Does the Catholic Church need more priests like this?

two wheels good

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/17/father-hellyer-catholic-priest-nine-children

"Father Ian Hellyer is a Roman Catholic priest – yet he has a wife and nine children."

Church "dogma" isn't as inflexible as I thought. Maybe a PR coup against other denominations is too tempting. I'm surprised that the RCC would agree to such a transfer deal.

ISAW

two wheels good wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/17/father-hellyer-catholic-priest-nine-children

"Father Ian Hellyer is a Roman Catholic priest – yet he has a wife and nine children."

Church "dogma" isn't as inflexible as I thought. Maybe a PR coup against other denominations is too tempting. I'm surprised that the RCC would agree to such a transfer deal.

Im surprised thatyou are surprised! i have been posting about this being allowed in some circumstances for at least a year or two . even as recently as in the last week.

The Quadratic Equation

The OP is missing the crucial info :

This time last year, Ian was an Anglican priest, and he and Margaret and their children lived in a large Victorian vicarage in Devon.

"The Church of England was making decisions that seemed more to do with the world than with the fundamentals of Christianity. The Church of England was changing its mind about everything all the time. Decision-making seemed to be all about politics, rather than what I felt it should be about, which was God's will."

"the celibacy issue is a discipline – it's not a fundamental tenet, and it was fundamental tenets that I felt were up for grabs in the Church of England."

"I'm happy to be a good witness of how the married priesthood could work, but I don't have a sense that raising it as an issue is my calling in the church." he says. "I'm happy to trust the pope to take the decision."

gigino

9 children ! If there was a gathering of Priests, I do not know what all the other Priests would make of it all , given perhaps 48.5% or 50% * of them are homosexual / would have little or no interest in having children of their own.


*Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president in his book, "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," -- published in the year 2000 -- estimates that 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation. Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 48.5% of priests were gay.

There are some Catholic Priests going the other direction ( joining the Anglican church , inc here in Ireland ), so its a two way road.

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

There are some Catholic Priests going the other direction ( joining the Anglican church , inc here in Ireland ), so its a two way road.

Any reputable links to that ?

gigino wrote: »

I do not know what all the other Priests would make of it all , given perhaps 48.5% or 50% * of them are homosexual / would have little or no interest in having children of their own.

If the Pope and the College of Catholic Bishops (and it is their decision to make and no one elses) deem it in the best intrests of all Catholics, and our Church, to allow Catholic Priests to marry, very few, if any Catholics would have a problem with it.

Now, seperate to that :

Individually, and without ranting and trolling about the Catholic Church in any way, can you explain to us, with reputable proof, what's wrong with any Cleric volunteering to join a Church to be :

(a)homosexual and celibate ?

(b)heterosexual and celibate ?

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

9 children ! If there was a gathering of Priests, I do not know what all the other Priests would make of it all , given perhaps 48.5% or 50% * of them are homosexual / would have little or no interest in having children of their own.

There are some Catholic Priests going the other direction ( joining the Anglican church , inc here in Ireland ), so its a two way road.

A two wayroad with most traffic coming one way.

Look! Even if it was true ( and the sources you have contradict you ) what is your big deal about 50% homosexual priests? So what? It has no bearing on abuse or marriage. What about all the non homosexual priests? Why do you think they should have to get married?

Onesimus

most of us Greek Catholics can be Married have kids and then be ordained. It's been in our tradition since the birth of the Church. And was part of our union of brest in the 15th century when returning to beautiful Rome. Yet I do not have a problem with celibacy and most Greek Catholic clergy are celibate anyways ( cant say I blame them ). I quite like the Roman tradition of celibate priests and would encourage that they stick to their traditions.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Onesimus

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Serious question.......whats a hobby horse?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

gigino

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Any reputable links to that ?

" The appointment this week of the Venerable Dermot Dunne, a former Catholic priest, as Dean of Christchurch, one of Dublin's two landmark Anglican cathedrals, highlights a growing trend of "denominational migration".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roaming-catholics-more-conversions-than-ever-before-1303171.html


.."Church of Ireland : It is estimated that 10pc of its 125,585 members in the 2006 census were born Catholics"

The Quadratic Equation

gigino wrote: »

" The appointment this week of the Venerable Dermot Dunne, a former Catholic priest, as Dean of Christchurch, one of Dublin's two landmark Anglican cathedrals, highlights a growing trend of "denominational migration".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/roaming-catholics-more-conversions-than-ever-before-1303171.html


.."Church of Ireland : It is estimated that 10pc of its 125,585 members in the 2006 census were born Catholics"

One four year old conversion story from 2008. I see.

gigino

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

One four year old conversion story from 2008. I see.

not the only one if you look for them

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

not the only one if you look for them

Off you go then. You are the one making the "two way street" claim.

gigino

" Another notable recruit is a former Dublin priest, the Rev Mark Hayden, now Rector in Gorey, Co Wexford, who describes his spiritual journey in his book, Changing Colours .
"I was a devout Mass-going Catholic, but I could not take the 'one shoe for all sizes' doctrinal hard-line from the Vatican, as the fate of many distinguished theologians from Jacques Dupuis to Charles Curran amply demonstrates," he says. "I also felt alienated and unwelcome in parish churches which were dominated by poorly read, loud-mouthed Catholic conservatives whose ignorance of theology was matched only by the emptiness of their unthinkingly conformist rhetoric."
Clearly, Rome and Maynooth are losing bright luminaries to the more liberal Church of Ireland. 'Denominational migration' has winners and losers."


If you google it you will come up with some Protestants joining the RC church....so its not a one way stampede of people leaving the RC church. Its a 2 way street.

two wheels good

None of the other posters has mentioned the most important point that struck me about this article. Not the reasons for leaving the Anglican church or homosexuality or even celibacy per se; it's the double standards.

Most priests are expected to follow a strict rule (i.e celibacy) while a few are excused this onerous demand. Some who fail to adhere to the rule resort to lies and subterfuge and even theft to maintain a double life. It's not a situation that's going to encourage an esprit de corps. I imagine other priest's in Hellyer's parish are rightly p1ssed-off - and quite a few church-goers too.

bonniebede

Seems to be a misunderstanding here. Anglican clergy who become Roman Catholic priests are also called to be celibate, even if they are married.

And if they are widowed they cannot marry again.

It's usual these days for there to be confusion over the issue, as it is usually expressed as a contrast between married or celibate, but the original church discipline of choosing only single men for the priesthood was because they were discussing married and celibate versus single and celibate. In that context, single and celibate had emerged as the easier and more prudent option.

PDN

bonniebede wrote: »

Seems to be a misunderstanding here. Anglican clergy who become Roman Catholic priests are also called to be celibate, even if they are married.

Maybe you're not expressing yourself clearly? It sounds like you're saying that they are expected to remain celibate in marriage - ie, not to engage in sexual relations with their wives. That is not the case.

Cato Maior

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you're not expressing yourself clearly? It sounds like you're saying that they are expected to remain celibate in marriage - ie, not to engage in sexual relations with their wives. That is not the case.

Are you confusing chastity and celibacy there?

georgieporgy

gigino wrote: »

" Another notable recruit is a former Dublin priest, the Rev Mark Hayden, now Rector in Gorey, Co Wexford, who describes his spiritual journey in his book, Changing Colours .
"I was a devout Mass-going Catholic, but I could not take the 'one shoe for all sizes' doctrinal hard-line from the Vatican, as the fate of many distinguished theologians from Jacques Dupuis to Charles Curran amply demonstrates," he says. "I also felt alienated and unwelcome in parish churches which were dominated by poorly read, loud-mouthed Catholic conservatives whose ignorance of theology was matched only by the emptiness of their unthinkingly conformist rhetoric."
Clearly, Rome and Maynooth are losing bright luminaries to the more liberal Church of Ireland. 'Denominational migration' has winners and losers."


If you google it you will come up with some Protestants joining the RC church....so its not a one way stampede of people leaving the RC church. Its a 2 way street.

Catholics don't see this as losing. We actually want these people to go, and quickly please. There is another thread quoting Dublin Archbishop Martin urging non believers to call a spade a spade. As they say in the hospitality industry, "toilets are for use of patrons only".

PDN

Cato Maior wrote: »

Are you confusing chastity and celibacy there?

I'm not, but I think Bonniebede might be.

Doc Farrell

georgieporgy wrote: »

gigino wrote: »

" Another notable

If you google it you will come up with some Protestants joining the RC church....so its not a one way stampede of people leaving the RC church. Its a 2 way street.

Catholics don't see this as losing. We actually want these people to go, and quickly please. There is another thread quoting Dublin Archbishop Martin urging non believers to call a spade a spade. As they say in the hospitality industry, "toilets are for use of patrons only".

Wow, are you sure about that? Seems a little harsh. Also, according to the irish indo, i think Archbishop Martin said that his point was taken out of context, that he wasn't suggesting Catholics should leave. According to the paper anyway.

gigino

georgieporgy wrote: »

Catholics don't see this as losing.

I was merely quoting the newspaper. It was a journalist who used the word "losing". I had earlier supplied a link but another poster told me to " Off I go" to back up a claim.

Whither Catholics see this - or perceive this - as losing is not the point. If a fisherman had a bundle of fish in his arms and a few fell in to the water- for whatever reason - or ended up somewhere else, the fisherman would have lost the fish. If there are 380,003 Roman Catholics in the country and then there are (say) 380,000 in the country, the RCC has lost 3.
Losing is a mathematical term for quantity decreasing.

georgieporgy wrote: »

We actually want these people to go, and quickly please.

Many RC's actually have said it is difficult to leave the RC church, that they have written to the bishop etc without reply, but thats another argument. And we know historically from mixed marriages etc that the RCC wants / wanted all the numbers it can / could get.

Anyway peoples own choice in religion is up to them, and as long as they are not harming anyone then I wish them luck / everyone to their own wishes.

soterpisc

There are Thousands of Married Catholic Priests... What is the news story here with the Thread? Celibacy is a pragmatic decision in the west of the church. Its not a Dogma. however in the East (Catholic and Orthodox) there are also Celibate and Married Clergy.

There is nothing wrong with Celibacy or Marriage, Both if lived faithfully have many advantages.

Cato Maior

The RCC in Ireland have approved the ordination of permanent deacons and married men may take such orders. However, if their wife dies after their ordination, then they may not marry again. If they are single before becoming a deacon then they may not marry.

Interestingly, the norms on the formation of permanent deacons makes reference to the value and aid that the wife of a deacon can bring to his ministry.

soterpisc

Cato Maior wrote: »

The RCC in Ireland have approved the ordination of permanent deacons and married men may take such orders. However, if their wife dies after their ordination, then they may not marry again. If they are single before becoming a deacon then they may not marry.

Interestingly, the norms on the formation of permanent deacons makes reference to the value and aid that the wife of a deacon can bring to his ministry.

The above is also the same in the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church has the same norms as they date back centuries, I believe back to the 3 century.

I don't think there are many Permanent Married Deacons in Ireland.

Cato Maior

soterpisc wrote: »

The above is also the same in the Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church has the same norms as they date back centuries, I believe back to the 3 century.

I don't think there are many Permanent Married Deacons in Ireland.

There are, I believe, six in training at this moment in time.

Peregrinus

bonniebede wrote: »

Seems to be a misunderstanding here. Anglican clergy who become Roman Catholic priests are also called to be celibate, even if they are married.

And if they are widowed they cannot marry again.

It's usual these days for there to be confusion over the issue, as it is usually expressed as a contrast between married or celibate, but the original church discipline of choosing only single men for the priesthood was because they were discussing married and celibate versus single and celibate. In that context, single and celibate had emerged as the easier and more prudent option.

You can't be married and celibate, since "celibate" means "unmarried; committed to not marrying".

I think what you are suggesting is that married priests are exected to be continent, i.e. not to have sex with their wives. But if that is what you are suggesting, you are mistaken. Married priests in the Eastern rites of Catholicism, and the few married priests in the Latin rite, all express their marriages sexually in the ordinary way.

At one time there was a discipline in the early church that a priest refrained from sex for a period before celebrating the Eucharist; this was a practice modelled on the Temple priesthood who, though married, refrained from sex when it was their turn to preside over the sacrifice. However that discipline was abandoned a long time ago.

It's true that a married priest who is widowed does not remarry, either in the Latin rite or the Eastern rites. (Unless he leaves ministry to do so.)

Cato Maior

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can't be married and celibate, since "celibate" means "unmarried; committed to not marrying".

I think what you are suggesting is that married priests are exected to be continent, i.e. not to have sex with their wives. But if that is what you are suggesting, you are mistaken. Married priests in the Eastern rites of Catholicism, and the few married priests in the Latin rite, all express their marriages sexually in the ordinary way.

At one time there was a discipline in the early church that a priest refrained from sex for a period before celebrating the Eucharist; this was a practice modelled on the Temple priesthood who, though married, refrained from sex when it was their turn to preside over the sacrifice. However that discipline was abandoned a long time ago.

It's true that a married priest who is widowed does not remarry, either in the Latin rite or the Eastern rites. (Unless he leaves ministry to do so.)

I think that what is in bold is what he meant.

Celibacy is the main reason I left Maynooth. I realised that such a life was simply not for me. Many others, far better men and Christians than I, left for that reason also. Some who got ordained didn't see any value in celibacy itself, but simply saw it as the price to be paid - I don't think that is a healthy way to go into it. I remember seeing a soon-to-be ordained deacon weeping as he took his vow of celibacy.

bonniebede

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can't be married and celibate, since "celibate" means "unmarried; committed to not marrying".

I think what you are suggesting is that married priests are exected to be continent, i.e. not to have sex with their wives. But if that is what you are suggesting, you are mistaken. Married priests in the Eastern rites of Catholicism, and the few married priests in the Latin rite, all express their marriages sexually in the ordinary way.

At one time there was a discipline in the early church that a priest refrained from sex for a period before celebrating the Eucharist; this was a practice modelled on the Temple priesthood who, though married, refrained from sex when it was their turn to preside over the sacrifice. However that discipline was abandoned a long time ago.

It's true that a married priest who is widowed does not remarry, either in the Latin rite or the Eastern rites. (Unless he leaves ministry to do so.)

You are right but i was trying not to be to technical re continence and celibacy. Nonetheless you are wrong when you say that married permanent deacons or ministers from other churches who as married men have entered the catholic church and been ordained are allowed to have conjugal relations. they are not, as is clearly stated in canon law, though i do admit this matter is largely neglected.

if i may ad a rather long quote from an excellent article...

for a more extensive treatment see http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-canon-277-3-does-not-allow-bishops.html

by Prof Ed Peters who is a Canonist, and consultor for the Vatican.

Canon 277 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which states:

§1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which 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.

This canon states the obligation to perfect and perpetual continence binding upon all clerics (bishops, priests, deacons). Peters comments:

Clerical celibacy is, however, presented in the law as a secondary good that, while valued in its own right as "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" is nevertheless ordered to the protection and support of a more fundamental good, namely, that of "perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

The second paragraph of the canon goes on to say:

§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

Note, again, the reference to continence rather than to celibacy. The reason why the canon does not say that clerics should avoid contact with persons whose company can endanger their obligation to celibacy is that, as we know and shall see, there are clerics who are not bound by the obligation to celibacy.

The third paragraph states:

§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

Clearly this paragraph does not grant to diocesan bishops the authority to dispense from the obligation to continence but rather to establish particular norms that might secure the observance of this obligation in the light of local circumstances and to judge whether or not the obligation to continence has been violated.

Exceptions to the Law for Permanent Deacons

The Code of Canon Law exempts permanent deacons from the observance of certain obligations binding upon all other clerics.

Can. 288 The prescripts of cann. 284, [the obligation to wear ecclesiastical garb], 285, §§3 [the prohibition from assuming public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power] and 4 [the prohibition from assuming and/or accepting certain financial obligations], 286 [the prohibition from conducting business or trade personally or through others], and 287, §2 [the prohibition from having an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless] do not bind permanent deacons unless particular law establishes otherwise.

Notable by its absence from the above list is any exemption from the norm binding all clerics to perfect and perpetual continence.

Those to be ordained as permanent deacons are also not bound by the impediment of marriage by virtue of Canon 1042 n.1:

The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:
1/ a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate.

The obligation to celibacy of unmarried candidates for the permanent diaconate is guaranteed in Canon 1037:

An unmarried candidate for the permanent diaconate and a candidate for the presbyterate are not to be admitted to the order of diaconate unless they have assumed the obligation of celibacy in the prescribed rite publicly before God and the Church or have made perpetual vows in a religious institute.

We recall, again, that the reason for assuming the obligation to celibacy is to ensure the observance of the higher good of perfect and perpetual continence.

scholar007

two wheels good wrote: »

"Father Ian Hellyer is a Roman Catholic priest – yet he has a wife and nine children."

Hup ya boy ya! :pac:

Zorbas

What a lot of rules to observe and work within! No wonder some people just get down to scoring how many converts one church gets over another and are happy if they feel they are on the winning side.
Wonder if the anglican priests were welcomed to keep the score going i.e . dont care if you have dirtied your soul and misplaced your attention from holy things as long as you will be one of us.
All very simplistic I know but to a newly detoxed thats the way it looks.
Wonder how long it will take those anglican priests to get to know the rules and how long before they will be red-carded or will their sins be ignored?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you're not expressing yourself clearly? It sounds like you're saying that they are expected to remain celibate in marriage - ie, not to engage in sexual relations with their wives. That is not the case.

It would seem from the answer in message 30 that is is the case.

gigino wrote: »

Losing is a mathematical term for quantity decreasing.

So what you are saying is that the number of priests is decreasing? I would have thought there is nothing extraordinary about that claim. It seems quite obvious. No Big deal.

Many RC's actually have said it is difficult to leave the RC church, that they have written to the bishop etc without reply, but thats another argument.

They have been replied to and it is not "many"


And we know historically from mixed marriages etc that the RCC wants / wanted all the numbers it can / could get.

Anyway peoples own choice in religion is up to them, and as long as they are not harming anyone then I wish them luck / everyone to their own wishes.[/QUOTE]

Zorbas wrote: »

What a lot of rules to observe and work within!

Probably not as many as pay grades in your local civil service or council office or the union rules. Or have you ever read any of those EU Treaties?

No wonder some people just get down to scoring how many converts one church gets over another and are happy if they feel they are on the winning side.

Yeah no wonder. Not usually the mainstream Christians though.

Wonder if the anglican priests were welcomed to keep the score going i.e . dont care if you have dirtied your soul and misplaced your attention from holy things as long as you will be one of us.

Yeah Christianity is like that. Love the repentant sinner, hate the sin and all that.

All very simplistic I know but to a newly detoxed thats the way it looks.
Wonder how long it will take those anglican priests to get to know the rules and how long before they will be red-carded or will their sins be ignored?

The rules are very very simple. Probably didn't take them five minutes.

georgieporgy

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Wow, are you sure about that? Seems a little harsh. Also, according to the irish indo, i think Archbishop Martin said that his point was taken out of context, that he wasn't suggesting Catholics should leave. According to the paper anyway.

Doc, you do realise it is the pretend catholics I am referring to? Not the weak catholics, sinners (all of us) etc.

It's the ones that hate the Church but still stick around causing scandal and giving the institution a bad name. For example the numerous paedophiles in recent decades, and also those in acedemia who teach erroneous practices thus leading others astray.

Peregrinus

ISAW wrote: »

It would seem from the answer in message 30 that is is the case.

It would seem from the answer in message 30 that a canonist called Ed Peters thinks it is the case. No offence to Ed Peters, but does anyone with more authority agree with him?

georgieporgy

I presume everybody is aware of the fact that all people who decide to forsake marriage are obligated to remain celebate/ continent/ chaste.

This includes everybody.

Chastity is the prime requirement. The only people that can have sex and remain chaste are married people.

philologos

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

One four year old conversion story from 2008. I see.

It isn't a conversion story, if you believe in Jesus when you are in one church, and if you move to another church you haven't really moved from one religion to another.

Having grown up in the CofI many of the people that I went to church with were formerly Roman Catholics. I would say that the vast majority of people that move denomination in Ireland move towards non-Catholic denominations. I heard of much the same happening in respect to other churches.

Here in Britain, it is similar in respect to the CofE, more Christians who move denomination leave the CofE and move to other denominations rather than the other way around.

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would seem from the answer in message 30 that a canonist called Ed Peters thinks it is the case. No offence to Ed Peters, but does anyone with more authority agree with him?

That was my thought. For some reason I thought of the guy near Balbriggan who keeps putting signs on the M1 insisting that it's not paid for.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

It isn't a conversion story, if you believe in Jesus when you are in one church, and if you move to another church you haven't really moved from one religion to another.

Having grown up in the CofI many of the people that I went to church with were formerly Roman Catholics. I would say that the vast majority of people that move denomination in Ireland move towards non-Catholic denominations. I heard of much the same happening in respect to other churches.

Here in Britain, it is similar in respect to the CofE, more Christians who move denomination leave the CofE and move to other denominations rather than the other way around.

Couple of thoughts:

1. Assume that people move between denominations in more or less similar numbers - i.e. as many Catholics become Anglicans as vice versa. In that scenario the "converts" will be a much more visible presence in the minority church than in the majority church, and conversion to the minority church will be much more prominent, noticeable phenomenon.

2. Alternatively, assume that people leave their denomination and find another at more or less the same rate, regardless of denomination (so, say, 5% of Catholics will become Anglicans, and 5% of Anglicans will become Catholics). On that assumption the numbers leaving the majority denomination for the minority will be greater than the numbers moving the other way (and "converts" in the minority denomination will be even more visbible/prominent). But in fact both denominations are displaying the same "sticking power" (ability to retain their adherents).

The lesson? Impressions based on personal observation/experience about numbers of people "converting" are highly likely to be misleading. The truth is that we do not really know how many people move between denominations, because few or none of the denominations compile statistics on the question.

philologos

I'm just saying I would be surprised if you could show that there were an equal number of Catholics coming in from Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Evangelicalism, Methodism, Brethren and the varying forms of Pentecostalism / Charismatics, than were moving to them in Ireland.

I think it must be very similar statistically to that of Britain's case of the CofE, other denominations and rising secularisation.

Peregrinus

I’d be surprised if you could show it too, for a couple of reasons.

First, I doubt that anyone is assembling the evidence which would either show this, or refute it.

Secondly, my hunch - and it is no more - is that most of the time adherents of what we might call the mainstream religious traditions probably depart for other traditions at broadly similar rates from all of them. In the Irish context, that would imply a lot more departing Catholics than departing Anglicans, Presybterians, etc.

Thirdly, to the extent that there are differences in the “defection rate” between the denominations, my guess would be that in the present time and circumstances, the Catholics are suffering a higher-than-average defection rate. The Catholic church in Ireland is suffering very severe stresses, many of its own making, and many of the social and conventional “props” which would have supported continued adherence have fallen away. By contrast, while globally Anglicanism and Presbyterianism are suffering significant stresses (e.g. over attitudes to gay clergy, over women priests) their Irish churches seem to be weathering these reasonably well.

Finally, it’s worth noting your last point. The number of Christians of all denominations leaving their denomination for indifference/irreligion/agnosticism/atheism etc vastly exceeds the numbers leaving to join another denomination.

Propellerhead

georgieporgy wrote: »

Catholics don't see this as losing. We actually want these people to go, and quickly please. There is another thread quoting Dublin Archbishop Martin urging non believers to call a spade a spade. As they say in the hospitality industry, "toilets are for use of patrons only".

"Who's we, Kimo Sahib?", as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger in a really bad joke.

Not all Catholics are like the loudest posters on this board. I was delighted in my parents' church last night to hear and feel the welcome given to those who had not been in a while, not the brimstone and damnation desired by the far Right who would reduce the Church to a toxic remnant.

georgieporgy

Propellerhead wrote: »

"Who's we, Kimo Sahib?", as Tonto said to the Lone Ranger in a really bad joke.

Not all Catholics are like the loudest posters on this board. I was delighted in my parents' church last night to hear and feel the welcome given to those who had not been in a while, not the brimstone and damnation desired by the far Right who would reduce the Church to a toxic remnant.

I am glad you had a good experience on returning to a catholic church to celebrate christmas. The Good Shepherd is always seeking after the lost sheep. How do you view yourself now? Roman catholic or anglican?

You may have misunderstood my post which you quoted. May I refer you to post 34 which clarifies it somewhat.

Propellerhead

georgieporgy wrote: »

I am glad you had a good experience on returning to a catholic church to celebrate christmas. The Good Shepherd is always seeking after the lost sheep. How do you view yourself now? Roman catholic or anglican?

You may have misunderstood my post which you quoted. May I refer you to post 34 which clarifies it somewhat.

Yes, I've read post 34.

In any Eucharist that I have ever attended the Nicene Creed is usually recited, where I affirm my belief that I am part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I respectfully want to add that you have absolutely no idea as to what my sacramental life is and I am not going to add any more to anyone's prurience. Lex orandi, lex credi.

georgieporgy

Propellerhead wrote: »

Yes, I've read post 34.

In any Eucharist that I have ever attended the Nicene Creed is usually recited, where I affirm my belief that I am part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I respectfully want to add that you have absolutely no idea as to what my sacramental life is and I am not going to add any more to anyone's prurience. Lex orandi, lex credi.

I'm ok with that. My main concern was not to give offence unnessarily by a poorly written post.
Good to see you haven't forgotten your high school latin. That conjures up lots of old memories for me. To flesh out your quote a bit I will add the longer version for younger readers; lex orandi, lex credendi. lex vivendi.
There's a lot of meaning in that little phrase.