On Oct 10 09:19 at v2catholic.com/johnw/2012/2012-10-10elephant-in-the-room-homosexuality-in-priesthood-and-religious-life.htm by jdwomi (mod)

Thank you Stephen for your comment

To support your call for optional celibacy see:
http://www.v2catholic.com/johnw/2012/2012-06-27evil_of_compulsory_celibacy.htm
[ 180.219.27.35 ]

On Oct 10 05:21 at v2catholic.com/cmcdonnell/2012/2012-10-19we-had-a-dream.htm by Stephen K

Chris, I don't think the Church and the world is ready for a third Council at the moment. I don't think the Catholic bishops are mature enough to do anything but issue a Vatican II 2nd edition revised and abridged with errata removed. To begin with, the Catholic Church does not have the moral capital to be able to get away with addressing the world or the people at large, as it did in 1962. Its membership statistics are inflated by large deficits, so many having abandoned engagement to become "ghost" members. If the revisionism that you describe is as entrenched and growing as it seems, then a third Council would probably only bury the second. In the wake of the calls for a smaller purer Church, can you imagine any support or enhancement for the cause of ecumenism and unity that is not dominion? With the divisions between bishops as to political and social allegiances, can you imagine Gaudium et Spes not being revised or not being replaced with something more anodyne and general? In the wake of the increasing centralism of government do you think they would contemplate inviting as participants other Christians so that such a Council would more truly represent a universal Council? Far from thinking the Spirit of God would convert the sows ear a third Council would threaten to be into a silk purse of the church that appeared to be promised by Vatican II, I wonder if the Spirit's action would not more readily be discerned by the continuation of purgation/growing pain that seems to be the case. It is true that theoretically anything could happen when enough people get together. But I think a Council held today could not fail to interpret Vatican II in counter-reformational terms.
[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 10 05:02 at v2catholic.com/blewis/2012/2012-10-10vatican_2_and_the_renewal_of_morals.htm by Stephen K

This article, Brian, is particularly packed with ideas requiring some thought. I do believe we are a psychosomatic whole; and that somehow a more holistic approach to human behaviour needs to be explored. I think it is not to be based on a simplistic dichotomy between essence and existence: somehow I think they only have meaning together. Life that is lived - as opposed to being thought about - is not an abstract; the abstracted notion does not exist. I think Aristotelian metaphysics is handy for dissection but not for putting the patient back together again. I come to this conclusion on the basis of my observations about my and others' decisions about things. This "personalist" approach you describe as the person taking into account the whole of human experience not just one aspect, rings true. But I will read more before I comment further.
[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 10 04:52 at v2catholic.com/johnw/2012/2012-10-10elephant-in-the-room-homosexuality-in-priesthood-and-religious-life.htm by Stephen K

I gather that part of the argument is that many men who might be motivated or feel desirous of active priestly ministry as a lifelong vocation but are not prepared to be lifelong celibates at several removes from female interaction are lost vocations. And that, as a corollary, homosexual men who feel called to ministry are not so put off because they have less problem with an all or mostly male environment. Is that it, in a nutshell? I really do not see why celibacy has to be mandatory for those not called to the cenobitic or eremetic life. Surely optional celibacy would highlight celibacy's value when freely and unconditionally embraced by those moved to do so? Loneliness is a burden that can affect everyone and is at the heart of a lot of human action. We are not angels, disembodied spirits. As you suggest, I really think we now need to start discussing this subject and bringing it out into the open. We have to admit to how important our need for love and affirmation is and how we might feel about relationship and sex. These are highly personal subjects but we have to stop thinking about them as tabu and intrinsically sinful. They are intrinsically human.
[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 09 12:47 at v2catholic.com/mmallon/2012/2012-10-09the_formation_of_conscience.htm by Stephen K

I find Martins article a helpful summary of the process of forming conscience - as the CCC describes it - because it brings into clear relief different aspects which must all be read as a whole as well as individually. I overlooked them. They are now things to think about at greater length. But, as Martin says, lots of people similarly focus almost exclusively on the particular rulings of the official Church, that is, Popes etc. I dont think I am mistaken in saying that there is a view one perceives amongst some Catholics that no conscience of a Catholic can be considered good if it permits anything contrary to Church teaching. [Which is why there is occasional annoyance when Catholic universities or theologians or others make space for, articulate or express opinions that some consider heterodox or morally wrong and still self-identify as a Catholic.]

In a way, though, the formation of conscience is a separate question from the question of what you should do with the one you have, and I think a less difficult one. I think we all have our inner voice of reproach, our inner intellectual characterisation of our acts or choices. That voice develops as we absorb during our life many encounters and ideas and influences. Some of them are rooted deep within what has become our mature personality. But the earliest and the childhood element leaves often indelible traces too. So, conscience formation is almost an osmotic process, I think, not something that is approached primarily like academic research, even though one can certainly study what other people say. (And in any case, one has to be careful of self-justification - Karl Popper always proposed the falsification method for testing the validity of a scientific proposition: we should not seek evidence for what we would like to be the case, but evidence against it.)

What I think Im saying here is that though it can be continually educated, conscience is in a formed state at any given time. However it looks, it is supreme. We dont usually worry about conscience if it is not speaking: conscience is the voice of trouble, not of calm. If we dont think were doing something wrong at a particular time that the Church says is wrong, some people might object it is because our consciences have become de-formed or moribund and therefore not worthy of the name, but Im not sure that would be correct.

More significant is when your conscience tells you you have hurt people, done the wrong thing. As the New Catechism puts it poignantly: In my responsibility.....my remorse, my desire to be good.....in the certainty that I ought to do the right thing or ought to have done it, I stand alone. One is now beyond the question of forming the conscience or characterising it, and into the realm of prudential problem-solving, deep emotional dilemmas and keeping a cool head all at the same time as making sure you dont inflict your own pain onto the innocent.

I hope these reflections are of interest, prompted as they are by Martins succinct article.

[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 08 07:28 at v2catholic.com/dtimbs/2012/2012-10-07another-disaster-in-the-making.htm by Stephen K

If I may add a further comment - I just read about Fr Bill Rowe who was suspended for adding some non-prescribed wording and this got me thinking about the wording used in the Mass, the new translation and so on.

Notwithstanding what I said about people getting used to anything, I think the choice of words and their arrangement is important. The subtle nuances have profound effect over time and with repetition, I think. Regarding the new translation for example, perhaps the principal instance of defect, for example, occurs at the Words of Institution. To protest that multis means many is something of a narrow lawyerly argument first articulated by Patrick Omlor (all those years back in his book Questioning the Validity of Masses Using the New All-English Canon). The point that has been made that multis ought to have been translated as THE many - meaning the mob, the crowd, the hoi polloi, i.e. everyone without distinction - is instantly comprehensible. The fact the Council of Trent made a point of arguing it meant not all in the middle of an anti-Protestant counter-reformation is also readily able to be appreciated. It seems to me that arguing the fruits of the sacrifice were not all was rather presumptuous. The extent of the fruits is surely something beyond any certainty. And in any case, isnt to have priests say that the blood of Christ will be shed for many is to have them utter a momentous heresy every time they do so? I thought Christian theology rested on the universal nature of the redemptive Calvary death and that Jesus shed his blood for all.

At a dimension somewhat removed from the generation of spiritual or sacramental graces, the Mass text is an exercise in creative or bureaucratic composition designed to have the participants call to mind certain concepts of faith. So I worry how often the people must hear for many before they begin to think they know who the rest are?

Regarding the Father Bill Rowe case, I found myself asking, what intrinsic harm would it really do if different prayers were said, in different ways, around a central Mass-action? It seems to me the principal argument for having a prescribed prayer formula is because many people may not be confident enough to lead prayer ad libitum in a consistently fluent way. Public prayer fails if it becomes distracting through incoherence and lack of structure. So a prescribed rite makes sense. But perhaps the issue is a lack of preparation and adequate reflection. Spontaneity and freely composed popular idiom may not simply equate to chaos, but evidence motion of the Spirit and a connection with the spiritual energy being channelled.

[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 08 06:19 at v2catholic.com/danieldaring/2012/2012-10-04sun27B.htm by Kevin Walters

Thank you Stephen, you have put the correct interpretation on our discussion it was a conversation not a debate in my personal life I am very isolated and it was most pleasing to converse with you and thank you for it
God Bless
Kevin.

[ 89.243.22.8 ]

On Oct 08 00:52 at v2catholic.com/danieldaring/2012/2012-10-04sun27B.htm by Stephen K

Kevin, no worries. By the way, I'm not engaging in debate as such, just offering some perspectives and perhaps some conversation. I accept we all think different things. And I've read your article, so thank you for drawing my attention to it.
[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 07 23:21 at v2catholic.com/dtimbs/2012/2012-10-07another-disaster-in-the-making.htm by Stephen K

David, your article presents two central themes (1) the attempt to Latinise and modify the English Mass out of a desire to emphasise God-centredness will not succeed in unifying Mass-going Catholics and (2) the idea of a single harmonised Rite does not take heed of legitimate distinct and different needs amongst them.

On the first, I think a significant reason why, for the foreseeable future, a harmonised rite will not prove a unifying force is because it will be seen as an unsatisfactory compromise. The ordinary and traditional forms are promoted and conceived of - in the main - as two mutually opposed cultic expressions. The root of the difference is, I think, a theological question: what is the church and how should it pray? In the prefatory constitution in 1969, Pope Paul introduced the new Mass as an attempt to signify holy things more clearly, facilitate active participation and place greater emphasis on the Scriptures. The conciliar decree on the liturgy did not want the faithful to be silent spectators. Here we can see the germ of the idea of the church as a dynamic collective, a synergistic assembly. On the other hand, those promoting the traditional liturgy aim to preserve a different and hierarchical ecclesiological ontology. Archbishop Lefebvre emphasised the centrality of the theology of priesthood to the question of the Mass. He made a concession to the vernacular in the reading of the epistle and gospel but otherwise thought, pointing to Luthers changes, that the vernacular was the inevitable result of promoting a different cultic role for the people, and so the question of the language was a symbol of the problem.

I think this is a fundamental divide that a rite that was harmonised solely on linguistic grounds would not be able to resolve. Of course, the rationale of the SSPX is not adopted by all traditionalists, many of whom may like the traditional Mass on principally aesthetic grounds. And this is not trivial because though beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, beauty - however perceived - is thought to inspire the spirit, and so aesthetics potentially leads to positive spiritual emotion, so that eye-and-ear-candy becomes soul-candy. This is a powerful ingredient in much religious behaviour and affiliation (see also Hillsong-like and charismatic gatherings). De gustibus etc......wrote Cicero.

On the subject of the awkwardness of Latinate or non-idiomatic English, my sense is that people, in the main, quickly get used to anything and that many people just shrug their shoulders anytime the official Church announces a thing purporting to be of great moment. For the vast numbers of those who cease attending Mass for all their reasons, the form of the Mass may be the least of their pre-occupations. Perhaps the critical formula to be considered today by ecclesiastical strategists is not lex orandi, lex credendi (the way you pray determines the way you believe) but lex agendi, lex credibilitatis (the way they behave determines their credibility).

[ 110.143.195.69 ]

On Oct 07 05:24 at v2catholic.com/danieldaring/2012/2012-10-04sun27B.htm by Kevin Walters

The kernel of the problem is. It is not possible for the church to forgive this sin because it is continual (to live in a state of mortal sin). It is not in our power to forgive this sin but we can and should be none judgemental.
Stephen I have to Part Company with you at this stage in our debate.
And Jesus looking upon them said, with men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible
The sin can only be nullified by humility (St. Bernard -Humility a virtue by which a man knowing himself as he truly is abases himself) which is continual contrition.
As he the sinner (which includes all of us in some form or another) carries his cross with Christ the giver of the Eternal (continual) Sacrifice which is denied to no man on the spiritual plane. He can and does take comfort from these words of love Take my yoke on you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest to your souls

Stephen please consider reading my article on Aug 4th on this site.
A way forward Venerate the image of broken man. I would value any comment that you may have.
Kevin your brother
In Christ

[ 89.243.22.8 ]