Saturday, February 23, 2013

Is a Catholic Church without a pope possible?

While most commentators are debating about how the next Pope should be elected or who should fill those shoes, Eduardo Hoornaert, a Brazilian married priest and church historian, suggests it might be time to question the entire institution of the papacy. Hoorneart, one of the founders of Comissão de Estudos da História da Igreja na América Latina (Study Commission on the History of the Church in Latin America), is author of The Memory of the Christian People (Burns & Oates,1989). For those who speak Portuguese, Hoorneart maintains a blog,Textos de Eduardo Hoornaert. This article, translated here into English by Rebel Girl, is available in its original Portuguese on Amerindia and in Spanish on Adital.

The announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI surprised me, as happened to many people. I am struck by the simplicity with which the Pope expresses his feelings and I think that, by doing so, it helps to unblock a static view of the papacy and opens a timely space for discussions about the governance of the Catholic Church, and not just his gesture in particular. That's what I intend to do in this text. My question is this: does the Catholic Church even need a pope? Point by point:

1. The Papacy

The papacy is not connected to the origin of Christianity. The term "pope", for example, doesn't appear in the New Testament. As for the verses of the Gospel of Matthew ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" -- 16:18), which are often invoked to legitimize the papacy, it is good to remember that the current exegesis is categorical when it states that you can't isolate a text from its literary whole and turn it into an oracle. Now Matthew's verses are used, at least in the institutional Catholic Church, as an oracle. But whoever reads the Gospels in context understands that it is absurd to think that Jesus had planned a corporate type of apostolic dynasty based on the succession of power. The words "Thou art Peter" have nothing to do with the institution of the papacy. It was Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, theorist of the universalist policy of emperor Constantine, who, in the fourth century, began to draft a list of successive bishops for the major cities of the Roman Empire, in many cases without verifying the veracity of the names listed, to adapt the Christian system to the Roman model of power succession. This bishop-author is the creator of Peter-pope image. But historical research points to a different perspective and shows that the word "papa'" (pope), which belongs to the popular Greek in the 3rd century, is a term derived from the Greek word "pater" (father) and expresses the affection that Christians had for certain bishops and priests. The term entered the Christian vocabulary, both of the Orthodox church and the Catholic Church. In Russia, even today, the pastor of the community is called "pope". The story goes that the first bishop to be called "papa" was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage between 248 and 258, and that the term only appeared later in Rome -- the first bishop of that city to be named pope (according to available documentation) was John I in the 6th century.

2. The Episcopacy

In contrast to the papacy, the episcopal institution has solid roots in the origin of Christianity, as it refers to a function that already existed in the Jewish synagogue system. The word "bishop" (which means "overseer") is found several times in the texts of the New Testament (1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 2:25 and Acts 20:29) as well as the noun "episcopate" (1 Timothy 3:1). In Jewish synagogues, the "episcopos" was responsible for good order in the meetings and the first Christian communities did nothing more than adopt and adapt the name and function.

3. The Struggle for Power

Starting in the 3rd century, a bitter power struggle unfolded among the bishops of the four main cities of the Roman Empire (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome). This struggle was particularly dramatic in the eastern part of the empire, where they spoke Greek. The bishops in dispute were called "patriarchs", a term that couples the Greek "pater" with political power ("archè" in Greek means "power"). The patriarch is both father and political leader. At the beginning, Rome was not involved much in this dispute, since it took place far from the great centers of power of the time and used a less universal language (one only used in administration and in the army), Latin. In turn, Jerusalem, the "mother" city of the Christian movement, was out of the running because of being a city of little political importance.

But even so, Rome was asserting itself in the western part of the empire. The aforementioned Bishop Cyprian of Carthage responded energetically to the hegemonic pretensions of the Bishop of Rome and insisted that a "complete equality of functions and power" must reign between bishops. But the course of history was relentless. The successive patriarchs of Rome managed to expand their authority and raised their voices more and more, especially after the successful alliance with the emerging Germanic power in the West (Charlemagne, 800). Relations with the Eastern patriarchs (especially with the patriarch of Constantinople) became ever more tense until they broke down in 1052. So began the history of the Roman Catholic Church as such.

4. The pope is on the side of the strongest

Once it "owned the turf", Rome continued to develop the "art of the court" learned in Constantinople in an ever more sophisticated way. Virtually all the Western European governments learned the art of diplomacy with Rome. It was an unedifying art, including hypocrisy, falsehood, appearance, ability to deal with people, impunity, secrecy, codified language (inaccessible to outsiders), pious (and misleading) words, cruelty masked as charity, financial accumulation (indulgences, threats of hell, a ministry of fear, etc.). The imposing Criminal History of Christianity, in 10 volumes, which historian K. Deschner just finished, describes this eminently papal art in detail.

It was mainly through the art of diplomacy that, throughout the Middle Ages, the papacy had phenomenal successes. Without weapons, Rome faced the greatest powers of the West and won (Canossa 1077). One result was, in the words of historian Toynbee, the "intoxication of victory". The pope began to lose touch with reality and went to live in an unreal universe, full of supernatural words (which nobody understood). As Ivone Gebara has well observed, some of them are still in vogue, such as when it is said that the Holy Spirit will elect the next pope.

With the advent of modernity, the papacy gradually lost public space. In the 19th century, especially during the long pontificate of Pius IX, it was clear that the old strategy of opposing the "powers of this world" no longer worked. It didn't bring more victories, it only registered losses. So, Pope Leo XIII decided to change the strategy and initiated a policy of supporting the strongest. This strategy worked throughout the 20th century -- Benedict XV came out of World War I on the side of the victors, Pius XI supported Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, while Pius XII practiced a policy of silence on the crimes against humanity committed during World War II at the cost of countless human lives. After a brief interruption with John XXIII, the policy of silent support for the powerful (and generic words of consolation for the losers) continues to this day.

5. The papacy is a problem today.

Because of all this, it can be said today that the papacy is not a solution but a problem. One doesn't say the same of the Episcopacy, which has shown bright spots in recent times. Besides the martyr bishops (like Romero and Angelelli), we here in Latin America had a generation of exceptional bishops between the 1960s and the 90s. Moreover, the Second Vatican Council put forward the idea of episcopal collegiality in order to strengthen the power of the bishops and limit the power of the pope. But it ran into an impassable wall, made of a mixture of mental laziness (the law of least effort), fascination with power (Walter Benjamin), the yielding of the weak to the powerful (Machiavelli) and courtly art (Norbert Elias). Still, it is worth remembering that Catholicism is bigger than the Pope and that the significance of the values conveyed by Catholicism is greater than its current system of government.

6. Can the Catholic Church survive without a pope?

Asking if the Catholic Church can survive without the pope is the same as asking whether France can survive without a king, England without a queen, Russia without a czar, Iran without an ayatollah. France didn't end with the death of King Louis XIV and Iran certainly won't end with the end of the reign of the ayatollahs. There will certainly be resistance and longing, attempts to return to the past, but institutions don't die with changes in government. In general, the movement of history towards greater democracy and popular participation is undeniable. Sooner or later, the Catholic Church will have to face the issue of the papacy being surpassed by a system of central government more in tune with the times in which we live.

In conclusion one could say that the current eagerness to make predictions about the future pope could have a counterproductive effect. For it's not about the Pope, but the papacy as kind of government. The behavior of the mainstream media these days, proves what I'm writing here. It doesn't focus on the papacy, but on the pope. With that, it reinforces the papal syndrome. For TV, the pope is big business. The success of the funeral of Pope John Paul II a few years ago showed major media planners the financial potential of major papal events. That is why the mainstream media today is so "catechetical". It discloses the basics of papal catechism -- the pope is the successor of Peter, the first pope; the election of a pope, ultimately, is the work of the Holy Spirit; one can not miss the plenary indulgence granted exceptionally by God at the first blessing of the new pope. It's what we'll be seeing in the coming weeks. Maybe it would be better not to talk much about the pope these days, but work on topics that prepare the church of the future.

I'll end here by sketching two recent examples with respect to this problem. Few people know that, back in 1980, Cardinal Aloisio Lorscheider came to talk with Pope John Paul II about the decentralization of power in the church. There is no written or photographed record of this discussion, but it seems that the pope was open to suggestions from the Brazilian cardinal, as was stated in the encyclical "Ut unum sint". This point was noted by José Comblin one of his last works, "Problemas de governo da igreja" ("Problems of church government"). I think the pope didn't move forward only because he didn't see in the Church a real political will to move toward decentralization of government. In this case, it was clear that the problem isn't the pope, but the papacy.

A very different example, but pointing in the same direction, is given by another Brazilian bishop Helder Camara. Arriving in Rome to attend Vatican II (he had not traveled to Europe before), the Brazilian was surprised by the behavior in the Roman court to the point of having hallucinations, as he tells in his circular letters. Once, during a session at St. Peter's Basilica, he had the impression of seeing the emperor Constantine invade the church mounted on a handsome horse in full gallop. Another time, he dreamed that the pope went crazy, threw his tiara in the Tiber and set fire to the Vatican. He would say, in informal conversations, that the pope would do well to sell the Vatican to UNESCO and rent an apartment in central Rome. I observed personally on several occasions how Dom Helder hated "papal secrecy" (one of the instruments of power of Rome). At the same time, the Brazilian bishop maintained a sincere friendship with Pope Paul VI, which shows, once again, that the problem is not the pope, but the papacy as an institution.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Open Letter by Basque Priests' Forum on Women's Ordination

The Foro de Curas de Bizkaia ("Forum of Priests from Biscay") have posted an open letter on their blog to Msgr. Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, regarding women in the priesthood. It reads:

Given the recent measures taken by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith against supporters of women's ordination, we, the Assembly of the Foro de Curas de Bizkaia, wish to express the following:

1. We regret that over recent decades the proactive line opened by John XXIII when he argued at the opening of Vatican II that the Church "meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations" (10/11/1962), has been forgotten.

2. Following the criterion proposed by Pope Roncalli, we want to express to you our disagreement (because they are inconsistent) with the arguments put forward in the Apostolic Letter "Ordenatio sacerdotalis" (1964) through which priestly ministry is reserved exclusively for men:

2.1. While it is true that "Christ chose his apostles only among men," it is also true that through his behavior and preaching, he lay the basis for the recognition of women's equality, including the possibility of access to the ordained ministry. The Pontifical Biblical Commission has already argued in its day that through the testimony of the New Testament alone, it cannot be inferred that a possible ordination of women would harm Jesus' plan on apostolic ministry. (1976)

2.2. The history of the Church shows -- as is argued in the Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio sacerdotalis” -- that "priestly ordination" has been reserved "exclusively for men." But also that it hasn't been a decision that has been peacefully taken -- as witnessed by the repeated condemnations for ordaining women and the repeated posture taking by the Catholic hierarchy in that respect. In any case, it is difficult to challenge the existence in the early days of home fellowships with host couples in charge of leading them. It has not been noted that women didn't preside, if necessary, at the shared table.

2.3. Allow us to doubt, at least methodologically, that "the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in harmony with God's plan for His Church." Such a doubt does not lead us to deny the unquestionable importance of the Magisterium in the life of the Christian community, but rather to demand its harmonization (more urgent each day) with the “sensus fidelium” and with theological research as has happened, for example, with the sacrament of reconciliation. Only then will we have a Magisterium that, besides being legitimately authoritative, would be welcomed and respected for its theological quality, ecclesial harmony and for being clear that the only absolute imposed on it is to care properly for its mission.

3. We wish and hope that the Catholic hierarchy would regain -- as was proposed at Vatican II -- not only greater episcopal collegiality and baptismal co-responsibility for this and other matters, but also a conception and praxis of the Living Tradition, and that, through it, it would pay more attention to the need to update to the present what Jesus said and did so that it might be a foretaste of the full fraternity that awaits us. It happens through clearly joining DV 10 ("the teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it") and DV 9 ("it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed"), by listening to the diverse ecclesial advice already existing on this and other matters, and not quelling the views of the baptized and the Christian communities in an authoritarian manner.

4. Finally, we propose that the ability of women to access the priestly ministry be something that is decided at an ecumenical council and that, meanwhile, ecclesial discernment and theological research be left open so that no one is condemned again for it, and that those who have been punished be returned to their responsibilities and state.

Bilbao, February 11, 2013

Listening to Jesus

by José Antonio Pagola (English translation by Rebel Girl)
Buenas Noticias: Blog de Jose Antonio Pagola
February 24, 2013

Luke 9:28-36

Christians of all times have been attracted by the scene traditionally called "The Transfiguration of the Lord". However, it isn't easy for those of us who belong to modern culture to penetrate the meaning of a story written with images and literary devices, typical of a "theophany" or revelation of God. However, Luke the evangelist has introduced details that allow us to discover more realistically the message of an episode that many find strange and implausible today. From the beginning, he tells us that Jesus goes with his closest disciples to the top of a mountain simply "to pray", not to contemplate a transfiguration.

Everything happens during Jesus's prayer -- "as he was praying, the appearance of his face changed." Jesus, deeply gathered, welcomes the presence of his Father, and his face changes. The disciples perceive something of his deepest and most concealed identity. Something they can't grasp in ordinary, everyday life.

In the life of the followers of Jesus, moments of clarity and certainty, joy and light aren't lacking. We don't know what happened on the top of that mountain, but we do know that through prayer and silence, it's possible to see, from faith, something of the hidden identity of Jesus. This prayer is a source of knowledge that can't be obtained from books.

Luke says that the disciples were barely aware of anything since they "had been overcome by sleep" and only upon "becoming fully awake" did they grasp anything. Peter only knows that it's very good here and that this experience should never end. Luke says he "did not know what he was saying."

So, the scene ends with a voice and a solemn command. The disciples are caught up in a cloud. They get scared because all this is over their heads. However, a voice comes out of that cloud: "This is my Son, the Chosen One. Listen to him." Listening has to be the first attitude of the disciples.

We Christians today urgently need to "internalize" our religion if we want to rekindle our faith. It's not enough to hear the Gospel in a distracted, routine, and burned out way, without any desire to listen. Nor is it enough to listen intelligently, concerned only with understanding it.

We need to listen to the living Jesus in the depths of our being. All of us, preachers and faithful, theologians and readers, need to listen to his Good News of God, not from without but from within. Letting his words go from our heads down to our hearts. Our faith would be stronger, more joyful, and more contagious.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

What kind of pope? The tensions in the Church today

Leonardo Boff's weekly columns are available in Spanish from Servicios Koinonia and in Portuguese on his blog. Some of his older columns are available in English at

by Leonardo Boff (English translation by Rebel Girl)

I'm not proposing to present an evaluation of Benedict XVI's pontificate -- something that others have already done competently -- here. It could be interesting to better know the tension that is always alive in the Church and that marks the profile of each pope. The central question is: what is the position and mission of the Church in the world?

We would say at the outset that a balanced view of the issue must rest on two basic pillars: the Kingdom and the world. The Kingdom is the central message of Jesus, his dream of an absolute revolution that reconciles creation with itself and with God. The world is where the Church performs its service to the Kingdom, where it itself is built. If we think of the Church in a way too linked to the Kingdom, we risk spiritualization and idealism. If we think of it in a way that's too linked to the world, we fall into the temptation of secularization and politicization. It is important to know how to articulate Kingdom-World-Church. The latter belongs to the Kingdom and also to the world. It has a historical dimension, with its contradictions, and another, transcendent one.

How does it live out this tension in the world and history? We present two different and sometimes conflicting models: witness and dialogue.

The witness model states with conviction: We have the deposit of faith, within which are all truths necessary for salvation. We have the sacraments, that communicate grace. We have well-defined morals. We are confident that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, the only true one. We have the Pope, who enjoys infallibility in matters of faith and custom. We have a hierarchy that rules the faithful, and we have been promised the constant assistance of the Holy Spirit. We have to bear witness to this in a world that doesn't know where it's going and that will never attain salvation by itself. It will have to come through the mediation of the Church, without which there is no salvation.

Christians in this model, from the popes to the simple faithful, feel imbued with a unique salvific mission. In this, they are fundamentalists and little given to dialogue. Why dialogue? We already have it all. Dialogue would only be to facilitate the conversion of the other, as a courtesy.

The dialogue model starts from different presuppositions: The Kingdom is greater than the Church and is also accomplished secularly, wherever there is truth, love, and justice. The Risen Christ has cosmic dimensions and pushes evolution towards a good end. The Holy Spirit is always present in history and in people of good will. The Spirit comes ahead of the missionary, since it was in the people in the form of solidarity, love, and compassion. God never abandoned His own and offers all the opportunity of salvation, because He created them from His heart, so that someday they would come to live happily in the Kingdom of the freed ones. The mission of the Church is to be sign of the history of God in human history and also an instrument for its construction, together with the other spiritual paths. If reality, both religious and secular, is pervaded by God, we should all be in dialogue -- interchanging, learning from each other and making the human pilgrimage towards the promise joyful, easier, and safer.

The witness model is that of the Church of tradition that promoted the missions in Africa, Asia and Latin America, being -- in the name of witnessing -- an accomplice as well in the decimation and domination of many indigenous, African and Asian peoples. It was the model of Pope John Paul II who traveled the world, clutching the cross as testimony that through it came salvation. It was the model, in an even more radical way, of Benedict XVI, who denied the title "Church" to the Protestant churches, harshly offending them. He directly attacked modernity -- since he saw it negatively -- as relativist and secularist. Of course, he didn't deny all its values, but he saw them in any case as proceeding from the fount of Christian faith. He reduced the Church to an isolated island, or a fortress surrounded on all sides by enemies against whom it had to be defended.

The dialogue model is that of Vatican II, of Paul VI, and Medellin and Puebla in Latin America. They saw Christianity not as a deposit or as a closed system that ran the risk of remaining fossilized, but as a source of living crystalline waters that could be channeled through many cultural ducts, in a space of mutual learning because all are bearers of the Creator Spirit and the essence of Jesus' dream.

The witness model has scared off many Christians who felt infantilized and devalued in their professional knowledge. They no longer felt that the Church was a spiritual home and, disconsolate, they have separated from the institution, although not from Christianity as the value and utopia of Jesus.

The dialogue model has drawn many near, since they have felt at home, helping to build a learning Church, open to dialogue with all. The effect has been a feeling of freedom and creativity. So being Christian is worth it.

The dialogue model is urgent if the institution wants to get out of the crisis it has gotten itself into and manage to get a hand on its honor -- morality (the pedophiles) and spirituality (the theft of secret documents and the serious problems of transparency at the Vatican Bank).

We should intelligently discern what currently better serves the Christian message, amid an ecological and social crisis with very grave consequences. Because the main problem isn't the Church but the future of Mother Earth, life, and our civilization. How does the Church help in this transition? Only by dialoguing and joining forces with everyone else.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Catholic Scholars' Declaration on Authority in the Catholic Church

I somehow missed covering this declaration when it was first publicized in October 2012 -- probably because, like a number of its signatories, I was heavily immersed in the Continental Theology Congress in Brazil that month. In this declaration, theologians and other leaders in the Church across the world lay out their suggestions for how the administration of our Church needs to change.

History and Process

The history and process behind this declaration are fascinating and explain, perhaps, why it has had so little real publicity. According the website devoted to the Declaration, "a group of theologians met at an international conference on 'Handing On the Torch' Utrecht, 2010). They concluded that in many areas of the Church's life progress is blocked by an imbalance in the exercise of authority." Theologian and former Catholic priest Johannes Wijngaards spearheaded the effort to gather more information and documentation. Wijngaards, who returned to lay status in 2000 and subsequently married, is primarily known for his early and consistent advocacy of women's ordination. He is the author of multiple books on the subject, the most recent of which is The Ordained Women Deacons of the Church's First Millennium (Canterbury Press, 2012). He is also the mastermind behind, a major academic resource collection on this topic.

The gathering of support for the declaration was done through networking. The academic signatories, or "sponsors" as they have been called, were generally invited by other sponsors. "We only invite persons who possess the academic qualifications and the experience of Catholic life that enable them to endorse the Jubilee Declaration responsibly. No one is put on the list unless he or she has clearly indicated his/her endorsement of the Declaration." There are 160 academic sponsors, according to the site. Subsequently, a web-based signature gathering form was added for "co-signatories", of which there are 2,032 to date.

The website also contains a more developed blueprint of what the proposed authority structure would look like, a discussion of the values reflected in this process, and "case studies" on the main "hot button" issues in the Church: the sex abuse scandal, contraceptives, homosexuality, mandatory celibacy, women priests, and divorced and remarried Catholics.

The Declaration

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) we call on all other members of the People of God to assess the situation in our church.

Many of the key insights of Vatican II have not at all, or only partially, been implemented. This has been due to resistance in some quarters, but also to a measure of ambiguity that remained unresolved in certain Council documents.

A principal source of present-day stagnation lies in misunderstanding and abuse affecting the exercise of authority in our Church. Specifically, the following issues require urgent redress:

The role of the papacy needs to be clearly re-defined in line with Christ's intentions. As supreme pastor, unifier and prime witness to faith, the pope contributes substantially to the health of the universal church. However, his authority may never obscure, diminish or suppress the authentic authority directly given by Christ to all members of the people of God.

Bishops are vicars of Christ, not vicars of the pope. They carry immediate responsibility for people in their dioceses, and joint responsibility, with other bishops and the pope, for the world-wide community of faith.

The central synod of bishops should assume a more decisive role in planning and guiding the maintenance and growth of faith within our complex world. To execute its task, the synod of bishops needs to be given appropriate structures.

The Second Vatican Council prescribed collegiality and co-responsibility on all levels. This has not been realised. Priestly senates and pastoral councils, as envisaged by the Council, should involve the faithful more directly in decision making concerning the formulation of doctrine, the running of the pastoral ministry and evangelization in secular society.

The abuse of choosing for leadership offices in the church only candidates of a particular mindset, should be eradicated. Instead, new norms should be laid down and supervised to ensure that elections to such offices are conducted in a fair, transparent and, to the extent possible, democratic fashion.

The Roman curia requires a more radical reform, in line with the instructions and vision of Vatican II. The curia should be retained for its useful administrative and executive roles.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should be assisted by international commissions of experts who have been independently chosen for their professional competence.

These are by no means all the changes that may be required. We also realise that the implementation of such structural revisions will need to be worked out in detail according to the possibilities and limitations of present and future circumstances. However, we stress that the seven reforms outlined above are urgent and their implementation should be started immediately.

The exercise of authority in our church should emulate the standards of openness, accountability and democracy achieved in modern society. Leadership should be seen to be honest and credible; inspired by humility and service; breathing concern for people rather than preoccupation with rules and discipline; radiating a Christ who makes us free; and listening to Christ's Spirit who speaks and acts through each and every person.

The Sponsors

This project is notable for the names associated with it. Indeed, except for a handful, many of the world's best known progressive theologians have signed on. The website helpfully also makes space for biographical information on each sponsor -- making it also a great starting point for building up a progressive theological library!

  1. Kochurani Abraham
  2. Subhash Anand
  3. Mario I. Aguilar
  4. Xavier Alegre
  5. Francis Ambrosio
  6. María Pillar Aquino
  7. Edmund Arens
  8. Simón Pedro Arnold
  9. Ann Marie Bahr
  10. Juan Barreto Betancort
  11. Dom Marcelo Barros de Souza
  12. Gregory Baum
  13. Michel Beaudin
  14. Peter Beisheim
  15. Leonardo Boff
  16. Sharon Bong
  17. Kari Elisabeth Børresen
  18. Raymond Breton
  19. Johannes Brosseder
  20. Eugene C. Bianchi
  21. Hugo Cáceres Guinet
  22. Deirdre Carabine
  23. Yves Carrier
  24. Bishop Pedro Casaldáliga
  25. José Marías Castillo
  26. Adela Yarbro Collins
  27. John J. Collins
  28. Paul Collins
  29. Luca Badini Confalonieri
  30. Gabriel Daly
  31. Margaret Daly-Denton
  32. Paul Dinter
  33. Donal Dorr
  34. John Esposito
  35. Juan Antonio Estrada
  36. René van Eyden
  37. David DeCosse
  38. Marianne M Delaporte
  39. Seán Fagan
  40. José Ignacio González Faus
  41. Teresa Forcades i Vila
  42. Benjamin Forcano
  43. Manuel Fraijó
  44. Sean Freyne
  45. Joaquín García Roca
  46. Mary Grey
  47. Gerald Grudzen
  48. Christine Gudorf
  49. Bishop Tom Gumbleton
  50. Hermann Häring
  51. Wilfrid Harrington
  52. Gotthold Hasenhüttl
  53. John F. Haught
  54. Bishop Heriberto Hermes
  55. Linda Hogan
  56. Toine van den Hoogen
  57. Michael Hornsby-Smith
  58. Jan Jans
  59. Martin Jäggle
  60. Gertrud Jaron Lewis
  61. Marie R. Joyce
  62. Erik Jurgens
  63. Manuela Kalsky
  64. Leo Karrer
  65. Othmar Keel
  66. Guillermo Kerber Mas
  67. Ursula King
  68. Walter Kirchschläger
  69. Paul Knitter
  70. James Kottoor
  71. Hans Küng
  72. Gerhard Kruip
  73. Karl-Josef Kuschel
  74. L. Laeyendecker
  75. Paul Lakeland
  76. Bernhard Lang
  77. André Lascaris
  78. Michael Lawler
  79. Michel Lejeune
  80. Roger Lenaers
  81. Bernard Linares
  82. Eleazar López Hernández
  83. Gerard Loughlin
  84. Kathleen Maas Weigert
  85. Gerard Mannion
  86. Joseph Martos
  87. Juan Masiá Clavel
  88. Joseph Mattam
  89. Mary McAleese
  90. Michael McKale
  91. Charles McMahon
  92. Norbert Mette
  93. Dietmar Mieth
  94. Paul Misner
  95. Albert Moliner
  96. Bishop William Morris
  97. Inácio Neutzling
  98. Rui Manuel Grácio das Neves
  99. Peter Nissen
  100. Joseph Adero Ngala
  101. Joseph Stephen O'Leary
  102. Thomas O'Loughlin
  103. Francis C Oakley
  104. Anthony T. Padovano
  105. Luis Augusto Panchi
  106. Joseph Pathrapankal
  107. Jesús Peláez del Rosal
  108. Richard Penaskovic
  109. Peter C Phan
  110. Xabier Pikaza Ibarrondo
  111. Margarita Maria Pintos
  112. Bishop Pat Power
  113. Kim Power
  114. Gunter Prüller-Jagenteufel
  115. Bishop Geoffrey Robinson
  116. José Amando Robles
  117. Susan Roll
  118. Patricia Rumsey
  119. Rosemary Radford Ruether
  120. Todd Salzman
  121. Joseph Selling
  122. Sandra Schneiders
  123. Helen Schüngel-Straumann
  124. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
  125. Ingrid H.Shafer
  126. Thomas A Shannon
  127. Thomas Sheehan
  128. Fernando Silva
  129. David Stronck
  130. Denise Starkey
  131. John Sullivan
  132. Jung Mo Sung
  133. Luiz Carlos Susin
  134. Leonard Swidler
  135. Juan José Tamayo
  136. Faustino Teixeira
  137. Samuel J. Thomas
  138. Margaret Susan Thompson
  139. J Milburn Thompson
  140. Teresa Toldy
  141. Luiza Etsuko Tomita
  142. Andrés Torres Queiruga
  143. John Trumpbour
  144. Carmelita (Lilith) M. Usog
  145. Juan Martín Velasco
  146. Bishop José Raúl Vera López
  147. José Vico Peinado
  148. Marciano Vidal García
  149. José Maria Vigil
  150. Evaristo Villar
  151. Francisco Javier Vitoria Cormenzana
  152. Marie-Theres Wacker
  153. Michael Walsh
  154. Andrew Weigert
  155. Michael Winter
  156. Werner Wolbert
  157. Lode Wostyn
  158. Aloys Wijngaards
  159. John Wijngaards
  160. Hans-Georg Ziebertz

No more "Anonymous" comments allowed on Iglesia Descalza

Dear readers,

Regrettably, I have had to make a change in the "Comments" settings on this blog and eliminate the option of commenting anonymously. I have been forced to make this change because of the huge volume of spam this option has been generating lately. I have neither the time nor the desire to comb through volumes of "comments" that are really advertisements for diet pills, vacation rentals, and sex enhancement products to make sure I don't miss any "real" comments. So, for now, you will need to be a "registered user" on Google or a similar blog to comment on this blog. Thanks for understanding.

Rebel Girl