and consider the priesthood as a worthwhile vocation first and foremost?
    For me ordination of women is down the list at this time. We should be concerned about the fact that young men are rejecting belief and leaving the Church in droves. Feminizing the Church is not going to help this trend.
    Btw, suggesting that pedophillia is a male-related affliction is rubbish. Presumably celibacy is still something that women have to deal with in religious life.
    I say this because there seems to be a ridiculous attempt to correlate male celebacy with pedophillia.
    Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, I have always seen the priest as representing Jesus Christ in his total being (human and divine) in the celebration of the Mass.
    I also hope we are not heading towards disputing the Lord's Prayer which is female free! Or the Trinity which as far as I know is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
    As I have said elsewhere, ordination of women will fragment the Church as it has with other denominations.
    Do we need for this to happen to Catholicism in order to make a point driven largely by modern day political correctness?

    Posted By: deric davidson bunbury

28. I might desire 'motherhood' but as a man I know this is not my role in life. I do consider 'fatherhood, though, as equally important.
    Priests and nuns play those roles in the Catholic Church.

    Posted By: deric davidson bunbury

29. Gavin: The entire Gospel is story of humiliation, the breaking of socially constructed ideas that separate us from God: Jesus associating with lepers, prostitutes and Samaritan women; a rich, short tax collector climbing a tree in utter disregard for his social status to catch a glimpse of Jesus; redefining the laws of the Sabbath; clearing markets out the Temple; a woman wiping the feet of Jesus with her hair; Jesus acting as a servant for his disciples. He offended many people, including his disciples, when he told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
    Many walked away.
    One would expect that Jesus appointing one or more women as part of the 12 apostles after his night of prayer would fit well with these other scandals of the time.
    They were of his choosing and he didn't. I think this forms the basis of the Church admitting to not having authority to do this.
    At his death he cried 'It is finished' and the curtain in the temple was torn. The resurrection is proof of this completion.
    I see the role of the clergy as a role of service, modelled on Jesus, as opposed to one of authoritarian leadership,
    So I don't really have a problem with this. It is not about equality. Service is open to all and we can do it any time we like.
    I think our prayerful discernment is better spent discovering what authority we have as laypeople to bring the Kingdom of God into the world.

    Posted By: AD, Newcastle, NSW

30. Jesus never willed or instituted any Sacraments at all. He came to preach God's Reign (Kingdom) and to establish its beginnings in the lives of his followers.
    He reduced everything to the principle of Hillel (Mt 7:12); God is not even mentioned. He left a lot to inspired imagination.
    The Kingdom people were the members of 'the Jesus Movement.' During the post resurrection decades they called themselves 'the Way'; in the 80s they identified themselves as the Ekklesia or Church.
    By outsiders in Antioch they were called Christians.
    It was these people who began to express the abiding presence of Jesus Christ in the world in primitive sacramental forms.
    The Incarnation means, in post resurrection history, that God trusts the Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, to express the Mystery within the limits of humanity.
    To propose that Jesus intentionally instituted the Sacramental economy in his own lifetime is to leave his Body, the Church, a mere puppet on a string, a entertaining toy and to deny the grace of the Holy Spirit.

    Posted By: David Timbs Albion. Vic.

31. There are many armchair scriptural interpretations in these posts, but they are merely speculative.
    Actually David Geelong and Gavin are more defensible than their critics, in my opinion.
    They made no mention of political correctness by Jesus – that was how a critic perceived it.
    I suggest that the critics consider the ramifications of denying social context in interpreting the Scriptures; what would we make of St Paul circumcising Timothy, of women covering their heads, of Abraham and his concubines, just to name a few quickly?
    Moreover, we see the priest as “another Christ”, yet still postulate their Fatherhood, when Jesus always deferred to His Father, and never claimed Fatherhood nor did He use the title. So I think that particular argument against women being ordained has no legs.

    Posted By: PM, Eden

32. David Timbs has a view of the Sacraments that is quite foreign to even the most revisionist form of Catholicism.
    To deny that Christ instituted the Sacraments is to hold that Christ wasted the few short years of His public ministry talking rubbish.
    What does he think Christ meant by, “Do this in commemoration of Me” at the Last Supper?
    What does he think Christ meant by, “Whatever you shall loose shall be loosed also in Heaven?”
    What does he think Christ meant by, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?”
    David obviously believes that the Sacraments are not efficacious signs, as true Catholic doctrine holds, but merely empty symbols.
    How impoverished a view of the immense gifts the Saviour bestowed on us in instituting the Sacraments!

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

33. When David of Geelong asks which men were ‘ordained’ by Jesus, I have to ask what else does he think happened at the Last Supper? What does he think Christ meant by “Do this in commemoration of Me?”
    If he believes in ordination at all, where does he think the power to ordain comes from, if not from Jesus Himself at the Last Supper?
    As for the “message of liberation for all” he claims the Gospel to contain, he seems to have forgotten the many notions and practices Christ warned His followers about. It is true that the Gospel is liberating, but not that it is libertine.

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

34. A priest can believe what he likes in private, but when he preaches in public he is bound to do so in union with his bishop, who in turn teaches in union with the Universal Church. Reservation of the priesthood to men alone is a dogma of the Catholic Church - it is an Apostolic teaching which has been held for the entire lifespan of the Church and priests thus have a duty to uphold this teaching.
    If the priest had attacked another dogma of the faith - that of transubstantiation and the Real Presence - there would be uproar because he would be ignoring, on a personal whim, the teachings that the Church has professed since its earliest days.
    This case should be treated no differently.
    If Catholics choose to go to Mass at a Catholic Church, then it is their absolute right to get the Mass as set forth in the liturgical books and the solid teaching of the Church - as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "The Spirit of the Liturgy", what is merely individual about the priest should disappear and make way for Christ. The Church needs faithful priests now more than ever. The flock is starving - Fr Reynolds and priests like him need to feed us with the spiritual treasures the God has given us through the Catholic Church.

    Posted By: Patrick, Dublin, Ireland

35. Many of the comments posted focus on the issue of women priests. However the report deals with a different issue: What might be the action taken in response to Fr Reynolds speaking his mind?
    An accompanying question is, should he be punished in any way?
    This also prompts questions like, what is the place and nature of authority in the RC Church?
    How does/should it interrelate with individual insight and conscience? Where are the boundaries of Christian (and, more narrowly, Catholic) faith? Is integrity or effectiveness of faith circumscribed by particular combinations of propositions or beliefs, or does it manifest in diverse opinions in good will?
    This brings us back to the report, and whether Fr Reynolds should be penalised.
    Should his honesty be acknowledged and/or applauded? Should his bishop (or, indeed, any other person) feel threatened by it?
    Or should he engage with Fr Reynolds simply as a co-religionist in amicable dialogue, asking him to consider anything he had not already?
    Faith is often referred to as if it were co-extensive with obedience or conformity of belief with published catechisms, and to the extent that it is, it becomes something which continually excludes or divides, not unites or encourages, because life experience and understanding are as varied as there are people and I don’t think any two persons ever quite have the exact same comprehension of God or Christian dogma (though they may express agreement in CathNews blogsites!)
    The weight of historical collective self-identification amongst the Catholic population and the institutional inertia of the Church structure persuade me that Fr Reynolds’s expression of his opinions need not be a threat to anyone’s comfort zone and that each of us must - if the Church is really a many-mansioned house - be able to feel free to speak our truths without fear.
    

    Posted By: smk, Bundarra

36. Congrats, DT Albion! In five short paragraphs you have succeeded in denying every doctrine of the Catholic Church. You'll be the envy of Luther! (It took him ninety-five paragraphs.)

    Posted By: David Fanning, Norwood, Tas

37. I thought I was going to find good value in the post of smk of Bundarra until we got to the point of considering whether the Archbishop, or anyone else, should feel threatened by Fr Reynolds’ rejection of the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, and the admonitions of his Archbishop. It is not a question of feeling threatened; I feel very secure in my Faith despite the increasing frequency of aberrant declarations by various priests and laymen over the last few decades.
    In particular, I don’t feel threatened by moves to ordain women. Should any part of the Catholic Church move to ordain women, it would, from that time, no longer be the Catholic Church, and I would feel no compulsion to continue in it, but would still search out some remnant of the true Church to adhere to, since Christ promised that He would be with us all days, even to the ends of the earth. But feeling threatened is not the only reason one might leap to the defence of the Church.
    As Catholics, we are not merely encouraged, but obliged, to defend the Faith when we see its truths attacked.
    smk then proposes that the Archbishop, as merely a “co-religionist in amicable dialogue,” should engage with Fr Reynolds in discussing the issue. Hasn’t that already occurred? Fr Reynolds has admitted notifying the Archbishop of his intentions, and been warned of the possible consequences. Is there no end to dialogue? But I can see that smk is using the word dialogue in the sense – common these days - that means we continue talking until we get our way; we will never accept an adverse decision. In that sense, the word dialogue is merely a smokescreen.
    

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

38. By the way, smk, who said the Church is a many-mansioned house? Christ said there were many rooms in His Father’s house, (Jn 14:2), but in regard to the Church - His followers - He prayed, (Jn 17:21), “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee.”
    Christ seemed to envisage much simpler real estate than you are suggesting. “That they all may be one” indicates to me that Christ never intended His Church to be a forum for endless, non-definitive diologue.

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

39. Since PM of Eden characterizes the armchair scriptural interpretations in these posts as merely speculative, can he/she point me to definitive interpretations of those passages?
    Or does “merely speculative” simply mean inconvenient from the point of view of PM’s preferred position on this matter?
    And David and Gavin’s posts are more defensible simply because they do not mention political correctness? I cannot follow the logic there.
    I’ve tried PM’s suggestion that I “consider the ramifications of denying social context in interpreting the Scriptures,” but fail to see the ramifications of considering the ramifications. Can PM enlighten me there, please?
    Finally, try as I might, I just could not follow the reasoning in the last paragraph about priests and Fatherhood, and would appreciate some elucidation of the argument there.
    

    Posted By: John of Melbourne

40. I thank John for his response to my post.
    I think his unthreatened attitude, in the face of what he calls aberrant declarations, is constructive.
    And he’s entitled to follow papal direction or on his own account reject the idea of women priests or anything else that doesn’t accord with his understanding of what the Church Catholic is all about. My point is, so’s everyone. My further point was, given this state of affairs, it’s always useful and productive for each of us to ask pivotal questions about what it is we believe about the Church, why, and whether it could ever be different. If one thinks the Church can only be where the traditional paradigms hold sway, then that’s one answer. But it’s clearly not universally persuasive: John’s faith is in a concept of Church that many people agree with but many disagree with. Many more may never have tested the waters of faith and question.
    I should clarify one thing: I realise words can become fashionable semaphores for all sorts of things. I did not mean by dialogue anything other than an exchange of views with a view to understanding and possible agreement, a kind of “communio quaerens intellectum et concordiam”, to modify a well-worn saying. I don’t regard the bishop threatening Fr Reynolds with consequences as dialogue, any more than Fr Reynolds delivering ultimata of his own. If the bishop could be as sanguine as John, he might feel comfortable with not making threats, but calmly state his own view and ask Fr Reynolds to consider them further on their own merits. The spirit of the kind of dialogue I’m thinking of would require Fr Reynolds to give his bishop a fresh and fair hearing. Agreement may not be possible, but threats and penalties seem the unchristian thing to do.
    

    Posted By: smk, Bundarra

41. I cannot find anywhere in the New testament where Jesus ordains anyone a bishop or a priest or a deacon.
    I cannot find anywhere saying that Jesus left orders that his community of disciples should even have them.
    I am reliably informed that the Greek word for priest is never used in the NT of any church official but of the community of disciples as a whole.
    I have founmd where a woman, Junia, is referred to as being an apostle.

    Posted By: Charles (Brisbane)

42. I cannot claim to be as learned as many of the contibutors to this forum.
    My understanding has always been that the Church started when Jesus said 'You are Peter (the rock) and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it'.
    I have always accepted that Peter was the first Pope and that all decisions regarding church law followed from that point down all the generations. It is obvious that we now live in vastly differrent times and I feel sure that if any Pope so wished, the ordination of women could be allowed without going against any teachings of Jesus.
    I wonder if He really intended the Church to turn into the Boys Club that it has. After all, He chose to be born of woman.
    Australia's very first saint is a woman, in spite of having been excommunicated at one point because certain bishops couldn't cope with her ability to reach people and attend to their needs without all the mumbo jumbo.
    These days women hold high positions in large corporations, the legal and medical professions as well as politics.
    We now have a female Governor-General and a female Prime Minister. There is a great shortage of priests in the Church, so why not allow some of the women who are already doing great work within the Church to study for the prieshood if they feel they have a vocation?

    Posted By: Annie - Shepparton -Vic.

43. It is apparent that Fr Reynolds and his supporters fail to grasp the difference between a theocracy and a democracy.
    There is a huge difference between the two. It is not simply a question of allowing or disallowing free speech. The Church has never been bullied into submission by populist voting demands. Those that have attempted this are not generally known as Roman Catholic, but Protestants.
    As for the claim that this is in response to the promptings of the Holy Spirit - this is a far cry from the real unity endowed by the actions of the Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles where the believers were “...one in heart and in mind”.
    If one believes that they can cause dissent and disunity in the Church and then claim that this is in accordance with the will of the Holy Spirit – they need to go back and reread “Discernment of Spirits 101”...

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington, Sydney

44. Albert Burton and his like fail to understand the difference between a cult (where authoritarianism and guru status of an individual reigns) and the Jesus community of disciples (where no one reigns supreme, where debate is permitted [as in Acts] and where questions are permitted and even, according to Canon Law, the faithful are encouraged to make their opinions known.
    Oh that the faithful in times past had made their opinions known in the times of bad and cruel popes etc. That the faithful would speak loud and clear against all the child sexual abuse and episcopal cover-ups.
    Albert, in the unity of the community of Jesus' disciples in Acts, they also sold their property and shared the proceeds among all (Acts 2:44,45).
    Perhaps the greatest dissenter of all is the Holy Spirit for, surely, no one is suggesting that Jesus agrees with or has agreed with, everything the 'church' has done and believed. Not everything the hierarchy has done or taught has been the work of the Spirit.
    The wind blows where she wills, says the apostle John. God is not tied to nor limited by the Church. After all, God is sovereign.

    Posted By: Charles (Brisbane)

45. There is always a distinction to be made between debate and dissent, respect and rebellion.
    Charles from Brisbane refers to corruption in the church (albeit completely tangential and unrelated to my original post).
    No person in their right mind can claim that any evils done by certain members of the church were inspired by the Holy Spirit. To speak out against evil is a duty, while causing division and dissent is another.
    One might consider the difference between St Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther.
    One caused reformation of the church without dissent or rebellion, the other threw the baby out with the bathwater.
    It would appear that Charles' views are largely related to a lack of appreciation of the concept of tradition and has stereotyped people of my “like” to cult followers when we are simply holding “...to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15).” It can be noted that in this context, traditions were taught by “us” not by a singular pope or guru, (to use your words) – suggesting that the “us” is representative of a larger body of believers.
    Had he read my post accurately, Charles might have noted that nowhere had I mentioned authority or the papacy which warrants his belittling use of a cult analogy.

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington, Sydney

46. John of Melbourne: I’ve been away and just now read you comment on me. Y
    our approach in your ten posts to this story is to rebut others’ opinions, using your interpretation of Scripture as your argument.
    That is what I call ‘speculative”.
    And no, I can’t readily point to definitive interpretations of the items I mentioned; but that is the whole point I’m making, viz. that some posters are treating their interpretations as if they are definitive, and thus believe they have demolished other opinions with their own quotes.
    And John, you were the one who accused Gavin of the “political correctness” issue – go back and look at your fifth post.
    Gavin merely said that Jesus would know “the limits to change.” I see it as recognition of social context in the Scriptures. Surely, John, you can see the point that if we take a quote of Scripture without social context, and make our own interpretation of it “infallible”, then Paul’s circumcising Timothy would mean all Christian men should be circumcised. But of course, elsewhere, Paul says circumcising is like mutilation; and that can be greatly disturbing for those who read Scripture without its social context.
    John, you said in reply to SMK Bundarra that “Should any part of the Catholic Church move to ordain women, it would, from that time, no longer be the Catholic Church, and I would feel no compulsion to continue in it, but would still search out some remnant of the true Church to adhere to,”; well, I find that an incomprehensible statement.
    If the church were to ordain women, then that is the church; but you claim you would know the true remnant and join it.
    Are you claiming infallible perception?
    

    Posted By: PM, Eden

47. PM (Eden): 'If the church were to ordain women, then that is the church; but you claim you would know the true remnant and join it.
    Are you claiming infallible perception?'
    If hypothetically the 'actual' Church and not some renegade part of it decided to ordain women, then the correct thing to do as a Catholic would be accept this.
    Nevertheless, to use your own words: 'That is what I call "speculative”.'
    To be sure, this would have to be very, very speculative given the Church's official teaching on this matter...
    I note with some curiosity that there also seems to be a perception that the presence of women priests has been suggested by some people as the magic pill that would stop or reduce cases of male clerical sexual abuse.
    Given that the overwhelming number of sexual abuse cases are committed by married men (or men in defacto relationships) and not priests, can anyone suggest why the presence of women (in the roles of wife or mother) have failed to remedy these scenarios? Sounds like a pretty weak argument.

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington, Sydney

48. Albert Burton: Please define 'dissent'. So, in your book, because a Disciple of Jesus can see no reason why women should not be ordained, then that person is a dissenter and a rebel. I find that people who use these categories have set themselves up as the righteous and, thus, have fallen prey to pride and vanity
    Re ‘tradition’. Revisit your New testament where ‘mere human traditions’ are condemned. 2 Thess 2:15 has nothing to do with the ordination of women. What traditions is Paul referring to? Refer Paul writing to the Church in Rome: I commend to you our sister, Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. (Rom 16:1). Refer Romans 16:7 where Paul refers to a woman, Junia, as being ‘prominent among the apostles’. What, a woman apostle? So there is a tradition of women deacons and women apostles.
    Where did I imply that evils committed by popes etc were inspired by the Holy Spirit . Please, do not distort what I wrote. Such injustice does your difficult to follow reasoning no credit at all. I note that you have not responded to several of the points that I made eg does canon Law not give us the right to make our opinions known to our pastors?
    

    Posted By: Charles (Brisbane)

49. Albert Burton, your comment on my view included bringing up the sexual abuse issue, making it look like I had made such a comment. I did not.
    My view of sexual abuse covers much more broad issues than paedophilia, and I did not raise the issue in this story. I have never asserted that ordaining women would be a solution to abuse. Women in priesthood is a stand-alone issue.

    Posted By: PM, Eden

50. Charles: Please read my post carefully and you will see that I never made the assertion that you stated that evils committed by popes etc were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
    Unless you did not originally make yourself clear, your post can be interpreted that the faithful (inspired by the Holy Spirit) have a duty to stand up against the hierarchy (who are not always inspired by the Holy Spirit).
    Here we enter shaky ground.
    I completely agree with you that the hierarchy at times have most certainly not always followed the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Let's not forget that the same applies to the “Faithful”. The issue at hand is, how can one be so sure and certain that the ordination of women is indeed the will of the Holy Spirit? You claim that you do not know of any good reason why women should not be ordained, yet I have not read any of the proponents of women's ordination in this blog dealing with any of the fundamental reasons outlined by John Paul II in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”.
    Rather, proponents have relied upon sentiment, populist thinking and at times generalized stereotypical disrespect towards the hierarchy.
    I am curious of the example of Junia “the Apostle” is is not explained anywhere here why she didn't ordain any priestesses.
    If she was an apostle as you say, surely she would have had the authority to do so? Especially if she was part of the hierarchy.

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington, Sydney

51. PM of Eden: You will probably find on rereading my post that I never made any assertion that you stated that women priests were a solution to clerical sexual abuse of minors.
    My comment regarding sexual abuse in the later part of my post was addressed to a more general audience, and certainly not specifically to you.

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington, Sydney

52. Albert Burton: Please,read your post again. It either lacks clarity or it does imply that I was saying that evils done by the hierarchy were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
    What did I write? Please get your facts right.
    
    Yes...the faithful do have a duty to stand up against the hierarchy when they are wrong....and theere have been many occasions in history when popes etc have been wrong, evil etyc (eg Pope John XII etc)
    
    You fail to answer any of the challenges presented to you.....not a good sign! Would you care to answer what others have raised rather than going off on tangents.
    
    Re Junia.....please read what St Paul wrote......do you disagree with him? Your comment "why she didn't ordain any priestesses" is shallow......where is there any reference to Jesus ordaining priests? (a Rabbi ordaining priests? You misunderstand Judaism)Where is there any reference to Peter ordaining priests? Or James, the brother of the Lord (and the real leader of the Church), or John? Read Paul and you will discover that there were apostles other than the 12.

    Posted By: Charles (Brisbane)

53. For years, as we prayed for vocations to the priesthood, I wondered what in truth was the prayer. Now we may praise and thank our heavenly Father for sending Fr Greg gifted in courage and justice.

    Posted By: Denise Seal, Doncaster, Victoria

54. 'You fail to answer any of the challenges presented to you.....not a good sign! Would you care to answer what others have raised rather than going off on tangents.'
    Charles, with respect, if your posts were more clearly presented, then I would be more than happy to attempt to answer them. Please try to be a little more specific in your posts.
    Incidentally, while you are quick to accuse others of being tangential, you have not addressed or chosen to ignore what I posted about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington

55. Albert Burton: Re your failure/refusal to answer all points raised please re-read what has been written in response to you.
    Papal Statements etc are not the last word. There have been many papal documents throughout history which the Church, today, no longer accepts (eg Syllabus of Errors etc). Popes are mere men in human history.

    Posted By: Charles (Brisbane)

56. Again Charles, not to be dismissive, but your posts contain a number of sentences which are difficult to elucidate exactly what are points for discussion and what are statements. Note well that I have answered many of your previous comments in my posts, however this appears to be met with a repeating of questions without appearing to make a serious effort to understand my responses.
    Your main confusion appears to be around the statement: “Unless you did not originally make yourself clear, your post can be interpreted that the faithful (inspired by the Holy Spirit) have a duty to stand up against the hierarchy (who are not always inspired by the Holy Spirit).”
    I would encourage you to go back, reread my posts in good faith and then consider my points before making an unhelpful blanket statement suggesting that I have failed or refused to answer your previous posts when I have done so.
    For the record, I also never said Papal Encyclicals were the last word. I simpled declared that since Ordinatio Sacerdotalis seems to be the relevent “piece de resistance” on this topic, non one on this discussion thread have even bothered to address or consider its arguments. Statements like: “Popes are mere men in human history.” seem to confirm this dismissive lack of consideration.

    Posted By: Albert Burton, Kensington, Sydney

• » 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. Private school anger over mistakes in MySchool data

   Private schools are threatening court action to prevent the publication of information about their finances on the My School website, after previews that indicated the website is riddled with errors, said The Australian.

2. Condom use 'clarification' adds confusion

   The Vatican has confirmed that Pope Benedict has approved a historic shift to allow condoms to avoid AIDS - while carefully painting it as no change at all, said a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

3. Fears over private members Qld abortion bill

   Pro-life suppporters have been asked to contact their local members as fears grow that a private member's bill to decriminalise abortion will soon be introduced in the Queensland Parliament, said The Catholic Leader.

4. SA parliament defeats euthanasia bill

   A South Australian voluntary euthanasia bill has been "clearly defeated" in the state parliament, said an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

5. Peter Cosgrove to be installed as ACU Chancellor

   Former Defence Force chief, General Peter Cosgrove, will be installed as the new Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University (ACU) this Sunday in a ceremony at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, according to a media statement.