Voice of Faithful wants celibacy rethought

Priestly celibacy is nothing more than a Western Catholic Church discipline. We know that St. Peter was married, and that celibacy started to come in during the middle ages, probably as a result of some of the sexual excesses that were going on in the church at the time, and also due to the monastic communities who practiced celibacy. Our understanding of sexuality is completely different now, and it feels unnatural to require celibacy, although some are able to be celibate satisfactorily. It might be better to adopt a plan somewhat like the Orthodox, Maronites and Melkites in cultures where they predominate, and allow priests to marry, but require bishops to be celibate. Whatever happens, there are consequences. We've seen the consequences of mandatory celibacy. Churches allowing marriage have different consequences, some of them difficult to accommodate in clergy life.

Finally, VOTF gets out of that sheep skin it's been wearing and shows its true colors. This is the same group that assured in 2002 when it came into increasing influence that they "weren't interested" in changing Church teaching. Now we know better and for anyone who has paid attention to this group, this should come as no surprise. Whatever happened to "Keep the Faith, Change the Church"? Celibacy is a spiritual discipline of faith, but VOTF's overarching ideology won't accept that.

They fail in their assertion to answer the call of Lumen Getium 37, which they cite, for their letter lacks the "knowledge, authority and competence."

If celibacy remains an obstacle to a call to priesthood, those men are not called to priesthood. And if they aren't considering it because of celibacy, then they're truly not discerning any call to the priesthood at all.

They argue that because priest are celibate, they don't get support from their bishops, are distanced from each other and don't form close friendships? WHAT?? What on earth are they talking about? Because of their common celibacy they FORGE closer relationships with their fellow priests and their bishop.

Unhealthy and dysfunctional clerical environment? So nothing worked for the last MILLENIA?

How does celibacy, by itself, put the needs of victims of sexual abuse on the back burner?

So the answer is: just let them marry--that'll solve everything. But unfortunately there's just as much if not more underreported cases of sexual abuse amongst married men.

Poor O'Malley still doesn't get it!

Who cares - VOTF is as relevant as President Bush.

A greater obstacle to more priesthood vocations may be a general unwillingness on the part of young people to make ANY life-long commitment. Church weddings have declined 60 percent in the last 20 years in Massachusetts (according to the Archdiocese). Regarding celibacy: I don't see how the consequences listed by VOTF (few friendships, etc.) are a direct result of celibacy. A close friend of mine is a priest, and he is happy. The parish is like a family to him. He is close to his siblings, nieces and nephews, and has several close priest-friends. But the work load is a challenge for him.

Excellent!!! I fully agree. Something should be done about this.

I am sorry that Cardinal Sean did not address the celibacy issue, but I ask :what do you think the Cardinal could, in fact, do about this issue? Your response would be appreciated.

Seems rather an arrogant response from Cardinal O'Malley - he's completely ignored the issue they raised. It's a bit like an answer you might get from a deaf aunt.

We want priests who, as Jesus said many times in the Gospel, are willing to leave behind families, properties, possessions for God and for the advance of His kingdom. If a man is unwilling to sacrifice the good of marriage and family for the even greater good of God, then, while he may be an honorable family man and kind parochial caretaker, he will never be a great, zealous, apostolic priest. We deserve priests who love God with ALL (meaning 100%) of their mind, heart, soul and strength, not those who are incapable of the sacrifice of something good and blessed for the sake of something greater.

What VOTF advocates is most obvious. It is also obvious that there is something wrong with a system, the hierarchical Church, that can't even respond directly to VOTF's letter. There is something even more wrong with a system that can't open a dialogue on the matter of celibacy and other issues as well. Poor Cardinal Sean is locked in that crumbling clerical culture that ignores the obvious. He is part of a system that obliges him to dodge the celibacy issue, appeal to platitudes and batten down the hatches. Yes we pray for vocations but perrhaps the Holy Spirit has been saying to us for a long time: "Hey fellas, you know you can do this another way."

Licet nobis quietus esse, sed verum dicentibus semper cedam.

How ignorant some Catholics (or so called Catholics) are!

Why would you expect Cardinal O'Malley to knock, criticize or initiate change in the priesthood, which has brought him and millions of other priests happiness and contentment? Are you jealous because you aren't capable of leading such a wholesome rewarding life? Cardinal O'Malley knows exactly what he is saying and he's not deaf nor ignorant. Don't judge our good priests by the fallen ones who succumbed to the forces of the devil.

Does the VOTF know what they are saying? For so long they preached that they weren't trying to change the church. Well, guess what? that's exactly what they are up to. Who gave them the authority to preach and criticize Cardinal O'Malley or any of us. If you want to criticize the Cardinal, go before the Blessed Sacrament and
tell the Lord. You'll get an answer. If you are unhappy as a Catholic, then leave
We don't need your presence.

Obviously, Cardinal Sean is in no position to single-handedly do anything about the priestly celibacy issue. As they say, its above his pay grade.

I think Catholics do not have a priest shortage problem, we have a faith and practice of faith problem. Approx. 20% of Catholics go to Mass each Sunday, and we X seminarians. In the old days, 80% attended, and we had 4X seminarians. Priestly vocations come out of practicing (worshiping) Catholic families. Plus, most Catholic families are immersed in the secular culture, having 2.1 kids like other families. It is difficult for parents to encourage one of their 2 kids to become a priest or nun, means almost zero grandkids. When Catholic families had 5, 6, 10 kids, there was better odds that one would go into the ministry.

Sexuality, like human nature, has not changed since Adam and Eve. Every human person has some sexual urges, and yet many men and women could make that challenging commitment in the past, so its not celibacy per se that's the problem. As most people might agree, in the last 40-50 years, we've gone from a rather prudish society to a hyper-sexualized one, on all media, and that has discouraged some.

One of the responders seems to think the main reason to call for a non-celebate clergy is related only to the sexual abuse crisis. The reason for the call is that we are looking at the obvious reality: there are NOT a sufficient number of native clergy to meet the church's needs for the Eucharist, Mass and the Sacraments. Why is that not an obvious fact to anyone who has eyes and is aware of the present situation nationwide in the U.S., not to mention other parts of the world? The need to permit a married clergy is a true "sign of the times" and a need to follow the Spirit in this matter. If the Church years ago did not fall apart after Anglican and other denomination's married clergy were accepted into our Church, why should it be different with our own Catholic clergy and those desiring to answer a call to an unmarried priesthood? This has to be one of the most obvious hypocrisies of the Church today: that married clergy from other religious denominations can serve the Faithful, but not our own born-Catholic clergy called to the married state! The hierarchy must consider us laiety stupid not to see this.

The Roman Catholic Church does not have to rethink celibacy due to the fact that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with finance. It came about as a money making scheme and nothing more. And now that the Church has lost so much in payouts to the victims of their pervert priests, it hardly seems likely the Hierarchy (Lowerarchy, really) will reverse church law at this point.

Richard Redmond, until the American Bishops started having all their conference sessions behind closed doors, I watched every televised moment of the Meetings of the USCCB. A few years back, there was much talk about something called, "Sunday Celebrations In The Absence of A Priest"; along with talk of importing priests from the Congo. However, it seems neither of these plans were ever mentioned again, unless it has been behind closed doors. There will continue to be church closings and shortages of priests because the hierarchy will not run the chance of too much influence by the laity. BTW, Richard, I compliment you on using your full name. So many others haven't the courage of their convictions to have their real names published.

As someone presently undergoing formation with the intent of becoming a Catholic priest for the Archdiocese (speaking, of course, in a strictly personal capacity), I'll take a shot at this:

First, celibacy as an issue has been addressed time and time again. In the past 100 years alone, by Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii; Paul IV, Sacerdotalis Caeibatus; John Paul II’s General Audience 7/14/1993 and 11/16/1994 and 11/23/1994 as well as Pastores Dabo Vobis. The Congregation for the Clergy put out a document “Priesthood, a greater love” in 10/1995 which has some excellent references. Thomas McGovern has a book called “Priestly Celibacy Today” which is quite good. They should all be read.

Given the above context, the letter out of the VoTF shows a mind-boggling ignorant approach to the issues about vocations and priestly celibacy, and I would have written a much snippier response. But, hopefully, that snippier part of my character will be made gentle with time and grace.

Okay, that out of the way, let me offer a different view. I'm personally against letting the priests get married, despite my quite intense, personal and selfish desires to the contrary.

Yes, that's right; I would _like_ to be a married priest. I'd like to have the best of both worlds. I'd like to have a holy, just, intelligent, devastatingly pretty help-meet to accompany me on my journey through life and in ministry. It would be awesome to get paid enough to raise a dozen or so kids and still be all holy and serve my Lord with complete fidelity in all things.

Unfortunately, I recognize my feelings and my desires are wrong, in terms of both means and ends.

This will be a shock to the post-moderns, to whom the only compelling evidence is how one feels about something. But, those feelings are simply and utterly incorrect, inadequate, and not of my better nature. And, luckily, they, like all feelings, are transient.

I know better.

Consider, especially in this society: now, more than ever, is the witness to the Kingdom of Heaven, a transcendent Kingdom that is definitely _not of this world_, needed. Consider how ineffective a 'sign of contradiction' I would be if I "had it all" in this life, and sat on my bloated, relatively wealthy, and ultimately fat and happy carcass and pontificated to people who were probably more self-sacrificing than I would be under the same situations.

Consider that I would probably be more interested in the welfare of my wife than the many wives and widows in the parish. In my kids more than the many other children in the parish. In my relationship with them rather than the many other relationships. In my duties as a father rather than the duties of a Father.

Consider how much time I would spend thinking about temporal things and running out to get the milk, rather than thinking about spiritual things and running out to give Last Rites.

Consider the polygamy involved – being married to a human wife and acting as the Spouse of our mother the Church. Polygamy always sounds like a good idea, but it is always shown to work out badly. Spiritual polygamy would be doubly so. At some point, you’d just be fooling yourself on one side or the other.

Consider how much I'd have to lose: I'd probably be that guy who says mass in 20 minutes, tells a joke instead of a homily, and never, ever upsets anybody's theological apple cart with anything approaching what the Church actually teaches, lest my employers (since I'd be effectively becoming a protestant, my employer would be the people I would "serve" - like Burger King, 'your way', rather than 'His way') become wroth and turn off the sweet, sweet cashflow to my comfy life which keeps the shoes on my kids and keep my wife in frilly things.

So, no, thank you ma'am. I'm going to be that other guy. The guy people like the VoTF and their ilk will really hate. The one who thinks that the Church has taught and still teaches God's honest truth; who is willing to give up all things, many comforts and consolations, and "follow Him"; willing to give up wife and children, family and friend; willing to endure the heat of bitter scorn for teaching the truth over against the "wisdom of the world"; willing to be a throwback to the dark ages, before the soi-disant “enlightenment”.

Oh, heck, yeah, baby: where do I sign up? Oh...right. I've already signed up. *wave* Hi.

Oh, it's not so much about me being more self-giving, self-emptying than someone who wants to "have it all", but it's about where I place my trust, and at one level, I'm still selfish: I have a deep and abiding hope to have a better ultimate reward than the temporal consolations I have been asked to give up here. The reward is, admittedly, not "here", but definitely "there". And, whatever else happens, I've dedicated my life to meriting getting "there", which is the reason why you should follow me, since I'm going.

Finally, I like to take this moment to propose a new name for Voice of the Faithful. From now it, it shall be known as "Echoes of the Protestants".

Dear Seminarian: I appreciate the thougt with which you responded, as well as the declaration of what you know to be your own natural biases. As a student, you are learning and growing, and I do pray that your years of seminary formation will not only help you grow spiritually and in faith, but will also challenge you intellectually to see the Church in its totality.

That being said, I'm troubled not only by your closing remark which seems to reveal a less-than-respectful attitude toward our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ (as well as out-of-hand dismissal of any thoughtful, public discourse within the Church); but also by your earlier remark that your feelings and desires for both marriage and ordination "are wrong." This seems to suggest that the presence of a married clergy in the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Churches is also "wrong." Certainly your church history courses and sacramental theology courses will teach you, if they haven't already, that mandatory celibacy in the western Church is primarily a matter of Church order and discipline, and is not essential to Christian Faith or of divine origin. Being a matter of order and of human origin, it is certainly possible and perhaps probable that it might change in the future. Remember, we already have a "married clergy" in the Permanent Diaconate, deacons being one of the three orders within holy orders (episcopal, sacerdotal, and diaconal). This married clergy did not exist in the Roman Rite until quite recently, so there's no reason the same couldn't happen with the presbyterate.

You have done a good job, as have so many others before you, of attempting to supply the rationale for celibacy, which has been described by some as a doctrine in search of a theology. As a priest ordained for the Archdiocese more than twenty years ago, however, I'm not buying!

Best wishes in your current and future studies.

(PS-My apologies to Ms. Martin for not using my real name, though I trust you may understand why.)

to A_Seminarian: Wait til to face the real world and a big tent Church out there.

On behalf of the National Working Group for Priest Support of VOTF I suggest JRock may be a bit off the mark with some of his comments. By stating "If celibacy remains an obstacle to a call to priesthood, those men are not called to priesthood.", he is assuming that unless one is called to celibacy he cannot be called to the priesthood. How then account for the married priests in the Eastern rite, and for that matter, the presence of over 100 married priests in the Latin rite who converted from Protestantism to Catholicsim? How then account for the fact that many popes have been married? So on the matter of competence, authority and knowledge, perhaps JRock needs a refresher coutse on the history of celibacy in our church.

In addition, the National Federation of Priests' Councils in 2003 put out a statement of support for the priests of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee when they called for a review of mandatory celibacy. In 2005 Cardinal George, in a press conference, likewise indicated that there may be a need for such a review.

To the good seminarian who had the courage to comment on this subject, I suggest he may be reverting to the historic notion, now seriously in question, that somehow a life of dedicated celibacy trumps a life of dedicated marriage as a higher calling and a higher form of witness. On that happy day when he finally emerges into his life of ministry, he will find his service complemented by hundreds of dedicated married lay ministers and deacons, striving side by side with him in a shared ministry on behalf of Christ and His church.

For those who may feel that our call for a review of mandatory celibacy somehow denigrates celibacy as a genuine form of witness, I point to these words in our letter to Cardinal O'Malley that were not quoted on this blog:

"We appreciate the charism of celibacy as a unique gift to be freely embraced. For those to whom this gift is given, it can become a special quality in their personal relationships with God and with others, manifesting itself in a joy and compassion that enhances their ministry. But for those who have not received this gift, it is experienced as burdensome to their vocation of priestly ministry."

John Ryan, Chair: National Working Group for Priest Support, Voice of the Faithful

The statement from Voice of the Faithful calls the celibate "distanced from their brother priests," but what about the distance of so many priests from the normal, everyday lives and concerns of their parishioners? I think this separateness (where it exists) risks sending an unfortunate message to the faithful about the nature of the holiness to which we have all been called by our Savior Jesus, Who was called 'God Among Us.'

The last phrase in Post #16, 'Echoes of the Protestants,' touches on the real reason I believe many Catholic faithful refrain from even considering alternatives to mandatory celibacy. For these, maintaining mandatory celibacy is partly a matter of maintaining their Roman Catholic identity and partly a matter of maintaining an absolute in a world which increasingly seems to hold to so few absolutes.

Celibacy is a charism granted to many, both ordained and not, over the centuries in service to the Church.
However it is absurd to assume that this gift of the Spirit is always and inevitably coincident with a call to priesthood. It is also defamatory to those thousands of married Catholic priests of Eastern rites who have served well and effectively as priests over the entire history of the Church. Incidentally or not, there are no similar reports of child sexual abuse by married Eastern rite priests.

Robert

Thank you for your kind thoughts and words. I wish I had the time and competency to respond to all the points individually – this whole discussion could use a good “fisking”, as I believe it’s known. But, since there is much low-hanging fruit, I’ll take a stab at a few of them.

I am I definitely looking forward to working with the many faithful married members of the Diaconate, and the married laymen and women. Theirs can be (although not always is) an excellent witness of fidelity to our Lord and His Church, and sign of His love for us. But their role is radically different than the priest and especially the Bishop, those who stands most fully – that is totally - in the person of Christ in the world. Permanent Deacons and layfolk cannot at all stand for the call to the objectively more perfect forms of life, such as the religious, which last I checked was more perfect than lay life and secular priesthood, but less perfect than the Episcopacy. As religious life makes no sense without celibacy, celibacy makes no sense without marriage, and marriage itself makes little _Christological_ sense without the other two, as it would be better, as St. Paul advised, to “remain as you are”. So, to Mr. Ryan: does it "trump" ? No. Compliments and perfects? Yes, and I think in a sine qua non way for us. It’s why the Bishops of the East are all celibates, it is perfective.

I never asserted calling for an end to mandatory celibacy denigrated celibacy as a witness. To recapitulate, I intended to say that to end mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite under the current conditions of the world was born of hopelessness, worldly-mindness, and protestantizating influences. In short, it would be mind-blowingly wrong given the history of the Church and current conditions, and totally contrary to the sententia Ecclesiae which conveniently enough for my position includes a very large number of dead saints who lived and died celibate or chaste as a witness to the Kingdom, and who won’t be changing their minds at this stage in the game. :-)

With regard to our Eastern brothers, I would still commend the discipline of celibate priesthood for exactly the reasons I enumerate, but given their cultural context and historical conditions, don’t feel they have the same problems that require them to impose it on themselves. Our cultural context, however, is radically different, and seems obviously and dearly in need of the redemptive. The history, I think, shows this clearly, even to the present day. So, given the Circumstances, my desires are entirely wrong, born of concupiscence (the love of ‘easy’ goods), over against the ‘signs of the times’ and the will of God as exercised in His Body, the Church.

For those of other ecclesial communities who came to be Catholic priests after they were married, I would fault no man for never having been taught the truths of the Faith and making a good decision (to get married) based on their best understanding, and further give much credit to one who, on finding the truth, dedicates their lives to it. This is not the case for those who were raised Catholic – except in the many cases of those who did not receive authentically Catholic teaching. But, the Saints were there to teach them, the truth is out there to learn, and I don’t think anybody these days comes into the priesthood without going direct to the sources, vastly beyond what they learned in CCD or so-callled “Catholic” colleges, back to the eternal truths of the faith, truths that do not change.

As for my attitude towards protestants, heretics, and schismatics, I definitely and without reserve respect their dignity as human persons made in the image of God from conception to natural death, respect them for trying to do the good (and thus, becoming to some small degree in the likeness of God as well as in his image) given the situation they find themselves in (outside of the Church, with appallingly bad theology, etc), but can’t, won’t, and am not called to, respect whatever ideas that pour forth from their (or your) pieholes just because they (or you) deign to speak them. That’s a thoroughly modernist/post-modernist notion. You might have intrinsic dignity, but that doesn’t make your ideas less asinine.

As for not ‘considering alternatives to Priestly celibacy’ – please don’t lump me in with someone who refuses to consider it a priori, or is playing identity politics (lose the power dialectical analysis, it always produces invalid results). Lump me in the camp as being vehemently opposed to it because in the situation we find ourselves in, it is a dumb idea, born not of ignorant goodwill, but of a protestantizing, aneschatological, worldly ideology at variance with the Eternal Faith of the One Church, the Bride of Christ.

To A Seminarian (aka "heretoday") Your few months in the seminary (Monastery) has not taught you a wit about the virtue upon which all "perfection" rests. It is the virtue of Humility! You have none of it! In all your put-downs of Protestants, schismatics (members of the Orthodox churches---which the Catholic Church recognizes as 'sister churches'),your arrogance reeks of an intractability totally alien to the monastic life. You speak of perfection as if it is gained merely by becoming a religious priest or a bishop.. Perfection is learned in the school of Humility. Better dust off "The Imitation of Christ" and meditate upon it.

Now they are going to mandate psychological test for incoming seminary students who feel they have a vocation. How about testing the priests, bishops, archbishops and cardinals who are already in Holy Orders? If we wish to eliminate the psychologically unfit, then we should rid ourselves of those who are already dragging our church down into oblivion.

To A Seminarian.....boy you frighten me! Are you from the Dark Ages? Your contempt for "Protestants" is a contempt for the Catechism of The Catholic Church. Your vitriol is immature and unChristlike. Grow up! I think you need a wife and kids or do you suspect that the sexual impulse is intrinsically evil (like some of our "fathers" have held).

Not that its exactly the point of the article, but what a blessing that we Catholics have not had an accuation of sexual abuse of minors by a priest for about 6 years (knowck on wood) in the Boston archdiocese, nor have i heard of any around the country, though there may have been. So it really seems that horribly disgusting scandal was not something endemic to the priesthood, but was indeed the crimes of a rotten 3%, who have been weeded out, and left our priests, certainly imperfect, but not with that ghastly tendency.

While I don't agree with "Cobber" that "A Seminarian," needs a wife and kids, I do agree that his thoughts as expressed here are a bit frightening. Nonetheless, he is entitled to them and I'm glad he is willing to share them.

Dear Seminarian: I don't know what seminary you study at (is it St. John's?), but if I were on the faculty and knew of your thoughts on these important matters of ecumenism, your understanding of "perfection" of the various states of life, your (superficial?) understanding of "modernism" in the theological sense, and what appears to be a less-than-veiled heightened sense of self-importance, I would probably vote "no" when it comes time to deciding whether you should continue on in priestly formation. If you haven't already taken one, may I suggest a course in the theological virtues -- preferably one that has a practicum final examination? An old priest told me many years ago when giving advice on how to apprach penitents in the Sacrament of Confession that the best thing I could do was to "be kind." Perhaps a little more kindness and charity, with mutual respect and understanding would do us all a bit of good!

I would like to clarify what appears to be a misconception among some writers who are responding via this blog. The letter from VOTF to Cardinal O'Malley was not sent to the Cardinal as an individual bishop in charge of a single diocese. It was sent to him in his capacity as the Chair for the USCCB committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations; copies were forwarded to every member of the Committee. For dialogue to begin, it must include the USCCB as well as individual dioceses. It is the hope of VOTF that the entire committee will begin a discussion.

John Ryan chairs an organization that supposedly acts in support of priests but whose most momentous meetings' notes in November 2006 (http://www.voiceofthefaithful.org/Clergy_Support/ReporttoNRCNov06.pdf) mentions nothing about actually supporting priests with anything in their parish, their ministry or their spiritual or mental health but mentions ONLY furthering its OWN agenda for its OWN interests.
In his post, he has widened a subject, claiming that it somehow invalidates my own argument. Yes, Mr. Ryan, I am NOT accounting for eastern rite priesthood because that was not what your OWN organization wrote its letter to Cardinal O'Malley ABOUT.
The Church is not interested in breaking up marriages of converted clergy: it simply doesn't make sense. I'm sure that's not something you take issue with.
Mr. Ryan asserts his group's support for the unique gift of celibacy in one breath and then decries same for its culture of clericalism in the next. He cannot have it both ways.
Nowhere in Mr. Ryan's post is there a response to my charge of his organization's wish to alter Church teaching when VOTF promised they weren't interested in it in 2002.
Corrupt popes who became married instead of celibate or far worse does not an argument for married clergy make. That's specious at best.
Funny, Mr. Ryan argues for "tradition" here by citing pockets of married clergy throughout history, yet many things of a Catholic past he and his organization firmly and blindly reject. They only point to the past when it fits into their own rigid agenda.
While Mr. Ryan mentions good work done between priests and lay people he seems to not wish to acknowledge the differences between both groups. One cannot celebrate mass and hear confessions but the other can. But then again, who cares about sacraments, right, Mr. Ryan?

One last thing: how interesting that laypeople who would never have the guts to consider religious life accuse such a young man of lacking humility when they scream their own narrowly studied opinions on here with ANYTHING BUT humility.

JRock certainly seems to have a bee in his bonnet when he repeats his charge that "Nowhere in Mr. Ryan's post is there a response to my charge of his organization's wish to alter Church teaching when VOTF promised they weren't interested in it in 2002."

Others on this post have pointed out that mandatory celibacy falls in the category of church discipline, and not church teaching. As I stated in my original response to JRock, "the National Federation of Priests' Councils in 2003 put out a statement of support for the priests of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee when they called for a review of mandatory celibacy. In 2005 Cardinal George, in a press conference, likewise indicated that there may be a need for such a review."

Is JRock accusing the NFPC and Cardinal George of wishing to change church teaching?

For more information on the scope of our Working Group's agenda (which goes well beyond the issue of mandatory celibacy), please check out our website at www.nwgps.org.

John Ryan, Chair: National Working Group for Priest Support of Voice of the Faithful

I have a feeling that "A Seminarian" is not a seminarian at all. His/her tone does not strike me as that of one who is being called to be a priest, certainly not one who espouses Micah's "only three things are necessary: to love kindness, to do justice and to walk humbly with your God."

Some of the earlier comments show that there are Catholics who do not understand the Voice of the Faithful and the good it has accomplished and will continue to accomplish. From the beginning the motto of VOTF has been "Keep the Faith - Change the Church. It strongly believes that the "heavenly" part of the Catholic religion - the core beliefs - must survive. But it also understands that the "earthly" part, the institution, is in need of serious adjustment.

Christ did not spell out the organizational rules or the financial structure for his Church. It took fallible humans to get us to where we are today. The history of the Church leaders up to today is full of examples of that fallibility. Some things were just plain wrong and some were only suitable in their time. Some of their actions make us cringe and some make us laugh. But through it all, the Church has survived because in essence it is a good institution created by Christ.

The history of the Church tells us that it will always need change. One of the most urgent changes necessary in this day and age is the input of an educated and well informed laity.