A rousing episcopal endorsement of, um, "21st century societal values"?

In early August I blogged about a petition sent out in Australia to the bishops requesting, among other things, that discussion about the ordination of women be reopened. Now Bishop Pat Power, who is known for his support of "the spirit of Vatican II" (not to be confused with the actual teachings of the Council), has weighed in with a response to the petition. Some "highlights":

In our own Archdiocese in line with the experience of other parts of Australia, parishes generally and priests personally are under added pressure with an increasing load being borne by a diminishing and ageing clergy. The irony is that in this Archdiocese there are between thirty and forty priests who have married and thereby been debarred from active priestly ministry. Many of them and their families are active in parishes and other areas of Church life, but they are unable to celebrate the Eucharist. There was a recent instance where a priest failed to arrive for Mass and a married priest and his wife sat rather helplessly in the congregation while an acolyte and other members of the parish attempted to lead a liturgy of the word with Holy Communion.

There are varying ways of describing this sad situation, but "ironic" doesn't seem to be an accurate choice. How is it ironic that a man who took vows that included the explicit and knowing choice to not become married then broke those vows and thus was barred from the faculties that were contingent upon the vows? Forget "ironic"—how about "unfaithful"? After all, if I break my wedding vows and start slumming with Britney Spears and my wife bars me from the home, that isn't "ironic." It's a matter of common sense.

Of course, dioceses need to continue in their efforts to recruit men for the celibate priesthood...

Of course! Why hadn't this been mentioned before? I gather it's not a high priority. Which might explain, in large part, the vocations crisis.

...but the limited response must say something in terms of a long-term solution. Many dioceses have recruited priests from overseas with mixed success. Some such priests have fitted very well into the life of the diocese while others have struggled with issues of culture, language and vision of Church. In any case such solutions can only be partial and short-term.

Ah, the annoying issue of "vision of Church." I'll bet my Nancy Sinatra collection that term is code for something along these lines, "These guys from Third World countries are too darned orthodox!"

Your fourth point relating to the participation of women in the life of the Church is crucial for a healthy, life-giving and nurturing Church. While women's roles in the family, Catholic education and health-care are obvious, the opportunities for leadership in terms of the universal, diocesan and even parish Church are extremely limited.

I readily admit I don't know the situation in Australia; perhaps it is quite different than here in the States. But in the U.S., the vast majority of parish employees are women; in fact, I think it's safe to say that opportunities for lay men for leadership in parishes is rather slim due to factors including the available salaries. Regardless, the best is yet to come:

The 1997 inquiry into the participation of women in the Church in Australia brought out many of the gaps for which the whole Church, not just women, is the poorer. While I recognise the sensitivity to the question at the level of the Vatican, I am also aware that many loyal and committed Catholics want a more open and thorough examination of the issues around the ordination of women and the whole structure of the priesthood. A less clerical model of the priesthood is more in tune with 21st century societal values and arguably more faithful to the practice of the early Christian communities. [emphasis added]

"More in tune with 21st century societal values"!? So that is the great benchmark the Church founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago is shooting for today? Amazing. Well, on the bright side, it is a much easier goal to obtain than, say, fidelity to the Gospel, holiness of life, humility in worship, submission of will and intellect to Magisterial teaching, obedience of faith, and understanding of the doctrines of the Church. Of course, there are plenty of other Christian groups who are standing, in rapt attention, in the line for "21st Century Societal Values." But considering it's such a crowded line and that the Church is founded on the person of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles, wouldn't it be better to stay in line with the Magisterium?

Comments

[LJ]

"...arguably more faithful to the practice of the early Christian communities."

Say what? Did he just pull this out of his hat? St. Paul had a lot to say about and to the early Christian communities and it didn't include ordination to the priesthood for women.

By the way, the year of St. Paul is coming up, isn't it? How fortuitous. I hope Bnedict XVI provides us with some systematic teaching from St. Paul on a wide variety of issues.

[joanne]

I wish that the issues of mandatory clerical celibacy, women's ordination, (and same-sex marriage) would quit showing up in the same
"21st Century Societal Values" package. Only one of these can be a debatable issue. St Paul would not have addressed them as equal questions. And he did address marriage as a freely surrendered right in ICor 9 & 10.
Whereas, ordination is not a RIGHT, and homosexual "marriage" is a definite WRONG!

[Salome]

'a less clerical model of the priesthood': what, priests who can't read?

[MMajor Fan]

Whenever people raise the subject of married priests or female ordination, they are subtly (either deliberately or unintentionally, due to poor formation and secular hypnotism) denying the virginity and consecration to God of Jesus Christ, the first priest. Deacons may model themselves after the early Apostles and disciples, but Jesus Christ is the model for the Catholic priesthood. He was virgin and consecrated to God the Father's work alone, and he is the one who graced the sacrament of Holy Eucharist. The Church cannot back down on this because it is a fact that is fundamental to the reality of the true faith. Those who cannot give up all and be as Jesus Christ cannot be priests.

[M. Jordan Lichens]

I find it strange that married ordination is often brought up to deal with low vocations; this is despite the fact that if one were to go and ask members of the Eastern Rite, where married priests are ordinary, they would easily learn that vocations are suffering just as much. However, concern about fruitful and true vocations seems less on the mind of this ilk than timely political nuances over timeless values.

[Anonymous]

MMajor's equation of the mandatory celibacy discipline with the doctrine of the male-only priesthood is essentially a case of being more Catholic than the Pope. The Church does not see the two as the same, as evidenced by the Eastern Rite churches ordaining married men with the blessing of Rome and the Latin Church also doing so under extraordinary circumstances. Ironically, the modernists also constantly lump those two issues together.

There seems to be this need in some to inflate every discipline, whether it be the form of the mass or regulations about ordination, into an unchangeable dogma. I remember back a few years ago when the homosexual ordination issue was a hot topic. Some went so far as to say not only that homosexuals shouldn't be ordained, but that it was simply impossible for them to be ordained. If that's true, it puts serious doubt not only on the sacrament performed by one's parish priest if his voice is a bit high, but also on the Apostolic Succession itself (since we can never ever know for certain that there weren't closet homosexual bishops—whether chaste or not—making up key links in the chain)!

[LJ]

You're right Anonymous. Over the centuries how many homosexually inclined priests might there have been who kept their vows and were great priests? Only God knows and we need not fret about it.

I think what the Vatican has been trying to correct is the perception within and without that the priesthood is the Catholic homosexual vocation. It has a certain superficial logic to those who do not understand what the priesthood really is, particularly those from outside the Church.

[Gabriel Austin]

Among the more hilarious books I own is one by Bishop J.R.H. Moorman A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND. 1980. One of the hilarious comments is

"443: Women who wish to give their lives to the church are naturally reluctant to enter a profession in which there is no prospect of promotion".

I see no point in attacking the English church. One can always rely on them shooting themselves in the foot.

Possibly I am mistaken but I always thought that the priesthood was a vocation, from the Latin meaning a "call".

Is it possible that there are fewer vocations because God [remember Him?] has stopped calling?