´óÏó´«Ã½

I have been down in Dublin for a few days and found Bishop Walsh's comments generated a lot of interest. I would encourage readers to follow the link William provides - the bishop's subject matter ranges far beyond the ordination of women to include a desire to foster greater inclusivity in the Church for both gay people and divorced people in second relationships. He even advocates Eucharistic fellowship with Anglicans!Ìý

Bishop Walsh deserves to be taken seriously: he is a man who not only preaches the gospel - he practises it. I was discussing his interview with a colleague from Clare (in his dioscese) who said he has an unparalleled track record in his commitment to social justice. A few things which were mentioned included: parochial schools must all reserve a significant percentage of intake for children of ethnic minorities including travellers; a desire to sell the Bishop's palace and, not succeeding in this ambition, the opening the grounds for travelling families to camp there; a devotion to those missionary societies whose purpose is to improve the lot of the poor; advocacy on behalf the voiceless.

Bishop Walsh's words are important and significant because they are not the abstract musings of an academic theologian: they are extrapolation and complement of a ministry that has been faithful to example of Christ. It is sad he is soon to retire - would there were more of his like to take his place.

On the wider issue of the consecration of women bishops: my joy tonight knew no bounds when I heard that the revision committee has withdraw any concession to traditionalists which would allow them to opt out of the pastoral oversight of a duely consecrated woman bishop. Oh joy! Oh rapture! There is some backbone in Anglicanism yet. It is only the exorbitant price of champagne in Dublin which has kept some little coherence in these postings!

Would a loud whoop be inappropriately triumphalist?

Parrhasios

Loud whoop from me too (for both posts.)

I have followed the career of Bishop Walsh ever since I stayed in Ireland and heard him being publicly slaughtered by some "proper" Catholics on a radio phone in. All the things you say are true and he needs any support he can get. He has often been the object of ridicule by those who are threatened by his views.

I have a better proposal. Why not ban the ordination of men too, and we'll be shot of the whole shower!

-H

"Why not ban the ordination of men too, and we'll be shot of the whole shower!"

Sounds good to me, Helio!

Tell you what, I'll donate all the tassels, cassocks, stoles, albs, surplices, chasubles, dalmatics, tunicles, copes, mitres, zucchettos, veils, birettas, maniples, aprons, hoods, gaiters, (great list on Wiki!) and yes, the geneva robes, frock coats and preaching bands too. In fact you can have all the stained glass windows, the pulpits, the chalices, the cathedrals, the church buildings, the pipe organs, praise band guitars, drums, keyboards amps and mics, you can have the pews, the hymnbooks, the surround-sound sound systems, the baptismal fonts and tanks, the altars, the silver communion plates and the communion table, the steeples, the lecterns, the crosses, the bells, the choir(!), the communion tokens, the weekly flower arrangement. You can have the transepts, the naves, the steeples (did I mention them already?) the aisles, the sanctuaries, the presbyteries, the gold, the property, the financial investments, the gryphons, the gargoyles and the cherubs. You can even (a little more reluctantly!) have the icons and the Michelangelo's and Leonardo's (put them in a museum, or a Cathedral, share them around so everyone can enjoy them!) oh, and you can have the illuminated gospels too.

Look after them mind, they're the result of centuries of culture, and they're worth a bob or too. And better than that, they move the soul... but you can have them all for your Church of Jesus Christ Atheist, all I ask in return is the Jesus bit of your title, I'm happy to stick with him! ;-) And you don't need him now, do you?

petermorrow, that's an impressive list, but you forgot to mention what we should do w/ all the unemployed clergy.

I am overjoyed to hear Bishop Walsh's comments on opening up discussion in Catholic circles re female ordination, homosexuality and celibacy. I am a practicing catholic who despairs during mass when the priest invites those who cannot receive the eucharist for whatever reason(usually 2nd unions) to come forward for a blessing with their arms placed on the chest as an indicator. I tearfully think that is not the message of Jesus Christ who did not come to save the holy but the humble.

Marie

Often when the priest just said nothing, many people just remained in their seats. I welcomed the change where everyone was 'actively' invited forward (with the friends and families they were sitting with.) I hated to see individuals left sitting in the benches alone and very self-conscious. And if I did see such people, I made it my business to seek them out and say hello to them after church.

From that I would often find out why they didnt go to communion and could allay their fears or worries and welcome them back with no fuss.

And there doesnt have to be judgement in the priests words either, if he chooses them with better care.

"Those who dont wish to go to communion, why not come forward with your family or friends anyway and receive a blessing."

Here's a serious question to those more knowledgeable about the current state of the RCC than I am: what are the chances of Bishop Walsh's call for a debate on the matter of ordaining women coming to fruition? For that matter, what are the chances of women being ordained in the RCC?

Peter - can't entirely agree with you. None of the things you mention are essential but many of them may be useful. A sound system with a hearing loop can be a major benefit to the hard of hearing. Hymn books come in handy for those of us without a perfect memory.Ìý

I believe in the tradition of the church very strongly indeed: worship nourishes us in ways we do not begin to understand and by means indeed where understanding has no part whatsoever to play. The womb-like embace of familiarity gives some sense of security in a hostile and changing world. I would not lightly discard it.

Many of the items you list have symbolic significance whose gentle touch on our consciousness is of huge importance to our well-being. Images, actions, objects all communicate and, when invested with the hopes and fears of generations they communicate incredibly powerfully.Ìý

I see the challenge to the Church not in terms of a willingness to ditch its heritage but rather in terms of the message it can send deep into the hearts and minds of its members by reimagining them. A chasuble can be cloth of gold embroidered with seed pearls and silk or it can be plain organic linen. What does the difference say? What does the change from one to the other mean in the minds of the congregation?

I want to see a simpler holier church but I affirm absolutely the Catholic heritage of the Church and maintain that immense benefit accrues to those who understand and use it aright.

On a lighter note - it does seem appropriate in these straitened times to suggest a rationalisation of the angelic orders making the Cherubim management level redundant but I think that grade of decision-making goes upstairs even of the Pope.

"A chasuble can be cloth of gold embroidered with seed pearls and silk or it can be plain organic linen. What does the difference say? What does the change from one to the other mean in the minds of the congregation?"--Parrhasios

If I were to see a gold-embroidered chasuble, made with seed pearls and silk, I would be put off by its ostentation. Why would there be a need for one that is undoubtedly very expensive, when a plain linen one would suffice? IMO, there seems to be some hypocrisy associated with that--why not use the money for charity instead of some flashy vestments?

theonefromcolorado

It is my view that the greater 'list' is Jesus.

Once Christians figure that out, the answer to your question #6 will take care of itself.


Parrhasios

I'm surprised you read me so literally! :-) I was overstating, of course, and teasing Helio! (Although there's more than a touch of Blackmouth and dissenter about me!)

A key point though is found in your paragraph, "I see the challenge to the Church not in terms of a willingness to ditch its heritage but rather in terms of the message it can send deep into the hearts and minds of its members by reimagining them. A chasuble can be cloth of gold embroidered with seed pearls and silk or it can be plain organic linen. What does the difference say? What does the change from one to the other mean in the minds of the congregation?"

Indeed, or it can be a cup of cold water, or a smile, or whatever, the actions of Eucharistic beings following in the footsteps of the one who "made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant."

That is the change of mind I need and it is why I need more than tradition, it's why I emphasise Jesus.

"That is the change of mind I need and it is why I need more than tradition, it's why I emphasise Jesus."--petermorrow

I think sometimes, people can become so wrapped up in their traditions that they are unable to see the forest for the trees. I think in the case of the RCC (and other denominations as well), the focus has turned from the golden rule, or trying to be a good person, and more on "This is how we've always done it."

Parrhasios, you stated "I want to see a simpler holier church but I affirm absolutely the Catholic heritage of the Church and maintain that immense benefit accrues to those who understand and use it aright." Would not a shedding of some of the more dogmatic traditions lead to a simpler and holier church, without necessarily harming the heritage of Catholicism?

Peter - gosh I hope literalism isn't catching, I've been hanging out with quite a few evans lately! My post was only a plea, not just for the Babe, but for a bit of respect for what we might call the Holy Bath Water too.

Colorado - when you know me a bit better I suspect you'll find ditching dogma right up there at the top of my priority list! By the way, just for your information, I'm an Anglo rather than a Roman Catholic.

"when you know me a bit better I suspect you'll find ditching dogma right up there at the top of my priority list!"--Parrhasios

Good to know. :-)

Nice work, chappies and chapesses. We're happy now that it's about attitude and humility, and rejection of dogma. Which means we can make our own Jesus. Out of Lego. Remember, it doesn't have to be *true* for it to *work*.

[I can has chasuble nao?]

I go away for the weekend and this is the result.

Bishop Walsh is now simply a heretic. If he had any courage or credibility he would resign his office. He clearly does not believe what the Church believes. For the last, what is it, fifteen years or more he's been living as a 5th Columnist within the Church.

Many religions including Catholicism, Islam, Orthodox Judism instinctively fear women. That is because they know that if a (heterosexual) man is forced to choose between his loyalty to a woman he loves and a religion, the woman will invariably win out. (That is until the honeymoon is over but by then it's too late, all his money is gone.)

Half my money I spend on booze and women, the other half I throw away.

mcc, heaven forbid that there should be someone to point out that many of the Church's traditions seem to be throwbacks to Dark Ages and that there should be *gasp* a dialogue on it.

Darn it. McCamley is right you know.

the inability to ordain women is hardly a throwback to the so called Dark Ages - it dates from the time of Jesus Christ. When we have established dogma in the Church it's beyond debate in the technical sense. Of course anyone can discuss it, talk about it etc. but it's been declared something that is not a matter of debate. Pope John Paul II settled the matter with an infallible statement.

Clearly if one isn't a Catholic then all this is just tosh - but if one claims to be a Catholic, them's the rules. Bishop Walsh, not only has the office of bishop but he swore an oath on the day of his consecration as bishop that he accepted the full teaching of the Church. Did he have his fingers crossed behind his back?

Colorado

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church there is a section on The Primacy of Conscience. In that section, the Church calls the conscience, "The aboriginal Vicar of Christ." (Very powerful words.)

When a Catholic's formed conscience does not allow him to accept a church teaching, the Church REQUIRES him to follow his conscience.

If Willie Walsh is following his conscience with regard to his comments, he is doing exactly what the Catholic Church requires him to do.

Smithy - that's fine, let him follow his conscience and resign - that's what honest people do.

That said - I think conscience is a tad narrower than people think. I think conscience alerts you when something is wrong and then the force of conscience dictates that you don't do the thing. So if your conscience tells you it's wrong to drink alcohol you must not drink alcohol, even if the Church tells you it's okay. You can have a mistaken conscience, in the sense that when you think it's wrong to drink alcohol, you think this includes winegums. Now so long as your conscience tells you it's wrong, then you still can't. But you need some education.

Trouble is, often people look on conscience as telling them to do things, rather than not to do things. And conscience doesn't protect you in the same way in this case. If you think it's okay to be racist and kill black people and Jews, you can't say that's following your conscience. In this case you have no conscience, nothing telling you that it's wrong. You need education to form your conscience.

And then of course you have to break down things into smaller parts some times. Let's say your conscience tells you it's wrong to let your child starve to death. That's fair enough. But that doesn't translate into allowing you to do anything and everything to achieve that. You can't kill another child to save your own and use conscience as an excuse.

St Thomas More is the classic example. His conscience told him what he could not do, which was affirm the king's headship in the Church. But conscience did not demand that he do something positive, like deny the king's headship.

I had great respect for some of Bishop Walsh's social positions, particularly his support for travellers and abuse victims. But I think this is a little but much now - announcing this stuff just before he retires. Just a little cowardly.

Post # 23

Ever heard of "Evil is done when good men remain silent"?

And wasnt Thomas More "just a little cowardly" only really speaking out when his head was about to be "retired" from his body?

There is such a thing as social sin and often silence is simply not the proper response.

Post # 17 "For the past, what is it, fifteen years or more, Bishop Walsh has been living in the Church as a fifth columnist."

Post # 23 "I had great respect for some of Bishop Walsh's social positions, paricularly his support for travellers and abuse victims."

He was ordained on October 2nd 1994, fifteen years ago and his work for Travellers and the abused has been since then. Which post are you running with, 17 or 23? You cant have both.

Also, if you are going to get your pants in an almighty twist about people calling the Pope a Nazi, you should really be a bit more careful about what you call a Bishop. I think that's fair comment, is it not?

And please dont give lectures about how wrong it is to get rid of groups of people. You rejoice in every good man and woman who leaves the Church and scream "Resign!!" at anyone who dares question it. You refuse to allow them the freedom of valid philosophical and theological debate within the Church, but demand that right for yourself when the mood takes you. "So if your conscience tells you...."

McC, we know the Roman Catholic church is a flawed entity; we know that the pronouncements of its popes are as infallible as Simon Cowell. There are plenty of things that the various churches have got wrong over the years; non-ordination of women (as if there was some specific difference between XX and XY that translated into priestly competence!) is one of them. If your church can't handle a bit of debate, then I think anyone with half an ounce of integrity and intelligence *would* resign, and leave the whole sorry mess to the knuckle draggers. Maybe people like Bishop Walsh think something can be salvaged from this train wreck. Maybe they're a tad too optimistic.

Helio - post # 16

[I can has chasuble nao?]

Is the above an indication that you might be developing a charismatic Christian Atheism? Interpretation anyone?

Smithy, - sometimes it is evil to remain silent, of course it is. But you can hardly say that was the case with Thomas More - his silence was heard across Europe and lead to his martyrdom. He was a good lawyer and refused to make it easy for them. Martyrs aren't expected to put the noose round their own necks are they?

Social sin, if it exists, is the sum of lots of individual sins or it's not sin.

I'm allowed to have a range of views about someone - you know, Smithy, people aren't all black and white. You can admire the good things people do while rejecting the bad things. But you seem to see everybody in black and white - Pope Benedict bad, I don't know,Hans Kung good (that's only an example, please don't come back saying "where did I say that Hans Kung was good?"

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the man on the street would not regard 5th Columnist as being the same as Nazi or Gestapo.

>>>And please dont give lectures about how wrong it is to get rid of groups of people.

What are you talking about?

I've no desire to see people leave the Church. I would like people to be honest and face reality. Everyone, everyone knows the Church's teaching on all these issues and that they are not going to change. and years of liberal talk and hoping for new Popes and undermining is not going to make it happen. Marriage will be for life, priests will be men (as Jesus and the Apostles were men), homosexual acts will be sinful. Trying to debate these things is like debating gravity.

Bishop Walsh was a canon lawyer too, MCC.

Apart from that, hilarious. Only you could express such absolute views then accuse someone else of being "too black and white" in theirs.

Thats your second contradiction in three posts. I suppose thats always a risk when one is an apologist for other people's principles and made one's own core values those of an institution.

Smithy - it's called being broad minded; you should try it. It's okay to say one day that George Best was a great footballer and then the next day refer to his excessive drinking and womanising. that's not being contradictory; that's recognising different aspects of a person.

My Church isn't an institution to me but the Body of Christ.

Then doesnt it hurt you to the core to see members of that body leave?

Er, wasn't "Saint" Thomas More an evil, raging, foul-mouthed, murderous bigot? Yes, I rather think he was. It hardly seems appropriate to try to rehabilitate the reputation of such a scoundrel.

"It hardly seems appropriate to try to rehabilitate the reputation of such a scoundrel."

Mmmmm, now, let me see, which bit of my Christianity is it which disagrees with that? :-)

Helio - think your confusing him with Roger Moore.

I don't think St Thomas needs his reputation rehabilitated by anyone.

Smithy - when you have a tumour, what do you do but cut it out.

Nice to see the Inquisitional Spirit still alive and well. "Saint" Thomas More would have been calling for Bishop Walsh to be burned at the stake. You're going soft, McC! That's even though you are using language reminiscent of Ratzinger's old boss.

MCC

Probably the most disgusting thing you've posted so far.

You do not see Christ in his people at all.

I doubt that's the most disgusting thing. Don't you remember my posts about child abuse in which you accused me of everything you could think of and then there were the posts when that old fraud who wrote Anam Cara died.

I try to see everyone as the brother for whom Christ died - but do remember what Jesus said about those who lead little ones astray - something about millstones and the sea - you know that place you dump the Blessed Sacrament.

Its the second time you've referred to me "dumping the Blessed Sacrament" at sea, MCC, and it really says so much about where you are at as a human being, never mind as a "Christian."

Parrhasios made a post after my one in which he obviously connected with what I had done. (He possibly has someone from his family lying beneath the waves.) You then came in and made an extremely insensitive post given what Parrhasios had shared.

It was a war grave.............

You are correct in your assumption Smithy. What you did touched me very deeply and still moves me every time I think about it. It was the embodiment of compassion.

You guys crack me up.

With the greatest respect to the dead, whether at sea or on land, you can't give them communion. I don't doubt the feeling and the sense of compassion involved, but it was a foolish thing to do. Would have been far better offering Mass for them.

MCC

Mass was said for them on more than one occasion. And in the instructions given to sea chaplains lots of things are allowed which aren't under normal circumstances. One of them is the disposal of consecrated hosts at sea (there's no tabernacle.)

When I was 14, my English junior seminary closed and we were moved to one in Scotland. On my first day there, I was made sacristan. In this seminary, communion was taken under both kinds. There was often loads of consecrated wine left after Mass.

I felt completely unworthy to consume it, so I took the chalice to a sink where I knew the pipe led outside to the earth, rather than a drain. I poured it down there, as a mark of respect.

When I turned round, one of the priests was blocking the doorway. He then opened up on me a barrage of abuse that I've never forgotten to this day. For the remainder of my years in that place he only ever spoke to me to say, "You may have fooled them (the other priests), but you arent fooling me. I KNOW what you did!!"

I always wondered what was wrong with his self esteem that he had to be so cruel to a child - out of respect for God. It then transpired that he was sexually abusing the first and second year students.

Over thirty years later and having lived my life as a priest, I have watched time and time again, those same types of people who seem to couple together respect for God, but contempt for their brother or sister and their perceived sin.

Recently, someone was spitting out the host on the pavement after Mass. No one knew who it was and it became a scandal in the parish. (It wasnt a scandal to me, God doesnt need anyone to defend him. I was more worried about the state of mind of the individual concerned.) One woman was particularly vocal in her condemnation of whoever the culprit was. She, much like yourself, often set herself up as judge and jury over others.

The culprit was eventually caught and guess what? It was her husband!

From that day forward I never heard that woman judge anyone else in the parish. Its amazing the effect scandal has when it knocks on your own front door.

And here's the point, MCC, regarding yourself. I dont know whether you are a priest, a married man or single, but your posts are memorable only in as much as they are completely devoid of any basic human compassion.

What really brought it home to me was your comments about you seeing the Church as "The Body of Christ" and referring to people in it as a "tumour." You actually have no idea who Christ is, non whatsoever. If you did you wouldnt be so callously unkind to his people.

Maybe you need to look a lot more closely at the Pharisees, especially the one you see in the shaving mirror each morning.

What?!! He threw the wine down a sink!!!

mcc

What Smithy did was much more powerful than simply saying a mass for the dead. His act was supremely empathic: it demonstrates how compassion enters the soul of a man and engages with emotion and imagination to embody in a gesture his heart's desire to attempt to answer with comfort even in death the fear, despair and suffering of those who lost their lives in the savagery of war and lie in no known grave. The mere knowledge that such compassion exists coupled with the realisation that the story of those we loved can move strangers even yet is a powerful consolation.

In my own case, however, the gesture was doubly poignant. You said that you can't give communion to the dead but, with respect, I would challenge that.

When I was bereft, a few years ago, of what I can only call, literally, my other half I went to communion the Sunday after the funeral. In the Anglican tradition the host is usually a small square of white bread rolled flat and, that Sunday, the priest gave me what looked like a piece that had been imperfectly cut, larger than usual. After the service he spoke to me and said quietly "I gave you two breads today: one for you and one for X". That simple gesture was the most moving comfort I received in the whole of my bereavement and it instantly made vividly real the whole idea of the Church as a true communion of all the saints living and dead: a place or space in which love truly is eternal.

The originality, reflecting a deeply personal, as opposed to institutional, response, contributes greatly to the connective power of such actions. They don't just live once, they lie in memory to uplift and console over and over again. Thank-you Smithy!

Smithy - Pot, Kettle, Black.

Every time there's a discussion you go for the child abuse card.

I care for the faithful members of the Church who have to put up with pastors like you, who can't bring themselves to refer to the Blood of Christ but are still calling it "wine". And to be frank, I don't even believe your little story. Nor do I believe there is a sea chaplains handbook which overturns the liturgical laws of the Church; you don't dump the Blessed Sacrament because you don't have a tabernacle.

Blessed John Soreth risked life and limb to ensure the safety of the Blessed Sacrament when his city was attacked. And no, he wasn't a child molester.

MCC

I'm really sorry that sexual abuse by Catholic priests crops up frequently in my posts. Believe me, I wish it didnt.

I think that I've mentioned it when it was relevant, but maybe I've been self indulgent. Everyone on here will have their opinion on that one.

You keep attempting to discredit me, always consciously and deliberately taking the lowest possible understanding of what I post. I dont refer to "wine" in my last post, I say, and I think its there in black, not white, "CONSECRATED WINE." Why do you keep accusing me of having disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament? Me being exposed as an idiot is not going to make your posts more credible.

So far you have me down as a liar, a blatant liar, another blatant liar, someone who "dumps" Jesus in the sea, an angry person, someone you dont believe, someone who refers to Christ's blood as merely "wine", someone who supports fifth columnists and someone who should shut up about child abuse etc.. etc..

That's some rap sheet.

I can only hope that my compassion for the poor will be taken into account when Jesus is considering what sentence I get.

(For the record, if there is a Hell, may God send me there if I have lied or if I have said any of this from any other motive than that of a belief in the Gospel and a deep love of the Catholic Church.)

Boys boys boys - it is *wine*. Not consecrated wine. Not the blood of JC. It is wine. It doesn't change. All that changes is in your head. And believe me, there are a lot of things inside the heads of religious people that NEED changed; bread and wine are not among them.

Ask the prods. They know. :-) [RJB, I think your gesture was nice. I appreciated that story, as I do many of your stories.]

Ask the prods. They know. :-)

Well?

Emmmm?

Yeh, sort of.

But I wouldn't call them mere symbols, I'm not that evangelical!

Helio

Help ma Boab!

If I say wine,

- MCC accuses me of blasphemy.
- You accuse me of deluding myself.
- Marcus will accuse me of being anti-American when he finds out its French wine.
- Pastor P will tell me that alcohol comes straight from the devil's bottom.
- OT will say its the gay drink of choice and that I must love the drink, but not the alcohol.

I dont like the company you are keeping!! Lol!

RJB,

You forget to mention in your list that Graham will invent an 'ism' for you, henceforth referring to the views on wine expressed in your posts as 'RJBism'.

RJB, I don't think you're deluded, but do you not get a wee feeling now and again that all this "sacrament" stuff is ever so slightly *silly*? I mean, it's perfectly obvious that nothing about the nature of the *stuff* changes; it's all in the mind. No mystery, no miracle. Indeed, McC's appreciation of the whole thing is nothing short of pagan idolatry, don't you think?

Helio

I've tried to argue with MCC's views consistently over the last few weeks and not to allow him to convey an image of Catholicism which I think is, well, lets just say 'severe', for the moment.

You'll have read his responses where he ridicules me. He is desperate to find an achilles tendon where he can finally point at me and proclaim, "Aha! You see, I told you so, he isnt a proper priest/catholic/christian!!"

If I answer your post # 48 honestly, I will be placing myself in exactly that position and I'll be at his mercy for ever more. He will be able to jeer at me, laugh at me and publicly deride me for eternity. My life will be ruined, people will avoid me in the streets.

Knowing this, do you still want me to answer your questions?

RJB

I beg you, hold fire, let the Prod defend the idea of Sacrament!

Helio

We live in a Sacramental world. Each aspect of this world points us to Another. In him we live and move and have our being. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men and he calls us to let that light shine and bring life to the world.

He calls us to be Eucharistic beings, to feed him, to clothe him, to visit him, to be gracious.

He is all around us.

His Kingdom is at hand.

Peter

My knight in shining armour!

Smithy, you take all these things too personally. I'm not out to get you - just pursuing the truth.

Peter, that's sweet like chocolate. I'm sure we should glory in the sacramental Tsunami of a few years ago, the sacramental airliners that flew into the sacramental WTC towers, the sacramental wars ongoing around the world, the ever-so-sacramental stoning of a young woman to death in Somalia, the sacramental (presumably intelligently designed) malarial parasite and so on and so forth. After all, they're living and moving and having their being in the "Another" of which you speak. Some of those sacramental evils are our fault; some are not.

Whether it points you to "Another" or not (and it doesn't; otherwise it would be called "evidence") is irrelevant. The bread and the wine remain bread and wine; they are just as sacramental as Mother's Pride and Buckfast under your model. As Syndrome says in "The Incredibles": when everyone is super, then *no-one* will be.

Come on - you're a prod. Show McC where his/her error lies; why sacramentolatry is wrong. Why leave all the work to RJB (who is doing a good job, BTW)?

MCC

C'mon, when I choose to take the risk of sharing something pretty painful from my past, you call me a liar and say that I always play the 'abuse card.' To quote Monty Python, how much more personal can you get?

And if you are going to pursue the truth, that will necessarily involve asking our own Church some difficult questions and accepting some unpallatable truths about ourselves.

Perhaps, Smithy, it's your African experience, you often tell stories about yourself when we're discussing something - which means when I disagree with you in some way it comes accross as a personal rejection (sometimes of course I do this on purpose, cos I think you're mad) rather than a more objective discussion.

I know of course that this is part of the issue in itself. You will say I'm interested in things, and objects and you're interested in people etc.

Helio - you can't possibly know if the bread and wine has changed in the way believed by Catholics. Since we believe the substance changes while the accidens doesn't and only the accidens is available for your inspection. By definition you can't know. All you can say is it looks, smells, tastes, feels etc. But as Thomas Aquinas says - believers can hear the difference.

Come on fella, less of the personal stuff.

McCamley, you do seem to be having a go. If you don't think RJB is a "proper" catholic that is up to you. No need to attack him for it.

and anyway, by your own reckoning, it's not up to you, it's up to the pope. I don't know if RJB is still in the church or not, but, if he is, it's because he hasn't been excommunicated - which is absolutely no business of yours.

And, if he's not, you can console yourself with the fact that he thinks he's catholic but he's not. I have no problem with accepting him as a catholic, and, even if he has been excommunicated, I have no problem with accepting him referring to his faith as "catholic" but quarelling with the "roman" bit.

I didn't complain about your post, by the way.

I haven't even seen it.

And it turned out to be ok

why would someone complain about that? Or is it another bug in the system?

McC, indeed. Magic pixie juice. Wow. Look, you KNOW you have no basis for this odd superstition; you KNOW that this is all in your head; you KNOW that the representation is purely symbolic, and all you have at the end of the day is bread and wine. It is the same with "holy water" or "saintly relics". Call it substance, pretend it's "accidens" - it doesn't matter. It's protons, neutrons and electrons, and no magic about it. That is one thing that Judaism, to its credit, did give to the world - spiritual power does not lie in earthly objects. There is no spooky force imbuing your eucharistic gobbles and gargles. What is going on, if anything, is the same thing that goes on in homeopathy - in the head.

All of which, of course, means that I appreciate RJB's stories. I find that they are what makes it real. Of course I don't agree that there is any god behind things, but since I am of the view that whatever "Christ" is, it is something we humans invent, I see "Christ" in RJB's stories and Peter's musings etc. But it's coming from us. We make it, either in our own heads or collectively.

Passing it off as magic pixie juice is just so *pagan* and *seamy*. I think if I were god, I would rather I *didn't* exist.

Helio

And the tragedies which are not our fault are the fault of... who... Helio....God? Mmmmmm, He doesn't exist, remember? But sure, blame Him anyway.

Come to think of it that could be the next "pink, red and orange" ad for you guys (Goodness I'd even do HTML colour for you but it doesn't work on W&T) -

"God doesn't exist, but that's OK, you can blame him anyway."

There, you can have that one for free! It even has three distinct bits for colour code and layout.

Should there have been a probably in that statement?

MCC

Aaaaah! All is explained. Fine looking website and, so full of 'personal' stories, strangely enough.

And no stranger to a wee comment here and there (its an ever present theme on your site) about, eh, clergy sexual abuse.

Both subjects you ridiculed me for.

I read some of the personal stories you provide, like the one about the priest who comes on to the altar not dressed properly, who makes you think at first that he's alcoholic because he doesnt consume from the chalice, then drinks all of it at the end, then doesnt clean the chalice.

When exactly do you actually 'pray' while you are busy ripping some poor guy to shreds at Mass?

Whats the word for it again when you criticize something in someone else while being guilty of exactly the same thing yourself?

Helio, how many protons, neutrons and electrons are there in love, or courage? Your definition of what is real is so narrow. Broaden your horizons a little.

Let go, and let God.

McC, you are confusing what protons, neutrons and electrons ARE with what protons, neutrons and electrons DO. Don't worry - that sort of screwed up thinking is actually rather common; I have heard Richard Swinburne and Brian Leftow get themselves completely tangled up in error over this. Platonic essentialism died a long time ago.

What are you on about Smithy?

Just came across a website by a C McCamley. Obviously not you then. This guy is way over the top, glad that you are not connected with him.

Eeek! That's a bit scary - and that's just the picture of Ratzy at the top left. The spirit of the Inquisition is alive and well in Drogheda...

And the Christopher McCamley of that blog is definitely our mccamleyc. Sorry to break the bad news to you RJB (although you already new as well as any of us). Here is mccamley linking to his own blog in a previous post here on W&T:

/blogs/ni/2009/05/how_good_is_citizen_kane.html

That confirmed then, here are a few points, MCC.

Your blog is no more or no less than a religious gossip column and you have more in common with a caramel log than you do the Carmelites.

No wonder you get upset about any attack on Benedict when you name one of your daughters after him. That's taking 'labelling' children to a new depth, is it not?

The highlight of a Mass for you isnt the reception of "The Body and Blood of Christ" as you love to preach to others about, its in one case, what the priest wears at Mass, and in another case, the juicey gossip you gleefully indulge in with your pals afterwards. Fraud!

You accuse me of lacking respect for the Blessed Sacrament, but think that the host falling down a woman's cleavage and the priest's crassly stupid attempts to retrieve it, as hilarious. Had I described such an incident, you would have had me condemned to Hell. Hypocrite!

You criticize all of the Irish Bishops, not having a good word to say about any of them. Yet you claim the church to be "The body of Christ." If so, you have placed yourself outwith communion with that Body.

Your blog site isnt anything special in its, eh, 'genre.' They are ten a penny. Do a search, McCamley. You'll find they are all run by 'angry' people, defensive people who are extremely touchy about criticism, and people who have some sort of deep-seated disappointment in their life - in your case, that you never made the priesthood. (The whole blog is really about you showing what a good priest you would have made. Sad.)

And your graphic description of what you would do with Catholic liberals IS certainly Nazi, so dont get upset about being described as such.

These things are really neither here nor there though. What really shocks me and worries me about the state of your head is that, on a site which is so vitriolic, so poisonous and aggressive, INCREDIBLY, you post a photograph of your young children, you even name them and you even name the school one of them attends! This is the behaviour of someone who is disturbed.

Please remove them and then take yourself off to a counsellor to deal with what ever is motivating all of this garbage.

Smithy, when you stop being anonymous come back and do you're name calling.

What's wrong with my children's photos - I think they're lovely children and I'm not ashamed of them. Getting a bit personal when you're dragging my kids into things.

And really, can you learn to read and understand. Just because I have eyes and can see that a priest is celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass without a chausable doesn't mean that that is the most important thing for me - it just means I have eyes. If a newsreader came out to read the news in a bikini you might notice it without implying the news fo the day wasn't important. Lighten up.

Did you seriously not find the priest trying to retrieve the host funny? Are you so humourless? The thing is, he didn't do it on purpose. That's what makes it funny, while dumping hosts at sea isn't.

And for the record - Teresa Benedicta Maria was named afer Edith Stein, the Jewish, Catholic, Carmelite, not the Pope, since she's a girl.

MCC

I'm advising you to remove your kids' photo and info from that site for exactly the same reasons as I value my anonymity. There are some "mad" and "crazy dudes" out there. (I also think you shouldnt use them to lend you plausibility.)

You also miss my point regarding the host and the woman's cleavage. I'm saying that had I spoken about the incident and refered to it as hilarious, you would have hung me out to dry for it. As it happens, I saw that clip years ago and cringed. The fact that a priest thinks its okay to stick his hands down a woman's breasts, I find quite scary. But then I would.

And you cant get away with the gossip disguised as holiness rap. If you really believed that Christ was fully present, you wouldnt notice the priest's wardrobe. You cant be preaching piety one minute then indulging in shameless gossip yourself the next. It just doesnt work.

We are all of us complex human beings, with weaknesses. I thank you, Smithy, for pointing out mine.

There's no reason why a priest should not stick his hands down a lady's cleavage, provided they are both fully consenting to the matter, and it's done with dignity and privacy. Which, I suppose, brings us back to the original point of this thread, does it not?

Helio

Surely the sticking of one's hand down a woman's cleavage must have some sort of procreative intention to it. It cant just be used merely as a method of retrieval.

Oh, any excuse is good, subject to the above provisos. I wouldn't have a problem with him tying his hands behind his back and dunking for the biccie like you would do for apples at Halloween.

Sometimes I despair of you, Helio. First its sex with confectionary involved, and now bondage. That aint no way to treat a lady, even a consenting one.

Mind you, I was always more successful at chatting up at Halloween than at any other time of the year. Wonder if it was because of the mask...

That's a mask? Cripes - what lies beneath, eh?!?!
:-)
-H

hi all new here but have read all your comments and thank god I see some people here have some normal sense.
Over the last few days and weeks prior to the murphy report coming live i must say ifound myself alone in thinking is it just me who felt that some of those members of our church would bury their head in the sand and pray it would all go away.Well it will not and to be honest we can all use nice words well educated words long theolgy(spelt wron) words and can spin every thing but the most simple words are that members of my church our church tore life out of some people and our so call leaders with their gospel in one hand buried their heads and did not want to see it.
MCC you use what ever defence you want to but god i would really wonder if it was your child and you found the leader of your commuinty knew about it and d id nothing how would really feel

I am glad to read the letter of a wise man of maynooth Vincent twoVincent Twomey letter irish times today you cannot get a more honest direct truthful statment well done and please god all of us will wake up and take our heads out of the wardrobe that we worry about if fr is weraing pink blue green or if ther canmdle in sanctury lifght is on oor off.

Not sure why new people feel the urge to attack me. What did I do? If someone molested one of my children I would, with my brothers, brothers in law and nephews, descend on him or her with heavy sticks. and tell him that if he complained he could tell it to the judge.

no one is attacking you.How ever what i am attempting to do is press upon you to open your judgment alittle and relaise taht their is more to church than vestmants and candles.Yes the eurcharist is the gift the mircle we have been offered but If ia m correct he left us that gift at the end of the 33 years what did he do the other 3 in public nad the others in private he worked and came on the journey with his freinds and family and used his time teaching in a non judge mental way.he challenged those around him yet picked them up and caried them as well.How di i know this well may be its simple but it is contained in the litury of word combined with euchrist

their are somany people out there that belive this is all its about forgetting the other bit he left us the bit to show love and compassion.to be honest from reding your view points this blog and your own blog i struggle to see your compassion your gentlness therefore i wonder what is the message you are trying to put across.yes its important to have sound educated foundations and no better person to see that is vincent twomey but to be honest when the crunch came he knew which part of his calling needed to be put in the public view and that was i belive the gentleness of jesus christ

we and we can only speak for ourselves there fore we need to ask ourself what is important the message he brought or the journey to knock our neighbour down trying to save the world.

i am not sure if you were in the priesthood or thought about it but i have to honest i am glad you chose a differant path because i do belive from redaing of your messages put on to blogs scares the hell out of as to what damage you could have done to people who may have turned to you for guidance
As i said at the start i would never attack you as a person i am sure you are afine man and it would it appears you are a parent but some of your messages are need to be reflected on.