By BESLEYBEAN
Added: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 09:47:17 UTC

My motivation for submitting this topic is threefold.

Initiallly, in my capacity as an anti-monarchist. The other comments directly address the Church of Rome.

My main point is, putting it simply, not being able to have one's cake and eat it.

I am one who emphasises to monarchists that they do not get to choose who is their ruler, nor do they have any say on the terms of that reign. It is an all or nothing position. You either accept the notion of an imposed monarch, or you don't. If you want choice, you are (by definition) a republican.

I extend this analogy to the church.

As a former Anglican, I am constantly frustrated by the stance of the progressive wing of the Church of Rome. There are continual mutterings from Roman Catholics who want their church BUT with female, gay and indeed non-celibate priests; Catholics who want to be able to use contraception etc... There is a name for this group: it's called the Anglican church!

In other words, I think the conservative Catholics are quite right. After all, what else defines the modern Catholic church? Its very definition is one of bigotry. If you do not subscribe to that bigotry, then quite simply, leave. That is a much easier decision for a Catholic in the UK, than it is for me as a republican in the UK. I simply have to accept the monarch. No Catholic has to simply accept their church. In fact if they don't leave, they are condoning all it stands for.

My final point is, though, this. The Roman catholic view on the priesthood is false. They state that it was no accident that Jesus was a man. Therfeore only men can be priests. They assume Jesus was unmarried (though this is unproven), so a priest has to be celibate. But I point out that Jesus was also a Jew and presumably that was no accident on God's part either. So all priests of the Church of Rome (following this logic) should be Jewish, celibate males only.

TAGGED: VATICAN/ROMAN CATHOLICISM