This week we are publishing the third and last article

In the series on muthority and the priesthood by Paulette Footner. The 'Moles have provoked discussion and comment from many quarters, and some have even asked whether a Catholic paper Mould Garry such articles at ill.
Some have argued that we are simply trying to raise cir culation by being controversial for the sake of it, or pandering to youth by putting across trendy arguments.
In answer to these we would point out that we depend upon parish priests to display the Catholic Herald at the backs of the churches. Our distributors can act as censors and the Herald is still banned in some churches by the parish priest.
For a religious newspaper to publish an article suggesting the end of the priesthood as we know it, is rather like a national newspaper advocating the abolition of novvsagents.
Commercialism is not our motive.
To those who have suggested that we are simply pandering to youth we would point out, though reluctant to reveal a contributor's age, that Miss Footnar is 74-years-old.
Others have said that we are challenging the unchangeable doctrine of the Church. This argument must be taken seriously. We do not dispute the fact that some of what Miss Footner says goes beyond official Church teaching.
On the other hand when a discussion has grown woolly,
tired and unrealistic the most fruitful contribution often comes from some brave parson who puts a clear and radical point of view in a polemical way.
To qualify such arguments with 'perhaps or 'maybe one could say' is to allow people to dodge the Issue.
There has been a great deal of debate about authority and
the priesthood recently much
of It unrealistic and speculative. For example last year
• commission of experts
on priesthood was reduced to asking people what sort of priests they wanted. Sooner or later someone had to ask the question what are priests and with what authority, Over and above their baptism and confirmation, do they minister?
This is what Miss Footner has done. She has made a positive if painful contribution to this debate and to the groth of the Church.
It has been suggested that we should have carried a spiritual health warning, on the lines of 'this article could damage your faith'. Had we done this at the beginning of the series this would have cooled out the argument and seriously weakened it.
That is why we have waited until the end of the series to say that while we do not en
dorse all of what Miss Footner says, and wish to reassure
those who feel threatened by her point of view, she articulates a widespread feeling of discontent in the Church which is more likely to grow rather than diminish.