Sigh
The Sunday Herald:
'Cos that works so well for the Kirk and the Piskies.
Ho hum. Has anyone ever done a survey to see how many men are really sure that they're called to the priesthood, but are refusing said call because they want a carnal family? (Besides which, if one only accepts one's vocation on a conditional basis, I suspect one's not doing it right.) Or is the problem meant to be that folk aren't even thinking about vocations, because they presume that they want families? In which case, better catechesis about vocations and stuff, and more publicity about priestly saints and superhero priests would surely help. Oh, and oodles of prayer and fasting. Says she after having eaten a huge muffin for afternoon tea. Not that I wish to claim it's all terribly straightforward; quite the opposite, as, at any rate, a flick of the switch to allow married priests as the norm in the West is unlikely to flood the seminaries just like that.
Why am I writing this? You all know it, and could put it far better than me. Anyway.
Via the Scottish Christian News Monitor, as ever. It really is marvellous to have someone read the papers so I don't have to. And the man doesn't even charge for access. (I shouldn't give him ideas...)
Meanwhile, berenike draws my attention to today's Scotsman, which if you get a paper copy (or pay for online access) offers: a slightly odd medical ethics column on the legal status of GPs conscientiously opposed to some abortions; and Katie Grant's very decent column on the evils of euthanasia.
'THE Catholic Church is recruiting priests from abroad because the number training for a Scottish post has fallen by almost 80% in the past 20 years.
'Professor Owen Dudley Edwards, a historian at Edinburgh University said that the vow of celibacy was the greatest deterrent to becoming a priest.
[...]
'"It's obvious Cardinal O'Brien is doing all he can but it is for the Vatican to relax this rule."'
'Cos that works so well for the Kirk and the Piskies.
Ho hum. Has anyone ever done a survey to see how many men are really sure that they're called to the priesthood, but are refusing said call because they want a carnal family? (Besides which, if one only accepts one's vocation on a conditional basis, I suspect one's not doing it right.) Or is the problem meant to be that folk aren't even thinking about vocations, because they presume that they want families? In which case, better catechesis about vocations and stuff, and more publicity about priestly saints and superhero priests would surely help. Oh, and oodles of prayer and fasting. Says she after having eaten a huge muffin for afternoon tea. Not that I wish to claim it's all terribly straightforward; quite the opposite, as, at any rate, a flick of the switch to allow married priests as the norm in the West is unlikely to flood the seminaries just like that.
Why am I writing this? You all know it, and could put it far better than me. Anyway.
Via the Scottish Christian News Monitor, as ever. It really is marvellous to have someone read the papers so I don't have to. And the man doesn't even charge for access. (I shouldn't give him ideas...)
Meanwhile, berenike draws my attention to today's Scotsman, which if you get a paper copy (or pay for online access) offers: a slightly odd medical ethics column on the legal status of GPs conscientiously opposed to some abortions; and Katie Grant's very decent column on the evils of euthanasia.
posted by Boeciana at 4:15 pm
<< Home