Retired Irish bishop questions celibacy, ban on marriage and afterlife

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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!!"

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?

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]

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.

...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.

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]

@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!!