68 Comments

• Liamkeyes | Jun 12, 2011, 04:15 PM EDT

  Usual reliable sources have informed me that "HELL DOES EXIST!!!!

• Newrone | Jun 12, 2011, 11:07 AM EDT

  Does nobody else on IC want PARAGRAPHS??? Or we could go the other extreme & remove all punctuation entirely, no? ___
  As for the bishop, at least he is allowing himself a little lateral reflection. He could of course follow his reasoning through & accept that his life & career have been built on a total Myth, but that might be a leap too far for his conscience at this stage of his life.

• casualMBA | Jun 11, 2011, 04:29 PM EDT

  I have a devilish question of a kind for the bishop, retired. Your Excellency, reference the issues (issue?) of afterlife and marriage from the Church's (contemporary?) view, is there a spiritual afterlife after marriage, or are the divorced faithful simply patients in a spiritual hospice program?

• Gearoid4 | Jun 11, 2011, 10:21 AM EDT

  Why is IC resuscitating a story that originally was printed in November 2010, courtesy of the Irish Times. Is it just another attempt to cast the Catholic Church in a less than favourable light? This would not be totally surprising, knowing the track-record of IC.

• jnewnam | Jun 11, 2011, 06:28 AM EDT

  Father, you need a trip or two to Medjugorje. Also read, Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo.

• GingerDee | Jun 11, 2011, 05:08 AM EDT

  In the early Christian Church, meetings were held in houses, and women were often the leaders of these meetings. So, the beginnings of the Church included women leaders. Only when Christians were trying to blend in with their Roman neighbors did Paul and others decide to have only men lead Church meetings. This wasn't because Christ commanded it, but rather as a political expedient, to get along with one's neighbors and lessen the tensions prior to Constantine. Church leaders were allowed to marry until well into the Middle Ages. Only then, when the Church balked at dividing Church lands and property among the children of clergy, did the celibacy requirement emerge. It's sad that this seemingly noble and compassionate man has had to live a celibate life because of Church property rights issues. Don't the priests and monks study Church history? Why don't they band together to bring about a positive change? It never was Christ's teaching that people remain celibate for life. If that had been the case, the only Christians would have been converts, because there would not have been any offspring!

• AlunPalmer | Jun 10, 2011, 10:06 PM EDT

  I think he should marry a nice woman with grandchildren. He is retired anyway, so why should it matter? Celibacy is not an original part of catholic doctrine, but only goes back to the early middle ages.

• Carroll09 | Nov 15, 2010, 06:48 AM EST

  I did not disagree with your point about other ecclesial communities having elements of truth- the Catechism is clear on this. But while it is clear that they have ELEMENTS of truth, the Church teaches that she has the fullness of Christian truth and that any elements of truth that other ecclesial communities have ultimately come from the Catholic Church. She is also clear that she desires unity in the Catholic Church- so, while, as we both acknowledge, they may have elements of truth and sanctification and can be called brothers in Christ, the Church does not have an indifferent attitude: she calls them to unity in that Church which has the fullness of Christian truth. Finally, can you please, please, answer my earlier question: on what authority did Martin Luther remove books from the Bible? All possible answers to this question are problematic.

• barneyjo | Nov 13, 2010, 07:58 PM EST

  I merely make the point that the Catechism of my Church identifies members of other Churches and communities, and in particular, those who are "incorporated into Christ" as our Brothers. It also acknowledges the presence of "elements of truth and santification" within these Churches.Now, at the time of the Reformation, presumably the Catholic Hierarchy were quite irked and stung by the fact that such a large section of the body of the European Church would seek to reject significant portions of the teaching of that Church; not withstanding the socio/political upheval of the age. With some justification, then the Catholic Church could have looked upon and pronounced the Refermation as being heretical in content, nature, and outlook. However in the Centuries since that time, many generations within the Reformed Churches have continued to worship and observe the rites within their churches in praise of the one God of us all. Surely the Catholic Church could do no less than it has done by recognising the validity of these elements of truth and santification. And is that validation not recognised in the fast-track processes being put in place to welcome Bishops of the Church of England into full communion with Rome; ditto the ordination of Ministers of the Reformed Faiths (many married, with families) as new Catholic Priests, to serve in English Diocese where "in-house" vocations are severely depleted!! No, I think I prefer to hold on to the hope that Jesus, in his teachings, both "meant what he said, and said what he meant!!"

• Carroll09 | Nov 12, 2010, 01:59 PM EST

  What did they do? They left Him, and no longer walked in His ways. Was it the mark of the Good Shepherd to let these people go? Why did He not go after them and "soften" His words? Because, as Peter confessed, Christ has the words of eternal life...There simply are no two ways about it, Christ wanted people to follow Him completely. There was no indifferentism from Christ. Those who left Him in John 6 were actually the first Protestants; in fact, that point - the promise of the Holy Eucharist - is the only point in Scripture where there it is recorded that His followers left Him for doctrinal reasons. So, Scripture is actually very clear - Christ most certainly did make distinctions between those who wanted to follow Him completely and those who would not fully accept His teachings. But a good shepherd would always welcome a lost sheep back to the fold - as the Catechism says, they are our brothers in Christ, but they are, nonetheless, SEPARATED brethren. Also, again, on what authority did Luther remove books from the Bible?

• Carroll09 | Nov 12, 2010, 01:58 PM EST

  Firstly Barneyjo - where on earth did you get the idea that all of the teachings of Jesus are contained in Scripture? The very last line of St John's Gospel says that if everything that Christ did was to be described individually, the whole world wouldn't be able to contain the books that would be written. Jesus founded a living Church - and only one - if Scripture was all we needed for our faith, why did the Father send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in the truth: not only until the Bible was compiled, but to be with the Church until the end of the world? Furthermore, what about all of the early Christians who lived before a single line of Scripture was written? They were sustained by the teaching and preaching of the Apostles and their successors - that is what the Church calls Sacred (or Apostolic) Tradition. Sacred Tradition PRECECED Sacred Scripture. As to Christ not making distinctions: those who are on the side of truth listen to His voice - clearly He wanted His sheep to belong to one fold, since the Good Shepherd desires to go in search of the lost sheep. However, read John 6, for example, at the promise of the Holy Eucharist: He told His followers the same truth many times, and some found it hard to take...[continued]

• barneyjo | Nov 12, 2010, 10:08 AM EST

  Hmm; So when I read in scripture of the teachings of Jesus, must I now assume that there is an unwritten and unseen qualification of which I had been unaware heretofore? My own church through one of its own approved organs is clearly telling me that members of these other churches and groups are de facto, my brothers and sisters in christ, through baptism. I did not seek to give an additional impression other than that is what I have read and understood. If Christ did not see fit to make this distinction, then I also see no reason to either.

• Carroll09 | Nov 11, 2010, 07:21 PM EST

  ...The Vatican II document "Unitatis Redintegatio", on which that particular section of the Catechism is largely based says: "it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth". You don't accept my assertion that the 16th century "reformers" thought they knew better than the Church which had held the same beliefs since the Apostles - so, if Luther's removing books from Scripture was not simply a case of him knowing better than the Church, on what authority did he do it? Because, the fundamental issue is this: (to stick with 2Maccabees as my example) either that book is inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Church was guided by the same Spirit to declare it as such, or else Luther was right and it isn't inspired. If the latter is correct then Jesus was lying when he guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in the truth always. Either way, the Church was right OR Luther was right: but they can't both be right.

• Carroll09 | Nov 11, 2010, 07:20 PM EST

  No Barneyjo - I have not said anything which is not in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catechism, as you point out, does teach that other ecclesial communities contain elements of truth and sanctification (I mentioned the elements of truth because I was referring to elements of truth). However, what you quote from the Catechism gives the impression that the Church is rather indifferent, and taking the view that it doesn't really matter which Church or ecclesial community one belongs to. This is not the case however. The point is, the Church acknowledges ELEMENTS of truth and sanctification can be found outside the Church, such as the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity - but it says that all these derive from the FULLNESS of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. These blessings, the Catechism continues, are calls to unity in the Catholic Church in which this unity subsists...[continued]

• barneyjo | Nov 11, 2010, 05:47 PM EST

  @Carroll09; I'm sorry, but are you saying you are at odds with the stated position of the Catholic Church which you kindly acknowledge that I have correctly outlined? I also note that you only reference "elements of truth" and not santification; why? And also, I have to say that I am not overly worried about the definitions of salvation reached and identified within these churches. The then, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict II) gave his approval to this catechism in which is stated that there are identifiable elements of truth and santification present in these other churches and communities. I see no qualification in this statement. Indeed, to the contrary, I note the further qualification; ergo that the Catholic Church recognises that these Churches and groups are incorporated into Christ by Baptism........ and for that reason, we can regard them as our Brothers in Christ. It would seem to me that is a very valid position for my church to take in respect of these other Christian denominations. Again, I am not sure I can endorse your view that this is a case of "others knowing better" For me it is an apparent validation of Christ's presence when as few as two or three are gathered in his name. I welcome the opportunity to share that presence with members of other Christian churches and groups. To do so does not diminish the sense of my own faith, which allows me to respect the views of others, and gives me the confidence to ask for respect for my own views from others!!

• Pittsburghkid | Nov 10, 2010, 11:34 PM EST

  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.

• Carroll09 | Nov 10, 2010, 12:03 PM EST

  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.

• jamieLM | Nov 10, 2010, 09:52 AM EST

  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.

• Carroll09 | Nov 10, 2010, 09:04 AM EST

  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.

• barneyjo | Nov 10, 2010, 08:44 AM EST

  "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)

• Carroll09 | Nov 10, 2010, 07:58 AM EST

  ...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".

• Carroll09 | Nov 10, 2010, 07:57 AM EST

  ...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]

• Carroll09 | Nov 10, 2010, 07:56 AM EST

  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]

• unconvinced | Nov 10, 2010, 06:12 AM EST

  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

• Carroll09 | Nov 10, 2010, 05:42 AM EST

  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.

• unconvinced | Nov 10, 2010, 03:59 AM EST

  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

• unconvinced | Nov 10, 2010, 02:51 AM EST

  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

• barneyjo | Nov 09, 2010, 09:30 PM EST

  @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

• Carroll09 | Nov 09, 2010, 06:00 PM EST

  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.

• phearne | Nov 09, 2010, 01:35 PM EST

  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.

• FatherVol | Nov 09, 2010, 07:44 AM EST

  Sad story.

• marsman | Nov 09, 2010, 07:01 AM EST

  Regarding this with a bit of humour, all that is missing now is priests or bishops like Walsh coming to the conclusion that they should have converted from the Church to God / Jesus. Because, among other things, what really works, what the Church is good at, is the funeral service, getting people buried at the end of the day. That's about the only thing that really works. Else and otherwise the question, cliff hanging of course, whether God believes all that what is said in his name is unfortunately never asked. And, btw., for those unhappy with the sexual moral, a book can be recommended: Uta Ranke Heinemann: Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. It was a bestseller in the 90's, as relevant as when it came out. The reviews and comments at amazon give a nice insight.

• Carroll09 | Nov 09, 2010, 06:45 AM EST

  ...Have you only prayed the "Our Father" once in your life to avoid repeating the same prayer? Presumably not, since it is the prayer that Christ Himself gave us. Have you ever sung a hymn in church more than once- they are prayers too. The early Christians certainly believed that prayer was worth repeating. In fact, the Didache from A.D. 70, said that Christians should pray the "Our Father" three times a day...So, in fact, the Catholic practice of repeating certain prayers is most certainly biblical, and it has the support of the teaching of the Apostles and the Church Fathers. Indeed, the same charges made against Catholics regarding repetitive prayer can be just as validly made against any Protestant group.

• Carroll09 | Nov 09, 2010, 06:45 AM EST

  Also, Unconvinced - would you care to elaborate on your point that Catholicism is "only a repetitive religion, mainly repeating prayers..."? I'd like to know exactly what charge you're making against the Church with this statement. Perhaps you're referring to the old "vain repetitions" charge. If so, note that that phrase is one conveniently put into the King James Bible - an extremely weak and inaccurate translation of the Greek "battalogeo" which actually means "babbling", "ranting" or "slurring". Christ, of course, was referring (in Matthew 6:7) to the way the pagans pray. He obviously was not condemning repetitive prayer, since he repeated the same prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. We know that the angels in heaven repeat the same hymn of praise to God: "Holy, Holy, Holy...". For yourself, do you see a problem with reading the same Scripture passage again and again, year after year? If not, why not- it's prayerful repetition after all...[continued]

• Carroll09 | Nov 09, 2010, 06:16 AM EST

  ...Writing earlier in his life to the Corinthians, Paul knew that his salvation could be lost: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified". He also knew that it was Christ, not himself who would judge: "I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me" (1Cor.4:4). True peace, Unconvinced, will come, not from a false assurance of salvation, built from the shaky foundations of the Protestant "reformation", but rather from the knowledge that has done their best to know God, to love Him and to serve Him in this life, so that they may be happy with Him in the next. Yes, the Catholic Church, through the teachings it has faithfully handed down from the Apostles, truly shows us the way to full peace in Christ.

• Carroll09 | Nov 09, 2010, 06:16 AM EST

  Unconvinced- you are absolutely right that the Catholic Church gives no absolute assurance of salvation. Salvation does not come from one event - such as one moment of accepting Jesus as one's "personal Lord and Saviour" as many Protestants do. We have been redeemed, but, like St Paul exhorts us (Phil.2:12) we have to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom.5:2; 2Tim.2:11-13) - this is what the Catholic Church has always taught. The "once saved always saved" idea is an invention of offshoots of the 16th century "reformation". St Paul, in Romans 11:22, says that salvation is not assured: "See the kindness and the severity of God: severity towards those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off". As to your charge that Catholicism offers no peace - tell that to our great saints, tell that to saint Paul! Paul, knowing that he still had to work out his salvation every day, he joyously wrote: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award me on that day" (2Tim.4:7-8)...[continued]

• unconvinced | Nov 09, 2010, 05:21 AM EST

  What a sad piece from this priest. There is no comfort in the Roman Catholic religion. no peece no assurance of salvation . It is only a repetative religion, mainly repeating prayers etc aand of course the mass . There is no reason to be celebate, there is no requirment to not be married it is a man made religion. God is a God of wrath and judgement and will punish sin in Hell make no mistake about that I am glad to hear he is questioning all these issues may the enlightment of the Holy Spirit convict and save him from Rome and Hell

• barneyjo | Nov 09, 2010, 04:05 AM EST

  @TonydeNewYork: "Do not judge others unless you yourself are prepared for judgment" (first thing) Also, bear in mind if it were not for the "European Church" (your words) that brought the faith to the New World in the first place, you would not now have the faith you have received and seek to defend and advocate. From my reading of your posts, it is a faith so empty of compassion, charity and humanity that I am tempted to say that if this is indeed the way of faith in the future, then it is better that it should wither away and die, because, simply put, I neither see, nor hear Christ in your words. We are called to "Love our enemies and do good to those who hate us" Can you say with certainty, that is what you are doing here?

• barneyjo | Nov 09, 2010, 03:46 AM EST

  You know, it never ceases to amaze me how great the limitations are of the understanding of our own humanity and what it means actually is. First of all, Priests do not FREELY!! choose celebacy; it is foisted upon them as a pre-condition for ordination; ergo "you dont agree to a life of celebacy, you dont get to fulfil your own chosen vocation as a Minister of the Word" Thats not a free choice in my book. And who says that people who do not marry are both celebate and happy? That to my mind is a presumptive assumption. Humanity was given the Command by God "Be Fruitful and Multiply" we are ordained by God to do this I cannot ever recall any adjunct to that God's word which said "but only in certain conditions and professions" I'm sorry, but I keep coming back to the very simple premise that celebacy as we understand it within a Catholic context is a law of man, and not of God, and which law has had a coach and horses driven through it time after time by the Vatican, when it has been expedient to do so. "A house divided against itself will not stand" so it seems to be the case!!!

• murphy66 | Nov 09, 2010, 12:08 AM EST

  Cave a prelato sicut a peccato. Flee from a bishop as you would from sin.

• Watereskhill | Nov 08, 2010, 11:07 PM EST

  Interesting that he is pictured in comfortable retirement in his apple orchard without robes pondering Adam and Eve.

• jacersagain | Nov 08, 2010, 09:05 PM EST

  I think Bishop Willie is merely expressing humankind’s doubts on behalf of us all. Is afterlife there? Is this what atheists try unsuccessfully to convince us of? No is my answer to that. I believe, I hope, I trust and I do my damndest to love (not always successfully). You just don’t know when the gift of a life-changing moment is going to come to you but it surely does come and one should not reject it when it presents itself. Believe, Hope, Trust and Love – as Bishop Willie does - and most importantly, as the all the Apostles did. Christ is truly Alive and Well amongst us all. Just don’t miss or reject Him, when He comes your way in whatever manner, as He did through that Negro lady for me that Sunday morning on Manhattan Island, is all I’ll say.

• jacersagain | Nov 08, 2010, 09:00 PM EST

  (.../cont’d) Here is the big “but”: I would not have my Catholic faith, the same faith that Bishop Willie has, that Pope Benedict has, that every parish priest has, that every Catholic parishioner has, if it wasn’t for a single event changing my life and subsequent events confirming that my belief and trust in that changing moment was not unplaced. >>> It happened to me many years ago during a walk-about touristy visit to various churches of different religions one Sunday morning on, of all places, NYC’s Manhattan Island, when I saw a Negro woman walking back from the altar rails after receiving Holy Communion and I unbelievingly recognising that she had something that I didn’t have back then. She had a look of total belief, total sanctity and total peace in what she had just consumed. All doubts disappeared from me in that moment; the sad bit is that lady doesn’t know (if she’s still alive) what she did for me that morning; we never spoke together. I encourage everybody to find their own ‘Negro’ woman - and you who doubt should too. (More..)

• jacersagain | Nov 08, 2010, 08:51 PM EST

  James O’Brien has taken this interview with Bishop Walsh straight out of the Irish Times and presented an edited version of it here on ICentral. I read of the full interview as printed online by the Irish Times. >>> Bishop Willie Walsh has been one of the most remarkable people of the Irish Catholic Church that I’ve come across in my time. His namesake, Bishop Eamon Walsh is also a remarkable man, one we should look out for in the future. I’m just an ordinary family fella, never even served as an altar boy but, as a man and a human being, I know exactly where Bishop Willie is coming from with the comments and doubts he expressed. I too had long thought that there is no absolute knowing that there is an after-life. I too have had my doubts about Catholicism, Christianity and a lot of other religions. I’ve even had my doubts about marriage, despite being married with a wife and children. I too have said there should be no bar to women priests yet I am forceful in saying homosexuality is a definite no-no to engage in. But... there’s a “but”... a very big but (Cont’d/...)

• Carroll09 | Nov 08, 2010, 07:49 PM EST

  A further point, Forflann - 50 books were not "removed" by the Council of Nicaea: I don't believe the canon of Scripture was discussed at that council, certainly not at Nicaea I anyway (though perhaps you could quote the relevant passages if I am mistaken). The canon of Scripture, that is, the list of books in a complete Catholic Bible, was settled upon at the councils of Carthage and Hippo towards the end of the 4th century. The Catholic Church today uses the exact same canon. However, even before those two councils, in A.D. 140 to be exact, the Church had decided on the "core" canon of Scripture, which was the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the letters of St Paul. Even at that stage, there was no question of including other gospels- the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, as Christ had promised, was able to decide which books were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were not. So, the Council of Nicea could not possibily have removed books which were never considered to be inspired texts or part of the canon of Scripture in the first place. The practice of removing books which the Church had judged to be inspired by the Holy Spirit at the Councils of Carthage & Hippo did not really come about until the Protestant "reformation" in the 16th century, when whole books and passages of books were removed as they didn't square with the "reformers'" doctrines - e.g. 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, parts of Daniel and Esther. Luther placed Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation in an appendix, stating that they were less than canonical. In fact, he wanted to remove James altogether, referring to it as "an epistle of straw".

• Carroll09 | Nov 08, 2010, 07:22 PM EST

  Forflann - celibacy was required from the Council of Elvira onwards, c. A.D.305. Canon 33 said: "We decree that...all clerics who have a place in the ministry abstain from their wives and do not beget children". I would suggest that you are confusing the requirement of celibacy with the prohibition of ordaining married men to the presbyterate - that certainly came later. Elvira, however, required all bishops, priests, and all who serve at the altar to be celibate - that meant clerics who were not married and those who were. So, what I'm saying is that requiring celibacy ought not be confused with the possibility of married clergy - they are two different issues. If, however, priests were forbidden to marry firstly, then living chastely, as all are called to (as the Church has always taught), celibacy would automatically and necessarily be a requirement.

• patrickesq | Nov 08, 2010, 06:09 PM EST

  Very refreshing comments from a former hierarchy. Too bad his thoughts will probably not cause any change in the Vatican's ridgidity about the role of women in the Church and what should be done to prevent future sex abuse cases.

• gaeilgesdamhsa | Nov 08, 2010, 05:43 PM EST

  Yes, we need more of him in the church. They do exist, and it is refreshing when we hear from them.

• forflann | Nov 08, 2010, 05:42 PM EST

  Kathleen,over 50 books were removed from early Christian works by the council of Nicea. Some of these have come to light in recent times, "The gospel of Saint Thomas",The gospel of Mary Magdalene" to name a few.Celibacy was not required until around 824,and then it took a while to become common practice,in areas far from Rome.I dont think you will find a verse in the bible refering to poor Mary as a prostitute. An early Pope refered to her as such to show the power of forgiveness. I really cant tell which one at the moment so best not to go on that. ;

• Carroll09 | Nov 08, 2010, 05:27 PM EST

  ...Finally, for those who think that celibacy is unnatural, what about all of those who, through no particular fault or decision of their own, are living celibately? Many want to get married, but it doesn't always work out that way. Surely a priest's celibate life is no more unnatural than this, especially given that a priest has FREELY CHOSEN celibacy (having had several years in the seminary to discern whether he will be able to live celibately). Furthermore, celibacy is most certainly NOT the cause of the abuse scandals. It is no more the cause of abuse than marriage is a sure protection against it. In fact, abuse among the clergy is no higher (it may even be lower) than any other area of society, not to mention the fact that the vast, vast majority of abuse occurs within the family unit. As to Bishop Walsh's comments, they are really old news - he gave that interview (or a strikingly similar one) at least two years ago; in fact I think it was aired on television. We all struggle with our faith sometimes; he is no different. He thought about leaving the priesthood to get married- well, there are many different things that we long for: whether they are necessarily good for us or what God wills for us is an entirely different question.

• Carroll09 | Nov 08, 2010, 05:27 PM EST

  KathleenBerrio- the Church doesn't deny that some of the Apostles were married. Peter certainly was- that is clear from Scripture. Why do you automatically suspect that they were written out of the Bible? There is no particular reason why they should be mentioned at all, given that the point of the Gospels was not to give autobiographies of the Apostles and their families, but to teach us about some of what Christ did and said. For all we know, Peter's wife could have been dead - sure, his mother-in-law is mentioned, but that doesn't necessarily mean his wife was living when Christ called Peter to follow Him. By the way, the Bible does not say that St Mary Magdalene was a prostitute- and even if it did, where do you get the authority to decide what in the pages of Scripture is true and what is not? Do you feel qualified to do this for all history books? After all, from a purely historical point of view, the Bible is quite accurate. As for Rome requiring celibacy as it will then have to deal with pre-marital sex- that doesn't make sense! The Church has clear teaching, as it has had from its earliest days, on pre-marital sex. The Code of Canon Law, if you care to look it up on the Vatican website, gives some of the reasons why priests are celibate: Can.277 " [it] is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity". Celibacy is also a prefiguration of our future existence in heaven where there is no marriage- in fact that was part of yesterday's Gospel reading (Luke 20). Scripture actually praises celibacy for those who can live it (Matthew 19:12)...[continued]

• TonydeNewYork | Nov 08, 2010, 02:29 PM EST

  Bishop William Walsh represent what is wrong with the church!! ================================================================== Thanks GOD that we HISPANICS love the Church. The end of WHITE, EUROPEAN disident is coming to an END! ============================================================== Thanks be to GOD.

• KathleenBerrio | Nov 08, 2010, 02:23 PM EST

  As far as the disciples not having wives: they could have been written out. The Bible is quite anti-woman. Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute as the Bible says she is. The reason I think Rome wants celibate priests is because then they would have to deal with premarital sex, which they won't ever. I would like to meet Father Walsh. I never met a priest who is as progressive thinker as he.

• Clarion | Nov 08, 2010, 01:28 PM EST

  There is no correlation between homosexual orientation and abuse, as the statistics from the general population strongly corroborate. Homosexuals and the present abuse crisis: the correlation that Bishop Walsh seems to be troubled by is easily addressed by two facts. Prime, a homosexual act does not necessitate a homosexually oriented person. Situational homo sexual acts, in the prison populations, are committed by heterosexuals in 90 percent of all such cases. then, among all males, one third will engage in a homosexual act in their lifetimes. A corollary: oportunity and power are strong factors in the choice by abusers. Put these facts together along with the fact that the large number of homosexually oriented men in the priesthood is due to their seeking, in less than more recent times, was a way to live out their orientation without shame and with honor.

• Nicomax | Nov 08, 2010, 01:08 PM EST

  Any one in Rome listening? I doubt it.

• Whitepark | Nov 08, 2010, 12:55 PM EST

  I was born and raised an Irish Catholic but in my mind have always believed that for a man staying celibate for life goes against human nature and Gods teachings were never meant to be that way, we would not have the problems today off people dropping awayfrom the Church not to mention the ammount of money paid in lawsuits, maybe someday those teachings will change I sure hope so.

• luckodeirish | Nov 08, 2010, 12:27 PM EST

  Bishop Willy was always a progressive thinker - we need more of him in the Church for it to survive in any meaningful way. How refreshing.

• Dadster53 | Nov 08, 2010, 12:22 PM EST

  Very refreshing candor from achurch insider. For 100's of years married priests were perfectly acceptable. Moreover Peter was a married man as there is gospel reference to Christ healing Peter's mother-in-law. Yet the truly unfathomable stance is that somehow the female persona or the female soul lacks the qualifications for the priesthood. Insufficent testosterone in the females or those that would keep them out of the ministry?

• Ms.Gail | Nov 08, 2010, 12:15 PM EST

  A man of God who choose to follow his faith and his church while using the brain God gave him.The Road Not Taken is an eternal topic. (And we should remember that the forbidding of married priests came about for secular and inheiritance reasons)

• Searlit | Nov 08, 2010, 11:49 AM EST

  Finally, a priest expressing himself like a human being. I've always felt requiring priests to be celibate and single was a big mistake, by the Roman Catholic Church.

• Liamkeyes | Nov 08, 2010, 11:16 AM EST

  I often wonder why Our Lord never picked women to be priests, in fact he never conferred the prietshood on his Mother. There has being many scandals in the Church down through the years and when all was said and done, The Bar

• Intercessor | Nov 08, 2010, 11:12 AM EST

  It was so sad to read the above article and realize that one could become a priest, and even a bishop, without ever having had a one-on-one, personal encounter with Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. How can one, who has not experienced the in-dwelling of a personal Saviour even begin to understand the assurance of an afterlife IN Christ? If they don't have this rock-hard assurance of heaven, how can they give this assurance to others on their deathbeds and to their grieving families? His views on the seriousness of Pedophilia, whether the acts are perpetrated on a minor or on an adolescent also grieve me. Does he not know right from wrong? Is it any wonder that the Bible talks of "Sheep without a Shepherd in many places? Is Willie Walsh's archdiocese one of these places?

• Liamkeyes | Nov 08, 2010, 11:11 AM EST

  I, like a lot of people often wonder about different issues in the Church, for instance he never conferred the priesthhood on his Mother although she is often referred to as Queen of Priests and prior to his Crucifixion when some his disciples ran away, the women stood by him. In the History of the Church there has being many scandals worse than what we see to-day and when the storm had ceased, the Bar

• GeorgeDillon | Nov 08, 2010, 11:00 AM EST

  This is sad. I have a lot of compassion for elderly clergy who begin to question their faith. God Bless this man.

• IowaMike | Nov 08, 2010, 09:35 AM EST

  Here we go again. Does anyone think this bishop is the only bishop, priest, cardinal etc. to be tempted by secular life?? It sounds like Bishop Walsh stuck to his faith in spite of the devils best efforts to lead him astray and for that he is to be commmended. We all are tempted in different ways by the devil and we all have our crosses to bear. His was celibacy and living his life as a priest. Others may fall prey to temptations of adultry, ponography, divorce, abortion etc. etc. It isn't the temptation that is bad it is how each individual deals with it. With respect to female priests; when will people accept that women will never be ordained in the Catholic Church. Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis written by Pope Paul II. In it, speaking from the Chair of Peter, he wrote: ".... Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.... (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4." This teaching along with Tradition and the constant teaching of the ordinary and universal Magesterium is infallible. All Catholics are called to believe this as a matter of faith. God Bless, Iowa Mike

• mrkennedy | Nov 08, 2010, 09:26 AM EST

  I wonder why Our Lord picked the apostles without wives or if a few had wives they left them behind when they traveled to foreign countries for the rest of their lives and preached his teachings? Also why didn't Our Lord choose some women for Apostles?

• noeltfox | Nov 08, 2010, 09:15 AM EST

  What a great man ,will be missed in co clare.

• CitizenWhy | Nov 08, 2010, 08:53 AM EST

  Another forward thinker from the diocese of Killaloe. One of my aunts from Ireland was the senior altar server in her parish about a century ago. The priest simply could not understand the distinction before God of male and female, and did not accept the church's traditional custom about women as altar servers and priests. The bishop was wise enough to look the other way. All my Catholic relatives from Ireland believed in the right of women to be ordained. I wonder what this bishop thinks of ordaining women?