Retired Irish bishop questions celibacy, ban on marriage and afterlife

He should have became a Protestant Minister. I love these idiots that profess social change. I remember when I was young in America, around the 60's every do gooder was crying about the poor wives that have to stay married to an abusive husband. Now a husband, who no longer has a good job is shown the door. Family are becoming a thing of the past, but woman now have their rights. We need more social change, until we are delivered back to the Dirk Ages. But there will be no Celtic Monks to save civilation. Thank God Rev. Walsh was not the Head of a Celtic Monastery. He would have question, "Why do we do all this fasting, can't we love God on a full stomach?" "Why do we have to build Monasteries in Europe? It's so far away." Instead of questioning how to love God, why does he look around at the changes that are distroying our World.

Jamie - this is an online news forum, where there is a limit to the detail one can go into. I am hardly going to post my entire doctoral thesis here. Nor, being realistic, am I - or anyone else for that matter - in a position to get the opinions and positions of every single Protestant denomination, of which there are, in all probability, well over 30,000. However, if one looks at Luther, 2 Maccabees (for example) contains that line "it is a holy and wholesome thought that we should pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins". That didn't square with his notions of salvation or the existence of Purgatory. This is one of the reasons why it had to go. Other books did not support his "sola fide" doctrine - he wanted to remove the Epistle of James for this reason. He placed several books in an appendix; some 300 years later they were removed altogether. However, his "sola scriptura" doctrine could be used to justify what he did to the Bible, because that doctrine denied that any outside authority was needed to interpret Scripture. Luther wanted to remove Revelation also - Calvin supported this, calling the book "unintelligible", and Zwingli referred to it as "unbiblical". In fact, John Calvin in his "Institutes" offered a means of determining the canon of Scripture: "The word will never gain credit in the hearts of men till it be confirmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit". That is to say, decide the canon by relying on subjective feelings - the Scripture that is "inspiring" is therefore inspired. However, as I said earlier, in the first place, no one can trust that Scripture is inspired unless they first trust the authority that was given to the Church to make such a judgement.

Carroll09: Have you studied Luther's Catechism and read fair and balanced historical biographies on Luther? Do you know the Protestant reasons behind the decisions that were made about the books of the Bible from the Protestant perspective? Where do you get your information so you can say that "many Protestants think that the state of their souls doesn't matter once they've accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior"? Have you personally studied the Protestant doctrines/theologies of and spoken directly to Lutherans of the MO. Synod, ELCA, Wisconsin Synod, the United Methodists, Southern Methodists, Baptists, Southern Baptists, First Presbyterians, United Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Church of Christ, Congregationalists, American Reformed, Friends (Quakers), and Episcopalians, to name just a few? You seem to be an authority on Catholic doctrine but I don't think you're an authority on the Protestant histories, doctrines, and theologies of all these Protestant churches. You're generalizing when you need to be specific. You're a Catholic speaking from a Catholic perspective about Protestants who each have their own perspective. Then there are all the different Evangelical churches that are the fastest growing ones in America. I listen to Catholic authorities when I want to know about Catholic doctrine and if I wanted to know about the doctrine of the MO. Synod Lutheran church, for example, I'd ask them - not a Catholic. Best to go to the source for an explanation.

Barneyjo - with respect, I did begin that section that you quoted by saying that it applies to "many Protestants". However, the fact that so many Protestant ecclesial communities have developed such different views on different matters, including one's salvation, is surely worrying. You are right that the Church teaches that other communities have elements of truth - but ultimately there is only one truth. That is to say, this teaching of the Church should not lead to religious indifferentism - the idea that one ecclesial community is as good as another. To do so, using the example of salvation, would mean that it is just as valid to believe the "once saved, always saved" argument as it is to believe the Apostolic teaching that one's salvation depends on the state of the soul at the moment of death. To do so doesn't make sense, since they cannot both be right, no matter how sincerely one holds a particular belief. I certainly feel more confident trusting the latter - the example of the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, the near-2,000 year-old teaching of the Catholic Church - rather than the inventions of relatively recent "reformers" (many even from our own lifetimes) who evidently believe they know better than the teaching that the Catholic Church has held and carried on faithfully since the time of Christ.

"the state of one's soul does not really matter once they have accepted Jesus as their "personal Lord and Saviour", that one act, they believe, saves them and there is nothing they can do to lose that salvation" Not quite. As I understand it, many of the Reformed Churches also recognise that individuals who profess themselves to be "saved" can by their actions place themselves in Judgment by God, the outcome of which is by no means certain. If one looks closely, the various rites associated with these Churches such as Communion, are bounded by degrees of "qualification" much as with Catholicism. Indeed the Catholic Church has recognised this also; "In the churches and ecclesial communities which are separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, many elements of santification and truth can be found. Members of these churches and communities are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and so we recognise them as brothers!!"[Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church (Catholic Truth Society - pub 2006)

...The Catholic Church sees justification as a TRUE eradication of sin and true sanctification, while for the "reformers" and their followers God can declare the sinner to be meriting heaven even though he actually remains unjust and sinful. The Catholic Church has always taught that salvation depends on the state of the soul at the moment of death. However, works, according to Scripture, are important - faith without works is dead. The Church Fathers - the direct successors of the Apostles - taught exactly as the Catholic Church teaches now. Ignatius of Antioch, in A.D.110, wrote: "Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armour. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has been accrued to you".

...It translates as "ranting", "slurring", or "babbling". So, as I said before, the King James translation is a weak one - it simply is not entirely faithful to the Greek. Now, onto your charge that YOU BELIEVE there is "a lot of vain repetition in prayers" - on what authority do you judge what is vain? Jesus prayed the same prayer in Gethsemane, asking that the Father might spare Him the agony of the Cross, yet Christ knew He had to die - was that a vain repetition then, knowing that what He was asking for was not going to happen? If I sincerely offer a prayer to God, whether it be once, twice, or thrice, do you think it will go unheard on any occasion by the Good Lord, as long as it is offered sincerely (i.e. not ranting or babbling)? I don't believe such prayers ever go unheard or unanswered. Don't underestimate the meditative value of repetitive prayer either, unless you are in a position to judge the effect that it is having on another's soul. On salvation, justification (as the Catholic Church teaches) comes from God's grace. The reality is, however, that for many Protestants, the state of one's soul does not really matter once they have accepted Jesus as their "personal Lord and Saviour", that one act, they believe, saves them and there is nothing they can do to lose that salvation...[continued]

Unconvinced - if I may take your last point first, about all Scripture being inspired by God. You cannot know that Scripture is inspired by God unless you accept the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church, as I said earlier, set out the full canon of Scripture at the end of the 4th century at the councils of Carthage and Hippo. All of these books were accepted as inspired until the Protestant "reformation". One must ask, given that Martin Luther got rid of several books and passages which had been in the canon of Scripture for over 1,000 years, how he could trust that the Gospel of Luke (for example) was inspired and yet decide on his own authority that Maccabees (for example) were not inspired texts - so was the Holy Spirit not doing His job the first time round (if so, that would make Christ a liar, wouldn't it?)? Incidentally, how do you believe that the KJ Bible came to the world? It was a translation to English from many different sources. The English version did not simply appear nor always exist, as several Protestant groups believe. To take the "vain repetitions" translation again: the phrase "vain repetitions" DOES NOT appear in Scripture, it couldn't since Matthew was writing in Greek, not English. The word that is used is, as I said earlier, "battalogeo" - a Greek word, and that word simply does not translate as "vain repetitions"...[continued]

The two are linked , how can you give advise when you have no experience of either situation. there family life and mariage and raising kids are difficult - unless you go through that expereicne yourself you will have no idea what it is all about. therefore priests stand aloft from it all and threfore caoont give help of advice

Barneyjo - I was not saying that by virtue of the fact that the priest was a teen that he is qualified to give advice on marriage. I was merely addressing two separate points made by Phearne earlier - the first being the supposition that a priest cannot give marital advice, and the second being that a priest couldn't answer teens' questions. The two items were not linked.

You know the bottom line is that the whole system is so built on fear that people are trapped and afraid of questioning any of ths 'teaching' of Roman Catholic church. I just feel soosorry for the priests who have wasted there whole life on this, and sacraficed there own happiness and all to no avail or any good for eternity

Carroll09, on the issue of salvation, it is not of works saith the scriptures lest any man should boast. Works does not aid ur salvation. But those who are saved will want to live Godly lives and will strive to know the Lord better each day.Also I do feel there is a lot of vain repetition in prayers even in the church of Ireland church as well. Prayers read out of a book do not come from the heart.and they do become repetitiveand you find they are just repeated without any thought about they are actually saying . Just a note there is nothing put in the KJ Bible conveniently please note the all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God ther is nothing there by chance but by divine authority

@Carroll09; I would have to say your cut off point in the timeline of psychosexual development is disingenuous to my mind. A teenage view of the world is no basis for a priest in advising or counselling marriage, personal or social problems. I was a teenager, I am now married with a family. I have lived that life, and can therfore relate to others who have lived the same or similar lives. NO WAY is a Priest who has led a celibate enclosed existence in any position to advise accordingly. I am reminded of Thomas, the one Disciple who refused to believe that Jesus had risen from death unless, as he put it "I can put my hand inside the would, I will not believe" Well, within days, Thomas got his answer, and Jesus sought to undermine Thomas's doubts, by inviting him to do place his hand on the wounds on his body. The point being of course that Jesus realised that Thomas needed this actual reality to fully believe. In the case of Thomas, experience was everything. It should be no less for anyone else who seeks understanding and communion with Christ, be it for Priest or Layperson

Phearne - get real: celibacy did not encourage paedophilia. It is no more the cause of it than marriage is a guarantee against it...and the sad fact is that marriage most certainly does not guarantee against sexual abuse. The vast majority of abuse actually occurs within the family unit. You ask how can a priest help troubled marriages - sometimes the voice of the "outsider" provides the most refreshing perspective. Do you ask a similar question of doctors who have to describe conditions and symptoms to patients as well as treat them - is the only valid voice that of a doctor who has suffered from the same illness? Surely not - that is one perspective, yes, but there is always more than one. By the way, all priests were once teens themselves, so on that score they are as qualified as anyone to answer their questions. They can advise engaged couples in those aspects that they are charged with explaining - i.e. the Church's teaching on Christian marriage. Finally - there is a glaring contradiction in your last statement...why do you still consider yourself Catholic when you don't take part in the central act of worship the Church has, indeed the greatest treasure the Church has? I want you to come back to the Church; the Church herself wants you to come home! I suggest that you visit catholicscomehome dot org and do your best to find out, to paraphrase Bishop Fulton Sheen, what the Catholic Church actually is, rather than what you may wrongly believe it to be.

I do not think Catholic priests should be celibate.It is an archaic practice that should be discarded along with witch hunts and flogging.All it has done is encourage pedophila and discourage scores of young vibrant men who would be an asset to the church and the parishioners. How can a priest help troubled marriages,advise engaged couples and answer teens questions if they have no experience or knowledge base in sexual relationships or marriage.The practice should be done away with or at least be a personal choice and not a rule. I am Catholic,though I no longer attend mass.