Priest Shortage

Shootingstar~ I was about to say the same "You set yourself up..." to proud2bcatholic for bad-mouthing a deceased and eminent scriptural scholar Fr.MacKenzie,SJ when I saw your posting to blueroyal. However, I could not find the posting you were referring to. Could you clarify?
These precipitious leaps to judgmental conclusions make one think twice about a return to orthodoxy.
"Lord it's hard to be humble when you'r perfect in every way'ay"

Read his post to blueroyal entitled Perhaps. Then you'll see where I am coming from.

"I think I am trying to abolish the priesthood as we know it today"

That's the quote? " - as we know it today" is an important part of that sentence.

"Nothing can change unless it remains the same," said St Thomas Aquinas.

Anyway,scripturally, in the New Testament there is only one priest, our Lord Himself.

Englishwoman

Dear Proud2bCatholic--Father McKenzie has been dead for quite a while. He said Mass and gave homilies in my present parish. I am sure you are aware of other Church teachings/practices that have been proved wrong, e.g., The Galileo affair, slaves obey your masters, women should be silent in the church, the Roman ghetto established by Paul IV; go to Google and look up Ambrose and the Jews, Chrysostom and the Jews, Luther and the Jews. Now I have two questions for you. They are not rhetorical ones, so I would like to see what you think. Do you say that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Do you accept the scientific theory that the universe started with the Big Bang and proceeded to evolve to its present state?--On another matter: No offence taken, but check the spelling of my name, and did you intend to put J. L after my name? If so, was that a mere typo or did you wish to imply something? Jack Gerken

Dear Jack

You are right all of those things were wrong. However, none of these teachings are official teachings of the Church, they are not defined dogma. Yes there have been many bad decisions made my the Church down the ages and there have been many terrible Popes but NOT ONE of these individuals has contradicted ANY official Church teaching. You must remember that this is a Church for sinners run by sinners and that certain individuals such as Ambrose may do things that are wrong; no matter what his personal sins were he did not teach heresy or disbelieve any official church teaching. All of the things you have mentioned in that list are acts committed by individual men that are not justified under Church teaching, in fact quite the opposite is true. Things such as 'women should be silent in church' are traditions of men and not Sacred Tradition. They are not Church teachings. The institution of the Priesthood is.

I am not a Fundamentalist. I don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe it was written in such a way so that men from ancient times could understand it. I believe in Science and I find it to be perfectly compatible to my faith. Personally, I believe in the Big Bang theory although I may change my mind if Scientists discover another theory that is more proven. I think Science and Religion can happily co-exist with each other. Regarding the theory of Natural Selection: It seems highly probable that this is true and I would call myself an evolutionist if asked, I am certainly not a Creationalist i.e Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel etc

Do you think that because I am faithful to Church teaching that I must be some sort of radical? I am not a religious nut, I am just a man who believes in the Catholic Church. I am not like those Fundamentalists who reject and scorn Science and believe that the Bible is to be taken LITERALLY.

The J.L after your name wasn't intended much in the same way that the 'Father' after mine wasn't. I started my first paragraph with J.L McKenzie and it appears that they automatically add some of the first sentence in the title. No offense intended or hidden meaning.

Frannie,

Just a quick comment about confessing our sins to one another. Seen in the context of the house/church, (and I do believe it was the head of the head of the house who presided in the breaking of the bread) the offender confessed to the one offended. After all, it is so often the ones who are closest to us we hurt the most and the most often. Thus, this was not simply confess and receive absolution, but a true process of reconciliation. The person offended had the opportunity to forgive or, perhaps say, "I was really hurt and it will take me a while to get over it." or "This is something you do often and, if you are really sorry, it must stop." Then, reconciliation was something they could work on together.

I see sin as something that wounds or, at times even kills, personal relationships and reconciliation the process of healing those relationships.

Note Christ said, "If you come to offer your gift at the altar and there rememger your brother or sister has something against you.....", not God has something against you.

Somehow, this interpresonal process of reconciliation moved to passing over the human person and seeing God as the offended and confessing to God through a priest who gives absolution. In this process, the human person offended is not included. Therefore, reconciliation has not taken place.

With the sacrament of confession, reconciliation occurs with the Church. A good confessor of course, would give the advice to also reconcile with the offended party, if at all feasible.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Herm,

It is not the sacrament of confession, it is the sacrament of recncilliation of which confession is a part. Yes, a good confessor might advise one to reconcile with the offended party, but how oftend does that happen?

If you actually put any effort into understanding what I am trying to say rather than immediately going on the attack, you would realize is am not against the Sacrament in any way but only suggesting it could be celebrated in more meaningful ways. I think Vat II recognized that and attempted to undertake some reform but they really never got off the ground.

As a catechist who teaches second level children about the sacrament of reconciliaion and the sacrament of first holy communion, I refer to the sacrament of reconciliation as both the sacrament of confession AND the sacrament of reconciliation so that they understand that the sacrament does entail both confession and reconciliation. I assumed that the adults on this board knew as much.

And actually, I was in no way attacking you, I was simply clarifying.

And I forgot to add that I also call it the sacrament of penance as well.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Dear Herm,

As I understand it, the Sacrament was called the Sacrament of Penance, but the reforms of VatII changed it to the Sacrament of Reconcilliation which, without deminishing the concept of penance, opened its understanding to whole new areas of consideration. To the best of my knowledge, it was never officially referred to as the Sacrament of Confession. Nor is there a Sacrament of First Holy Communion.

Just clarifying.

You are correct in that it went from the Sacrament of Penance to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but I refer to it as all 3 so that the children can understand the fullness of it. Yes, there is a sacrament of Holy Communion, but it is referred to as the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Dear Herm,

I didn't say there was no sacrament of Holy Communion, I said, quoting you, there was no sacrament of FIRST holy communion.

Just clarifying. Well, not exactly, just having some fun. I enjoy bantering back and forth with you. We do not agree on many ways, but you are a great in helping me to work out my own thoughts. Thanks.

LOL...cool :)

Hermeneutic of Continuity

In 12 Step programs (for those who seriously work all of the 12 Steps--easier said than done) the Ninth Step calls for just this process of reconciliation that you mention, Bob. People are often terrified of this "person-to-person" thing, which is one reason that the Steps are a gradual process, "taken in order", with the person first getting used to their own "self-inventory" (rather like a lifetime examination of conscience then shared with another capable person) first, and some processing of the information with oneself and God before this "reconciliation" is undertaken, and then only if it will not cause harm to others. But, when it can be done, it is an amazingly freeing thing.

And, of course, it needn't be so formal, especially at this time of year. It's just that sometimes in their desire to unburden themselves, sometimes people do inadvertently harm others. I guess that's why confessors (as third parties) have proven invaluable through the centuries.

But basically, I couldn't agree more with your point of view.

It's funny you mention the 12 steps because doing the 4th and 5th steps is what brought me back to confession, albeit piecemeal.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Well, you must have been sidetracked. I don't see any evidence of 7 at all.

You know me only through this website. You have no idea how far I might have come or how far I might have to go, but personally I know I have much work to do in the humility area. This is why I get so much out of confession: it is always daunting to confess my sins to a priest, especially when he knows me and my sins. I am blessed in that I have a good confessor who helps me on my journey to becoming more humble.

Thank you for the reminder that I need more work in that area.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Forgive me for my impatience, Herm. You do not deserve to be the object of my frustrations. I have known about the CTA people for years, although I am not a member. The same with VOTF. I know how very sincere and loving they are. I have also observed Bruskewitz's actions in the past several years and find them to be arrogant and almost always coming from a misunderstanding of what Church is supposed to be.

I think this is how we differ. I was raised in a very authoritarian model of Church, and despite this, there were always very kindly people to model the goodness of Christ for me, in the midst of other abuses I witnessed. I was fortunate in that, most of the time, I was not the "direct ricipient" of these abuses, only a witness.

Every Sunday, even as a small child, I heard from the Altar, the goodness of Christ preached to me in the Gospels, and fortunately, from the various orders of nuns in my various Catholic Schools across the Country, I received very good catechetical instruction about what these Gospels meant (this was all pre-Vatican II). A Good Christ, who spoke out about Love, who matched wits with the Pharisees, but Who was also cpable of human traits like anger, fear, and loved a good time---He was NOT a "robot"! (His battles with the Pharisees always stood out--their continual attempts to entrap Him with "The Law"--the idea that "The Law" was always to be SUPERIOR to the care of men and women. Yet always and everywhere Christ showed that there was a NEW LAW, the LAW OF LOVE---LOVE OF GOD AND LOVE OF NEIGHBOR---and that this NEW LAW took precedence over the OLD LAW which had seen the Chosen People through the Wilderness, and Saved them.

Jesus' Law was the Law of Love, so I violate it when I become impatient with you. As a catechist as well, I cannot believe how far apart we are. It appears tha in the past 20 years or so (perhaps longer) a new and more pernicious spirit has risen up within the Church. It is not a Spirit of Love, but rather a Spirit of Judgment.

It appears, to me at least, to represent everything that Jesus, in the Gospels, stood AGAINST. It is a Spirit of the Pharisees. At times it is very beautiful, and often quite impressive. I often have hope that it is going to turn around (which is why I am here) but then, every month or so "Betrayal of the Month Club"--a new incident happens that lets me see that the Church is still with the Spirit of The Pharisees.

You think you are sorry. You cannot imagine how my heart is breaking.

But I have Faith that this will not last forever and The Church will eventually be Renewed. John XXIII did not come to us for nothing.

Star:

When I muster the courage to apologize to someone, one of the best and most gratifying things for me to hear is "I forgive you." It is with that spirit that I say to you 'I forive you'. And now I ask that you also forgive me for any time I may have come up short with you. We are a work in progress, aren't we? I also ask that you pray for me, a sinner. Please pray for my continual conversion.

Unlike you, I did not grow up in a pre-Vatican II Church, nor did I grow up with a very authoritarian one. The nuns I had were a bit of a mix: a bit "old-school" and a bit "new school". As I look back, I realize I was taught in a time of turmoil in the Church: making all sorts of changes just after Vatican II. The nuns did the best they could, and as a result, I still got a good religious education from them. I try to impart the same to my children from religious education. I try to give them a good foundation in the faith with a lot of fun thrown into the mix.

I don't gloat in these excommunications because, quite simply, I can't. As one who experiences constant forgiveness in the sacrament of reconciliation, I can rejoice that we have such ample opportunity to become reconciled to God, to the Church and to each other. I do fervently pray that they do come back. The Church needs them and they need the Church. The need goes both ways.

May people see the Church's rules, doctrines and actions as a clamp down on personal freedom or a way of trying to control the individual. They see the Church as some force outside themselves trying to control them. I used to see the Church in this way as well, until I realized that our doctrines, our "rules" so to speak, are not some outside force trying to squelch my personal freedom, but are the tools set in place to guide us to authentic personal liberty.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Herm, I think you're making a blanket assumption here: Many people see the Church's rules, doctrines and actions as a clamp down on personal freedom or a way of trying to control the individual. They see the Church as some force outside themselves trying to control them."

This is hardly true of me. I choose to live a somewhat traditional Catholic lifestyle, not because I let the Church control my choices, but because over time I have found that the simpler my lifestyle the better it is for me. I'm not under any illusion that my lifestyle would fit most of my friends, in the sense that they would be happier if they lived as I do. They wouldn't. Most of them don't deal well with living alone.

I have my problems with the hierarchy because I sense the mission of the Church to bring the Good News has been co-opted by a need to preserve the special and separate standing of the clerical caste. This will eventually result in an unnecessary withering of the Body of Christ because there will be little or no sacramental presence in too many places. In my mind this is counter to the mission. What if the Holy Spirit is speaking, and part of that speaking involves reducing the number of 'acceptable' candidates to the priesthood in order to propel change? To see a potential message in lack of vocations takes the ability to look beyond the message of the hierarchy and the need to be controlled by it.

So for some of us, dissent is not about pursuiting a selfish agenda which allows us to do 'anything' we want. It's about preserving the future of the Faith in which we were raised. It's kind of pointless to teach sacramental catechism if the sacraments aren't available.

Herm, I think you're making a blanket assumption here: Many people see the Church's rules, doctrines and actions as a clamp down on personal freedom or a way of trying to control the individual. They see the Church as some force outside themselves trying to control them."

Actually, I'm not making a blanket assumption, which is actually why I said "many people", not all people who disagree or dissent, but many people who do.

I don't think however, that we should sacrifice the Truth of Church teaching so that more people will have the sacraments available to them. The Truth must always remain pure, and if that means fewer priests, then so be it.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

For me the truth is in the sacraments, not the teaching. So to preserve the teaching at the expense of the sacraments is to throw out the baby in order to keep the bathwater.

Not exactly. The Truth has always preceded the sacraments. We cannot have the sacraments without the Truth, but in times of crises, we can have the Truth without the sacraments. Think of the persecuted Church in communist Russia and China.

What we need to do is to pray for more vocations to the priesthood.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Star,

I understand what you are saying. When offences have been allowed to build up over the years it is not easy to face and deal with them and I believe the 12 Step programs do a very find job of dealing with this. Neither do I underestimate the value of the third party and, yes, at times it is better not to reveal unknown offences, especially if they are in the past and not going on in the present, because of the hurt that would cause another. But, the ideal would be to deal with it I think.

Yes, the "person to person" thing can be terrifying, especially if the offended person is not aware of the offence. I think, in the home/family church setting, very often the offended already knows s/he has been offended. If the offence is addressed, two things happen. One, reconcilliaton can take place or, at least, the process can begin. Two, we can "empty the garbage" while we only need a trash bag and not a dumpster.

I am not suggesting doing away with the ritual of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. The problem, as I see it, is that all too often those who use the Sacrament often are addressing only the recincilliation with God aspect and never quite getting to deal with the human person offended. I would like to see the option of, say a husband and wife going to confession together to address a specific problem that is damaging their relationship.

Let me give you an example. Adultery. Suppose I am unfaithful to my wife. As I see it, I have not only offended God, but my wife, my family, the person with whom I have sinned, her family etc.

I don't think just confessing to a priest and receiving absolution solves the problem. Especially if we are talking about an "affair" as opposed to some kind of a "one night stand" with someone I will never see again.

I guess, ultimately, I am saying we have to move from the God and Me no thought of Thee concept or reconcilliation to understanding that others beside God are offended by our sins and we have a need to reconcile with them too.

It was precisely in the area of marital infidelity that the phrase "except when to do so would injure them or others" was first considered for the Ninth Step, which reads,"Made direct amends to (all people we had harmed)wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others."

Your point about "cleaning up as you go" is well-taken, as opposed to offenses in the distant past. Sometimes unearthing those can do nothing but harm. Others have to be considered, such as children in a marriage, the feelings of a spouse, whether "honesty" is always the best policy, in such a case. (It may be, especially if the spouse is going to find out hurtfully in some other way, or if s/he suspects, or if it is impeding communication.) All these things need to be taken into prayerful consideration, and sometimes need to be discussed beforehand with a trusted spiritual advisor.

"One night stands" OR "affairs" are both injurious to a marriage, because both are destructive of love and trust, but they are first the problem, and the responsibility, of the person who is (has) engaged in the behavior. If the person needs help to stop, perhaps a "firm purpose of amendment" is not enough. Perhaps the person needs to seek other spiritual, counseling, or medical assistance, because some behaviors can become addictive. Once the help is underway, perhaps then a spouse can be gently encouraged into more open communication and it may be found that the spouse had concerns all along.

Of course, often a couple is feuding far more openly than this and there is no need for disclosure, just for healing.

The whole point, though, is that our actions DO harm others. The idea though, is to avoid compounding the harm in our zeal to seek forgiveness. Others are not God; they are only human, and sometimes letting them know of our transgressions is simply asking too much. We have to tread very delicately here.

Star,

Thanks for your thoughts and I do understand what you are saying and I agree. Let me address just one of your statements, "Others are not God; they are only human, and sometimes letting them know of our transgressions is simply asking too much. We have to tread very delicately here."

Absolutely true. However, I think it is indicative of an entire aspect of reconciliation we seem to have overlooked. We see ourselves as sinners and recognize our need to be forgiven. Christ has given us the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. I see reconcilliation as a process of mending strained and/or broken relationships. It is a two sided coin. On one side, we are the offenders seeking to be forgiven and on the other side is the offended forgiving. It is often very difficult for us to admit our wrongs and to ask to be forgiven, it is quite often far more difficult for us to forgive those who have offended us. Yet, in so many ways, we are as hurt by the grudges we carry as the sins we commit. Perhaps that is what Christ was referring to when he taught us to pray "forgive us the wrong we have done as we forgive those who wrong us." (Mt 6: 12). He went on in vs. 14-15 to say, "If you forgive the faults of others, your heavenly Father will forgive you yours. If you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive you." At the end of the story of the cure of the paralized young man, as he got up and went home, "a feeling of awe came over the crowd, and they praised God for giving such authority to men." (Mt.9: 8)

We believe in to power to be forgiven. Do we also believe in the power to forgive? We must because Christ taught us to be forgiven we must also forgive. How often? Seventy times seven! (Mt 18: 22)

I think we all marveled at the Amish Community's ability to forgive the man who shot their children. How did they do that? I believe it was because they believed they had the power to do so and they believed it because they had be taught to forgive since they were children and they practiced it in little things so, when a really big hurt came, they were ready to forgive that too.

If we don't practice forgiving in little things we will never be able to do so in big things.

That is why, I suggest, confessing our little transgressions to one another, asking for and being forgiven as well as forgiving. I am in no way ignoring what you are saying. But, couldn't we Catholics learn to forgive as the Amish have done? Is that not part of our faith? Where better to begin than in our family churches. It can go out from there.

"You may as well advocate the abolishment of the Papacy!"??? Hmmm, you may be onto something.
Erv Sanders

Dear Proud2bCatholic--One reason I joined the NCRcafe.org was to learn something from others. Iwish you had not condemned my thoughts as nonsence, but instead asked why I think the way I do. Believe me I once thought as you do, but I have had some experiences, read some things by good Catholics. If you are interested, I could offer some explanation of my thoughts.--jackgerken@yahoo.ccom

okay, I know this is off topic, but you have a parish with instituted alcoltyes?

I don't think anyone here is saying the priest should do everything by himself.

Hermeneutic of Continuity