All really good ideas to increase the pool for the clergy, and remove some roadblocks to make it an easier road to accept - certainly could put more folks in the pews.

And, like most good ideas, it has been done - one is free to pick from any number of Protestant Churches that do all of the above, and more. If you look hard enough I am sure you could find one with a married lesbian pastor, who will not only save your soul, but promise you wealth on earth as well.

There is only some conflict, if you happen to believe that the RC Church is the one true Church and the best path to your salvation – if you believe in such things. Then you have a dilemma - you can change to meet the teachings of the Church on these matters, or you can try to change the Church to align more closely to your views. History would suggest you would be in for quite a long wait.

As a guy who still struggles with the implementation of Vatican II and prefers the Tridentine Mass, I may not be the most optimistic guy on the ability of the Church to undergo such dramatic changes as you suggest.

I think for better or worse, the RC Church is, in general what it is. It has undergone changes in the past, and it will undergo changes in the future. However, because of some deep beliefs, rightly or wrongly - much of what you would have the Church do – it is no longer in a position to do. Like your example - in many respects it is what it is.

I understand your point on the separation of the hierarchy of the church from all the faithful. All of the points I have made, most from memory so forgive me if I got something incorrect, are either from the catechism, from the magisterium, or apostolic council. Again not saying right or wrong, but if you are catholic you are required to believe these to be the true and inspired word of God.

While I understand your point on the clergy, and again you may well be right, on matters as above the faithful have 3 options, believe, not believe and leave, not believe and stay. And in the case of the last one I am not sure why one would do that, other than for non spiritual reasons.

Now on entire list of all kinds of things not clearly identified as the inspired word of God. We can fight like the dickens with the clergy, and in many cases should.

bitter, like jake, you want to argue that the teaching is wrong, unjustified, etc. All I am saying, is that is the teaching. And all I am stating is what the church believes. I chose to believe it is true. But I feel no need to defend that belief. I am just saying what is, only from the POV of the church.

You, like jake, are free to believe as you wish. Again, I am not an evangelist. I am indifferent to what you chose to believe.

guys, to somewhat generalize your points. What it appears you are advocating is the church align itself more closely with the general world view on this, and assume other issues. With the intent of attracting more followers.

While that may well be true, it would come with a theological problem. If, as the church has done, and believes these positions are based on divine revelation, then a dilemma exists. Either God was wrong, or their understanding of what God said is wrong. And if you choose the latter, it opens you up to the question of what else, do you have wrong, including the very things that make you Catholic. Or you can, hopefully with great honesty, believe your view of divine revelation is correct, and the world view is wrong. And then stand by your beliefs, and accept what the consequences that brings

There is tension in the church on homosexuality. From the church point of view, like about a million other things, homosexual attraction is just a temptation. Giving into that temptation is sinful. Again no different than those who give into their particular temptation. And when we all fail, there is always forgiveness.

This just makes those with homosexual attraction just like everyone else in the church, a sinner. What many homosexual Catholics want the church to do, is accept their actions as not sinful. Which it can't.

So like many many many others there are literally hundreds of other religions that will do as they ask. And it is an individual act of reflection to chose.

There's not a darn thing wrong with homosexuality, and we were stupid to say that there was for centuries, thus needlessly harming many millions of people." — Jake

Well it is not quite there. Homosexuality is, according to the church, disordered. But, it is not the inclination or tendency that is sinful, it is acting on it. Which does make those who act on their homosexuality, sinners. Just like everyone else, in a church full of sinners.

And here is the part about tolerance

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now a call to chastity is an awful cross to carry. But we all have crosses some heavier than others

do you actually know the church teaching on homosexuality?

Jake there is absolutely no doubt at all that the Church is a flawed organization. As I said above there is no way it could not be. Both the Organization of the Church - and The Body of the Church ( the faithful) are comprised of flawed people - unified in a belief in something we can not really understand.

I see the Church as much closer to the Whiskey Priest in "The Power and The Glory" than to the perfection of Christ.

Stealing this part because it is written better than I can -

The protagonist in The Power and the Glory is also a good metaphor for the Church. We would like to imagine the Church striding through history like a hero or a saint. But, if we are honest, we must admit that the Church has ever staggered through history like the Whiskey Priest – all too often drunk on (worldly) power and sin, cowardly, less than faithful, self-interested, etc. But, while it has never been more than a Whiskey Priest, it has, by the grace of God, never been less. In spite of all its shortcomings, it has borne Word and Sacrament to the world. And it has also raised up exemplary saints – known and unknown. As with Graham Greene’s priest, we know that in spite of its shortcomings, the Spirit does not abandon the Church and God’s power and glory are present in and through it. But only and always by God’s grace, not its own heroic or saintly purity.

And there’s the rub. The compulsion and presumption to create a pure Church, whether that be pure in holiness or pure in teaching or pure in justice – however and by whomever any of those is defined – is rooted in either pride or impatience (or both). If we continually expect and demand that the Church stride through history like a hero-saint we will continually be frustrated by its actual plodding through history like a Whiskey Priest. But we will also miss the opportunity to learn what it means to live by God’s power and glory rather than our own. We will miss the fact of God’s sheer grace. I wonder if the refusal to accept and love the Church as a corpus permixtum – a mixed body of sinners and saints – is not rooted in our own unwillingness to see ourselves as simul justus et peccator – simultaneously righteous and sinful. We only ever live under the Mercy.

The Whiskey Priest has no such illusions about himself. As a result, he ends up exhibiting those basic gospel virtues, humility and charity – virtues that continue to be shaped even, and perhaps especially, in a Church that, like the Whiskey Priest, bears the Good News in spite of its all too evident imperfections.

What if God both exists and does not exist? — eodnhoj7

sounds more like the start of the God debate than the end of the God debate. :)

This is the question Camus asks in the Myth of Sisyphus -

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterwards."

As we all know - Camus point was the absurdity of men looking for meaning in life, where there is none. So like Sisyphus - why do we continue to push the rock up the hill, only to have it always tumble back down. If there is no greater purpose.

Camus' answer was a type of existentialism acceptance - his absurd hero, who knows there is no higher meaning - but finds or make his own meaning in life.

Camus would suggest that those who believe there is a greater meaning, are committing a philosophic suicide, believing in a falsehood.

I have given these 2 positions some thought, and I do not see any philosophic difference at all in believing there is no meaning, and there is a meaning.

Camus would approve

The classic Catholic attempt to be both in the debate, and above it, at the same time. — Jake

as you wish

I also know you are dodging around the fact — Jake

I am not dodging anything - except the an argument on merits of the teachings of the Church - I just continue to tell you factually, what the Church teaches - and you want to argue about the validity of the teachings - I have no desire to do that. Pointless.

My only issue was, to give you, from the perspective of the Church why they can not ordain women and remain Catholic - there is a bunch of Theology behind this. And I know it pretty well.

So, how about we just agree to disagree - Or if you prefer - you win - you are 100% right on everything you think is true about the Catholic Church - I really am indifferent to either option.

Who is creating apostolic tradition but the clergy? — Jake

the Catholic answer is God -

here is the teaching:

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

Ok, "apostolic tradition" is another way of saying "clergy" — Jake

No, not even close - may be a bunch to type here - but a quick search would get you there.

Yes, I understand this doctrine. But the Church, even defined as being the clergy, does not believe this. If they did, there would not be constant ideological maneuvering among the high ranking clergy. If the clergy believed in this doctrine they would simply fall in line peacefully behind whoever was currently Pope, given that according to the doctrine it is God speaking through the man. — Jake

actually none of that is true when the Pope is speaking "authoritatively" on matters of faith and morals. And it is completely true, often productive, when he is not speaking " authoritatively". This is an important distinction - not everything the Pope says is "authoritative" and therefor inspired. It is rare when they do - and they make it clear when they do.
I

Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say — Jake

maybe I am not being clear on what I mean by Apostolic Tradition -

It is a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church that the totality of Divine Revelation is both the Bible AND what the Church believes by Apostolic Tradition - the Church does not say either of these is superior or inferior - they are equal.

Also the Church believes when the Pope speaks authoritatively on matters of faith or morals, it is the inspired word of God ( Holy Spirit ), in effect it is God speaking through the man, it is not the man speaking - it is why it is believed to be infallible.

Again - like a few million others - you are more than free to think this is nonsense - but it IS what the Church believes. -

Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say that women can never ever take on leadership roles in his church? You've dodged this entirely reasonable question because you know the answer is nowhere. — Jake

This concept of Sola Scriptura ( where does Jesus say ) that you are alluding to - along with your challenge of Papal authority were the heart of the Reformation.

You can personally believe, along with millions of others if the the fundamental teachings of the Church on Apostolic Tradition and Papal authority are good, or real, or anything else - I will have no argument with your beliefs. I am not an apologist or an evangelist - believe what you will.

I am merely trying to give you what the Church itself believes - specifically on the ordination of women - and the reason why it can not do this, without giving up the core beliefs that make it Catholic.

I was not arguing with you, I was just giving you some information. Although you may have been raised Catholic, it is obvious you do not understand what it means, or bothered to look up what it means when a Pope speaks authoritatively.

It would take a bit to explain what undoing something like that would mean, but it would be very much like pulling on a thread that unravels the entire sweater. I am sure you will tell me how wrong I am about this, but I do know something about Catholicism, and it would not be possible for the Church to ordain women, without putting in question all of what the Church believes to be Divine Revelation by apostolic Tradition. In other words, it can not do this, and be Catholic.

Again, this is just information, not argument.

It could do something decisive, such as have the male clergy and nuns swap jobs — Jake

It can not do this - Pope John Paul II "authoritatively" declared that women can not be ordained as Priests, and it is "authoritatively" stated in the Catechism and less importantly Cannon Law . These are theologically impossible hurdles to overcome. We can ordain woman to the deacons , and I think this will happen at some point.

In my understanding, what would be right from the Church's perspective would be that the Church be an effective change agent in the world, — Jake

I think that has always been the mission of the Church.

that it be credible — Jake

This is more personal opinion than my view of what the Church believes, but I think the best way it can do this - is what I said above - be Catholic and say and live the truth as they see it - as the Church as done - or at least aspired to do since the beginning.

just be patient and this will blow over — Jake

this interpretation is in absolutely no way consistent with my concern over this horror. That is just a restatement of your view of the situation attributed to me. My only point is the Church will survive this.

This is what I mean. You've failed to learn anything from the crisis, and plan to keep on doing more of the same that got the Church in to the crisis. — Jake

actually the point was to just keep doing what the church has been doing for 2,000 years. To continue to tell Its truth as It see it, and ( to be religious for a sec) as the Holy Spirit directs it. Because that is all it can do.

to this point

a brief aside - there is a Jesuit ( and others) concept called Spiritual Freedom. It says in context of this discussion is that the Church should just do what it believes is right and be unconcerned of the consequences.

I have no clue what that last post means.

my whole point is they should not - If your point is, that these inalienable rights can be ignored, not respected, and abused by other humans - I have no argument against that - there are thousands of years of empirical evidence for that.

are awarded by other humans — Rank Amateur

should be "are not" awarded ....

They're awarded to you by other human beings because those human beings made a cost-benefit judgement on whether or not you and everyone else should have them, correctly or incorrectly. — Hallucinogen

I do not think my right to life, my right not to be enslaved, my right not to have violence done to me, my right to use my talents and efforts to improve my life, are awarded by other humans, I believe i have these rights simply by being human.

we all are what we do. Including the Church.

It is important to remember that the organization of the the church - is a human organization. As such is inherently flawed.

There is no doubt at all that the sex abuse scandal is horrifying on many levels - and will certainly have an impact on the faith of many followers - and that is completely understandable. But The Body of the Church has endured worse and it will survive this.

As to what The Church should do, well I am a traditional leaning Catholic, so at least IMO what the Church should do is to just be Catholic. Be clear and constant in the same core message that has been the heart of the Church for 2,000 years. And as you say Jake - let your actions match your words.

and yes - Deus caritas est which is the great truth of the Church, and also a great encyclical letter !!

all due respect, I could not possibly disagree more.

here is an old Jesuit joke.

A Jesuit novitiate is at his first house celebration of the Feast day of St. Ignatius. There are drinks, very good wine, steak, lobsters, all the fixings - brandy and cigars to end. The Novitiate turns to the priest next to him at the table and says - If this is poverty - bring on chastity

Doesn't the Vatican have a huge display of wealth? — LD Saunders

I know this is the conventional wisdom. And while the Catholic Church is a huge organization, and takes in vast amounts of money, and has great financial holdings, it also has great costs, the largest of which by far are charitable in nature. The Church, in general, about breaks even.

If it makes you feel any better, by any objective measure there is no bank that has suffered from more corruption over the last 20 or so years than the Vatican bank. It has been an absolute mess.

sure you won't believe this - but will tell you anyway. FYI the church does not consider its art work as their assets - the belief is they are the property of the world. While the Pieta may reside in a church, the Vatican does not rightly consider it the property of the Church. The church is the steward of these treasures - that they believe belong to the world - and as such they have no right to sell them.

Sure if you dig you can come up with some anecdotal instant that could be in conflict with this, but in general - this is the view.

for the forensic accountants - The Catholic Church in the States publishes their books. Here they are:

http://usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/upload/financial-statements-2016-2017.PDF

For the readers digest version:

Income is about 245 M/yr
Expenses about 238 M/yr
of which
directly to immigration - 96m
indirectly to other charities - 102M

Salaries and Management - about 14M

generally I think the usual process is to ask what the other position is, and then argue against it. But your way does save a great deal of time.

I, and I thought we, were only discussing the Catholic Church here

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff I have reason to believe based on anything at all that would count as evidence that the Catholic Church is engaged in some type of conspiracy to bring immigrants into the US. — Rank Amateur

Sorry should have been I have NO reason to believe.....

I have reason to believe based on anything at all that would count as evidence that the Catholic Church is engaged in some type of conspiracy to bring immigrants into the US.

I think the one thing I can tell you that is an important point in these discussions, is that the Church does view these people as individuals, with individual needs and circumstances. And with certain inherent human rights. I can also tell you when faced with individuals in need the Church should do what is within its power to aide and assist them.

While the Church recognizes boarders, and acknowledges their need, it does not see them as superior to human rights.

I think one needs to be specific in what we mean when we use the term "scientific theory". This from wiki but it will do.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

Gravity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory. I am not in anyway an expert and I may well be wrong, but I do not think QED rises to this level. It may well be a theory, and it may be based on science, but I do think it has yet met the criteria to call it a scientific theory, which has a more precise meaning.

If I am correct, your acceptance of it as true, is as faith based as my theism. Again, there is not a thing wrong with that. It is just an awareness that one can easily get in front of the actual science, based on a strong belief in science.

Trump's belief that he can change the 14th amendment by executive order, may well be the most dangerous thing I have ever heard a president ever say, and it had a 3 sec news cycle.

And yet it also gets many things right, and therefore it is reasonable to accept much of it as true. — Relativist

I think in this sentence is the crux of many of these discussions. This just shows a faith in the ability of science. To be clear, I think that belief is reasonable- and there is nothing at all wrong with that. I just don't see it as a superior faith belief than theism. I just think it is very common to treat science, and faith in science's ability as the same concept. And they are not.

looks like about 4 or 5 corporal acts of mercy in that post.

I would settle for just an end of arrogance of ones position, an end to sarcasm as tactic, and a significant increase in respect for each other's reasonable beliefs.

Love this Greenspan quote

"We really can't forecast all that well, and yet we pretend that we can, but we really can't."

Economics is an important field of study, and that study is and should be as analytic as possible, whether or not you call it "science " or not, seems like some sort of very unimportant personal value judgment.

Just another goat brought to be burned at the altar of science

not arguing - I am no evangelist - believe as you like, allow the same for others -

Was just a clarification on what a particular groups actual teaching on a point you made is. Thought it may be of interest to be aware of this groups actual view is on the topic.

No worries - carry on